HC Deb 07 May 1902 vol 107 cc1020-53
(9.0.) MR. MOONEY (Dublin Co., S.)

In rising to propose the Motion which stands in my name, I will preface the few remarks which I shall have to address to the House, by stating that, as an individual, I regret the necessity which has arisen for any such Motion to be made. At the same time, in the opinion of the Party which I represent, that necessity has arisen, and, therefore, while we as individuals regret the cause, still we would be wanting in courage of our convictions if, when we were convinced that it was our duty to bring forward this Motion, we shrank from doing so owing to any personal feeling. Now I shall submit, and submit very briefly, the grounds upon which we have acted in this matter. The step which we have taken is an unusual one, but I submit, not unprecedented. I can fully understand why that should be so. If I sat here as an English Member, I would, I am certain, be as deeply imbued with the sentiments of respect, and I may say veneration, for the old traditions and ancient glories of this House, and, above all, with that sentiment of respect for the authority of the Chair, with which hon. Members who represent English constituencies are, and I think, rightly filled. Hon. Gentlemen opposite who think that we are violating the old traditions of this House by this Motion, should remember that on the last occasion, when such a Motion, impugning the conduct of the Speaker, was brought forward and debated, it was brought forward and debated in a purely English House of Commons, when Members representing Irish constituencies were, where they should be now, in their own House of Parliament conducting their own affairs. That, Sir, was in the year 1770, and I find in Hansard, that, in the course of the debate, Mr. Grenville said— No Gentleman in the House was ever allowed to use disrespectful words to another, without apology. We submit that on the 20th of March the Colonial Secretary was permitted so to do. I do not wish to use strong or un-Parliamentary language, but I submit upon behalf of over eighty Members of this House, that the words used by the Colonial Secretary were disorderly in the highest degree. We do not say that the language used in retort by the hon. Member for East Mayo was Parliamentary; he could perhaps have conveyed the same thing without coming under your ruling. For instance, I find that in 1887, the Member for West Belfast, speaking of the then Under Secretary for Ireland (Colonel King-Harman) informed the House that— The hon. and gallant Gentleman laboured under a natural incapacity to make an accurate statement on any matter of fact, a statement for which he was not, and apparently could not, be called to order. Then, as now, the sentiment was the same, the language in which it was clothed being more in accord with Parliamentary usage. As I have said, we do not allege that the hon. Member for East Mayo was in order, but what we do say is, that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham was guilty of a grave piece of disorder, and that thereby the hon. Member for East Mayo was betrayed into using language for which you, Sir, named him to this House. And we further allege that you were in point of fact in error in naming to the House the hon. Member for East Mayo. We allege, and I will refer you in a moment to a case which proves our contention, that the proper course which you should have adopted was to have called upon the right hon. Member for West Birmingham to withdraw the disorderly and inaccurate statement which betrayed the hon. Member for East Mayo into making a reply which was not couched in Parliamentary language.

Now, we are well aware that the position which you hold is a most difficult and trying one. We are aware that you are often called upon, without a moment's notice to pledge yourself to some or other cause of action, we know that you are called upon to remember all the innumerable precedents which have been laid down by your predecessors in that chair. You yourself, Sir, have stated that you "are only clothed in a limited infallibility." We agree with you, and we say that on this occasion your infallibility was suffering from a temporary eclipse. We say that the proper course for you to have pursued would have been to have called upon the Colonial Secretary to withdraw the allegation he made against the hon. Member for East Mayo, it you had so requested him, the incident would have closed. Now that is our charge, and I shall refer you to precedent for everything I have said. First, I stated that the language used by the Colonial Secretary was disorderly. He (the Colonial Secretary) said that the hon. Member for East Mayo was a good judge of traitors. That was I submit by your own ruling an unduly offensive remark, and he should have been called upon to withdraw it. I find in Hansard that on 8th August, 1900, the hon. Member for South Donegal, speaking of the Colonial Secretary, said he (the Colonial Secretary) was a man of honour—he was an expert in honour—Then you rose and said— Order, order! The hon. Member must not use an expression of that sort. He must not indulge in offensive personal recriminations. The hon. Member replied— What did I say. And you said— The hon. Member said sarcastically that the right hon. Gentleman was an expert in honour. He must know that such an expression practically accused him of dishonour. How are we to reconcile that with your ruling on the 20th March? On the 8th August you decide that a Member sitting on this side of the House used a disorderly expression when he gave it that the right hon. Gentleman was an expert in honour, i.e., a good judge of honour. On the 20th March a right hon. Gentleman speaking from the Treasury Bench is allowed to charge an hon. Member on this side with being "a good judge of traitors." We say that the expression was grossly disorderly, and we rely on your ruling on the 8th August, 1900.

Now as to our allegation that the proper course to pursue would have been for you to have called upon the Colonial Secretary to withdraw his offensive and inaccurate remark. I refer to Hansard of 15th April, 1887, and I will read to the House what took place on that occasion— On April 5th, 1887, the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh accused certain associates of the ban. Member for Cork of being traitors and murderers. The hon. Member for North Louth then said, 'If the hon. and gallant Gentleman refers to me he is a liar,' and on refusing to withdraw the expression he was named and suspended by Mr. Speaker Peel. Afterwards Mr. Sexton said of the hon. and gallant Member: 'You are a wilful and cowardly liar, and if I had you outside the doors of this House I would dash the statement down your throat and thrash you within an inch of your life.' Mr. Sexton was called upon to withdraw, but he refused to do so unless the original charge were also withdrawn. Finally, after some further discussion. Mr. Speaker Peel said: 'I must call upon the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh to withdraw the expression which was the original cause of the disturbance.' Colonel Saunderson withdrew the expression; Mr. Sexton withdrew the words he had used, and so the incident came to an end. Now, Sir, the House will see that Mr. Speaker Peel, realising the mistake he had made, owned it, and called upon the hon. and gallant Member who was the original cause of the disturbance to withdraw the expression which drew from the Member for West Belfast, language far stronger than that which was used on the present occasion. That, Sir, is our case, and we have brought on this Motion not from any feeling of disrespect of the authority of the Chair or personal animus to its present occupant, but in order to emphasise what in the opinion of over eighty Members of this House, was an error, and to protect a Member of the minority (a body whose rights are daily becoming more and more encroached upon) from an imputation which was, we submit, disorderly', improper, and one which, if it had been allowed to pass unchallenged, would have been dangerous to the true interests of this House, and to those who do not happen at the moment to be in the majority.

(9.15.) MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterdesire to second this Motion, not because I ford)

I think that I can add very much, or indeed anything, to the admirable speech made by my hon. friend, but because I desire in the most formal way possible to accept responsibility for this Motion, and to emphasise this fact, that it is a Motion brought forward, not on the responsibility of an individual Member or even on the responsibility of a small group of Members of this House, but that this is a Motion which has been deliberately placed on the Notice Paper, after full consideration by a distinct political Party in this House consisting of eighty Members. It seems to me that the House will attach for that reason very much more importance to this Motion than if it emanated from an individual. From every point of view the situation is a serious one, in which the large body of eighty Members find themselves aggrieved by the action of an officer of the House of Commons, and who find themselves bound to bring that action to the test of discussion and a division. The fact that this Party is in a permanent minority of the House and is therefore always at the mercy of a hostile majority, and the fact that that Party consists of representatives sent here by the people of Ireland against their will in pursuance of the Act of Union, in which they have never acquiesced, are sufficient to compel the House to give a very careful consideration to the complaint proposed in the Motion before the House.

My hon. friend has alluded to the fact that in the very recent history of the House there have not been many Motions of this character, but the right to question or discuss any ruling of the Chair is properly inherent in the House of Commons, and I may be allowed to say that there is no Member of the House who recognises more fully than I do the propriety of investing the occupant of the Chair with very large, with enormous, and indeed sometimes with arbitrary powers. Sir, the hon. Members who sit in this quarter of the House are men who believe in representative institutions. They are men who believe in free Parliaments, and of course we recognise that no deliberative Assembly could possibly exist unless its President had got these powers, and the decisions of that President, whether right or wrong—for the moment, at any rate—are accepted by the House. But, Sir, such power as that vested in the Chair would be absolutely intolerable unless there existed in the House itself the power of reviewing under proper conditions those decisions, and, if they think fit, of differing from the conclusions come to. If no such power existed of questioning the decision given by the Chair, and enforced, whether right or wrong, for the moment, then freedom of discussion would be a thing of the past. But, from the earliest times in the history of this Assembly, this inherent power of the House to discuss under proper conditions the rulings of the Chair, and to differ from those rulings if it so desired, has always been recognised. It is recognised to the fullest extent in the Standing Orders of the House. There are three things which those Standing Orders clearly lay down. The first is that the decision of the Chair at the moment it is given, whether it be right or wrong, must be obeyed, and must be uphold by the House; the second thing is that that decision cannot be called in question or discussed, either on a Motion for adjournment or any casual or haphazard occasion; but the third thing that is laid down in the Standing Orders of the House is that it is within the light of any individual Member of the House—much more within the right of a large independent political Party—upon due notice given and by a substantive Motion, to bring forward for review any ruling of the Chair that is thought to be wrong, and ask for the decision of the House of Commons upon it. It is in pursuance of the inherent right which has been exercised in the past, and which must be maintained if there is to be freedom of speech and freedom of action here, that my hon. friend, on behalf of all his colleagues, has put this notice on the Paper.

Sir, we hold the view very strongly that upon March 20th last Mr. Speaker did not protect, from grossly offensive and therefore from grossly un-Parliamentary insinuations, a Member of this House. The fact that that Member, the hon. Member for East Mayo, belonged to a minority advocating views which are intensely unpopular with the majority of this House, and the fact that his assailant was a prominent member of the Government and a prominent leader of the dominant majority in this House, in our view, greatly aggravate the case. I desire to read from Hansard a little more fully than did my hon. friend exactly what took place. In the course of his remarks the Colonial Secretary alluded to the fact that certain burghers in the Transvaal were now fighting on the side of England, and he went on to say— You may read it in a very interesting communication which General Vilonel has addressed to General De Wet or General Botha, in which he says that the enemies of the country are those who are continuing a hopeless struggle. And, Sir, the hon. Member for East Mayo interrupted and said— He is a traitor. The Colonial Secretary said— Ah! the hon. Member is a good judge of traitors. The hon. Member for East Mayo then appealed to the Chair. He made an appeal to the Chair which, in my experience of this House, has never before remained unanswered. He appealed to the Chair for a ruling on a point of order. He said— I want to know first whether that is a Parliamentary expression? Mr. Speaker then said— The hon. Member himself interrupted the right hon. Gentleman by crying out that soldiers serving under the British Crown were traitors. I deprecate the interruption, and I deprecate the retort. If the hon. Member will not interrupt, he will not be subject to retort. I hope the House will believe me when I say that I am anxious to put my views before the House with as little offence to anybody as possible, and I will certainly not be guilty of imparting any heat to this discussion, if I can avoid it. The first thing I desire to point out is this—that when an hon. Member rose and asked a ruling of the Chair on a point of order, and asked the Chair to rule whether a certain expression was in order or not, he got no answer to his question, and Mr. Speaker gave no ruling. Mr. Speaker did not answer the question which was put, as to whether the expression was a Parliamentary one or not, and I have to repeat what I have said, that in my experience of this House, I have never known any man, not even the humblest Member of this House, who, on a point of order, asking a question from Mr. Speaker, did not receive a reply. The second point I desire to make is this, that, instead of giving an answer to the question of my hon. friend, instead of giving a ruling upon this point of order which was raised, Mr. Speaker dealt in his reply entirely with what he regarded as the provocation which he thought had evoked the expression from the Colonial Secretary. Allow me to say, Sir, in my view, that if the Colonial Secretary's expression was in itself disorderly, no provocation would justify it according to the Rules of the House, and according to the decision of the Chair in similar cases in the past. But I put that on one side for the moment, and I say that there was no provocation in this interruption. In the first place, Mr. Speaker, there may have been some noise in the House. Mr. Speaker, apparently, did not very accurately hear what my hon. friend said, because in his statement Mr. Speaker said— The hon. Member cried out that, soldiers who were serving under the British Crown were traitors. Sir, my hon. friend said nothing of the kind.

MR. SPEAKER

Order, order! Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to explain. What I heard, as I thought, the hon. Member say was—"They are traitors," and that accounts for the words quoted being used. I thought he was referring to what the Colonial Secretary had stated about soldiers and about General Vilonel. He referred only to one apparently. It would not make any difference in what I afterwards said, but I wish to explain.

MR. JOHN REDMOND

I have heard that statement with great gratification. It bears exactly upon the point I was putting. [Laughter.] Hon. Members who laugh must really exercise a little more self-restraint and patience The point I was putting was that Mr. Speaker, owing to noise in the House or otherwise, and not accurately hearing what my hon. friend said—and Mr. Speaker has now confirmed that view of mine—misunderstood the exact words. My hon. friend did not say that soldiers serving under the Crown were traitors—he said that a particular man, Vilonel, was a traitor. I submit that that is not an un-Parliamentary expression. Whatever view may be taken of General Vilonel, no man will pretend that for any hon. Member of this House to call General Vilonel a traitor was an unparliamentary expression. The interruption was not, I further say, an offensive interruption to the Colonial Secretary. I cannot see for the life of me how accusing General Vilonel of being a traitor was any personal offence to the Colonial Secretary. And further than that, I desire to say in one sentence, the statement of my hon. friend in reference to General Vilonel, was absolutely true. I have here an extract from the report of the trial of General Vilonel for treason. Let the House remember, General Vilonel was not an Englishman, nor a Britisher—he was a general in the Boer Army. He was tried by a properly-constituted Boer military tribunal, presided over by Judge Hertzog, for treason, and he was found guilty and sentenced to five years hard labour. From the evidence it appeared that he not only surrendered himself, but endeavoured to induce others to take the same course. In pronouncing sentence upon him, Judge Hertzog declared that so long as the history of the States could be read, the name of Vilonel would remain a blot upon its pages. Therefore I make this point—that the interruption of my hon. friend was not in itself any contravention of the Rules of Order, that it was not, in itself, in the slightest degree offensive to the Colonial Secretary, and that it was true, and therefore I contend respectfully that there was no just provocation for the very offensive remark flung across the House by the Colonial Secretary. I would go back for a moment, and say that, even if I was wrong, and if my hon. friend had made use of an irrelevant observation that was offensive and provocative, that would not justify the Colonial Secretary using an expression which was in itself disorderly.

Therefore, Sir, we come to the question—Was the statement of the Colonial Secretary in itself disorderly. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think there can be no question that saying that a man is "a good judge of traitors" is a most offensive observation, and an observation which is a most offensive one necessarily in a Parliamentary one. I might read from Sir Erskine May's book, in which he details a number of expressions that are un-Parliamentary, not one of them half as offensive as that used by the Colonial Secretary, and he winds up by saying— That any contemptuous or insulting language of any kind is unparliamentary. and then he gives as instances such expressions as "calumnious charge," "dodging," "factious opposition," "jockeying," "deliberately raising a false issue," "saying a man was a hypocritical lover of liberty." Now, what was the meaning of the Colonial Secretary's words, "The hon. Member is a good judge of traitors?" I don't suppose anybody—least of all the Colonial Secretary, who, whatever else we may think of him, is a good fighter—he would be the last man in the world to get up and say that his words did not convey the plain and clear insinuation that my hon. friend was a traitor. My hon. friend who moved this Resolution quoted the case of the Member for East Donegal. When he said to the Colonial Secretary—it is unfortunate the Colonial Secretary appears so often in these transactions—that he was "an expert in honour," he was at once, and most properly, called to order; and you, sir, declared that he should withdraw that statement, because it contained an insinuation that the Colonial Secretary was devoid of honour. Surely the statement, "You are a good judge of traitors," conveys a clear insinuation that the man to whom it was addressed was a traitor. I hope the House will not decide that this is a Parliamentary expression, if it is a Parliamentary expression, then I take it to mean my hon. friend would have been in order in saying to the Colonial Secretary, "You are a good judge of liars," or that it would be in order for an hon. Member to say to another, "You are a good judge of thieves"; and there is no end to the possibility of the things that might come within the Rules of Order if this expression is to receive the sanction of the House to-night; and I cannot help thinking that if you, Sir, maintain the position that this phrase was in order, it will be very difficult in future to avoid scenes in this House if hon. Members are to be allowed to bandy such words as "traitor" at one another across the floor of the House.

The view that we take is that on this occasion a woeful error of judgment was committed by the Speaker, that the error of judgment led immediately to consequences which, I suppose, everybody deplored, and one which certainly did not redound to the credit of this House; and I say that if it is once established—I for one hope it will never be established—that there is to be one Rule of Order for a member of a majority in this House, and another Rule of Order for a member of a minority; one Rule of Order for a man who is expressing popular views, and another Rule of Order for a man who is expressing unpopular views; one Rule of Order for a Minister of the Crown speaking from the Government Bench, and another Rule of Order for an independent Member opposing the Government; one Rule of Order for a British Minister and another Rule for an Irish Member—I say if that is once established, as I hope it never will be, in this House, then it is clear that this Assembly will suffer irreparable injury; and even, taking a wider view, it is clear that representative institutions themselves will suffer. I, Sir, take the gravest possible view of the question raised by this Motion. I would have been glad, indeed, if some other means than this, which we have been forced to take, could have been found to remove the grievous sense of wrong and injustice under which we labour at this moment, and I can assure hon. Members it was not without anxious thought and consideration that we made up our minds to avail ourselves of our lights in this matter, and to move this Motion. Even now I am not without some hope that something may be said to assure the House that in the future those strict Rules of Order which are invariably enforced against us will be used to protect us from insult in this House. Should we unfortunately be wrong in this, should we unfortunately be disappointed in this, I hope, at any rate, this incident will serve to emphasise the position Ireland occupies in this foreign Parliament to which by superior force she is obliged to send her representatives. I beg, Sir, to second the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That during the sitting of the House on Thursday, the 20th day of March, the Member for East Mayo, interrupting the Member for West Birmingham in reference to General Vilonel, said that General Vilonel was a traitor, whereupon the Member for West Birmingham said that the Member for East Mayo was a good judge of traitors; that the Member for East Mayo thereupon inquired of Mr. Speaker whether that was a Parliamentary expression, to which Mr. Speaker replied that the hon. Member had himself interrupted the right hon. Gentleman by crying out that soldiers serving under the British Crown were traitors, that he deprecated interruptions and deprecated retorts, and if the hon. Member did not interrupt he would not be subject to retorts; and that, in the opinion of this House, Mr. Speaker ought to have declared the said language of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham un-Parliamentary and should have required its withdrawal."—(Mr. Mooney.)

(9.50.) THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,) Manchester, E.

I suppose we all have to admit that the power which the hon. Member who moved this Amendment and his seconder have thought fit to exercise on this occasion is one which ought not to be withdrawn from this House. I suppose we also have to admit that we must retain in our hands the power of expressing our opinion on any ruling which the occupant of that Chair may make. While that general proposition would, I suppose, be accepted in all quarters of the House, I doubt whether there is anybody not sitting in that particular part of the House from which this Motion has proceeded who does not think that the present Resolution is a grave abuse of the privileges which we possess. It is more than eighty years, I believe, since any Resolution of a character comparable with the present Resolution has been brought up for discussion before the House. At all events, I know of no case, and such researches as I have been able to make into the subject have revealed none. What was the last case? The last case was one in which the Speaker, taking up a Bill to the Bar of the House of Lords, made a speech at the Bar against the Bill. I can well understand that was a provocation which might well induce this House to take some notice of the action of its president. But what, is the present case? The Speaker for the time being, whoever he may be, is obliged constantly to make a decision upon the spur of the moment as to the precise character of expressions that fall in the heat of debate from one member or another. In a large class of these expressions, of course, the decision is obvious; the Rule is clear, the line of demarcation cannot be mistaken. But there must be, and there is, a large margin on which the right decision of the moment depends upon the character of what has preceded the remark. It does not depend on the mere sentence, the mere phrase taken in its isolation, but it depends upon the judgment of the Chair as to the effect which the expression may have on the general course of the debate. And I should say, on the general question, that it is the gravest and grossest abuse of the privileges of the House that we should be brought down, that the House should have to assemble, to defend the Speaker against a charge of having given a decision at such a moment and on such a class of question which happens to be distasteful to a certain section of the House. It is manifest if this is to be a precedent for our ordinary practice, if every Member of the House who can get a seconder is to ballot for a day in order to discuss whether the Speaker was right or wrong upon some question which in the nature of the case is doubtful, you not only do your best to bring the authority of the Chair into discredit, but you are lowering the whole character of this Assembly. For my own part I should make these observations, and I should vote as I am going to vote, even if I were of opinion that the judgment of the Speaker on such an occasion and in such a case was one which after a week's quiet reflection is one which I should not have adopted myself. But after the speeches made by the two hon. Members who have just sat down I feel I must go beyond that, and I am bound not merely to point out to the House that it is their undoubted duty to support the Chair in this case, but also there is, as far as my own personal judgment goes, not the smallest criticism to be passed on the decision to which objection is taken.

I have listened to the case made by the mover and seconder of this Motion, and as far as I can judge they try to base their case on the decision given by the Speaker in a previous session when the Member for South Donegal in the course of a speech declared that my right hon. friend who sits near me was "an expert in honour." I have just refreshed my memory with that speech, and anyone who chooses to wade through the invective in which the hon. Member delights on these occasions will see that he did nothing less than charge my right hon. friend with perjury. I imagine even in the view of the mover and seconder the accusation of perjury is one which they would regard as out of order, and which ought to be withdrawn as soon as made. I would notice also that that statement was made by the hon. Member for South Donegal without the least provocation—no one interrupted, or thought it worth while to interrupt him in the flow of his eloquence on that occasion—and that he made it as it were in cold blood and with the distinct and obvious intention of fixing this charge of perjury upon my right hon. friend.

What were the circumstances in the case which hon. Members allege afford a fruitful and instructive parallel to the incident I have described? My right hon. friend was making a speech upon South Africa. I will venture to say that in that speech there was nothing said offensive to any Member of the House or to any section of the House. He was not making an attack on the Irish Members in general: he was not making an attack on the Member for East Mayo in particular, nor was there the smallest reference to him. My right hon. friend was referring to a certain burgher general who had given in his allegiance to the British Crown, and who, I believe, was actually engaged in military operations on the side of the British Crown. Thereupon the hon. Member, without having, as far as I can see, the smallest provocation, personal or party, in this connection, chose to interrupt my right hon. friend by saying that this Boer general was a traitor. It was not an un-Parliamentary interruption, but it was undoubtedly an offensive interruption. It was an interruption which carried with it, and was intended to carry with it, condemnation of a man fighting for the British Crown and seining under the British Crown. Then my right hon. friend, not unreasonably provoked by this interruption, observed that the hon. Member was a good judge of traitors. I understand that is regarded by hon. Members opposite as being a parallel and equivalent charge to the charge made by the hon. Member for South Donegal that my right hon. friend was guilty of perjury. That is assented to, do I understand?

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

Wait a while.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I rejoice to think that having a knowledge of traitors is regarded as being so offensive by hon. Members opposite. They certainly have occasionally employed phrases which would have implied to the careless hearer that they did not take so grave a view of the charge of disloyalty as it now appears they do. A traitor, I believe, is legally defined as "one who gives aid and comfort to the King's enemies." I heard with the utmost satisfaction from those Benches that they regard no charge as more offensive than that of giving aid and comfort to the King's enemies. I would very earnestly beg them in these circumstances to weigh their phrases with more care, because I remember that the hon. Member for East Mayo told us in this House that he was thoroughly disloyal, and I also remember a speech made by him in Glasgow in which he admitted that he was not loyal. Those are phrases liable to misconstruction; and those who are so profoundly concerned lest anything should be stated suggestive of their disloyalty really ought, I think, to weigh their sentences and balance their rhetoric in a more careful spirit.

I have endeavoured to make these controversial remarks as inoffensive as I could, and I do not mean to dwell further on that aspect of the case, because there is an incomparably more important aspect of the case on which we have to decide than the peculiar complexion of the patriotism or loyalty of any section of the House, viz., the position of the Chair. What are we asked to decide upon tonight? The hon. Gentleman who moved, and the hon. Gentleman who seconded, this Motion would have us believe that the point we have to decide tonight is whether or not a particular phrase, thrown out in the heat of debate, was or was not a Parliamentary expression. That is not what we have to decide. What has been moved tonight is nothing more nor less than a vote of censure on Mr. Speaker. And whom has it been moved by? I listened with an astonishment bordering on absolute amazement to some of the phrases that fell from the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, lie would almost have had us believe that he and his friends in this House belong to an oppressed minority, and that, while a licence of expression was permitted to Gentlemen sitting above the gangway on that side of the House and to Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House, no similar licence was allowed to Gentlemen sitting on the Irish Benches. I appeal to everybody whether, in relation to those expressions uttered in the heat of debate, hon. Gentlemen from Ireland are not the spoilt children of the House. I have been a, Member of the House under three successive occupants of that Chair, and all of them have felt, and I doubt not they have rightly felt, that the special circumstances of the Nationalist Members may render it expedient, possibly just, that they should be permitted a licence in debate which certainly is not tolerated, and ought not to be, and never has been tolerated, in other Members of the House. They always tell us that they come here as the unwilling representatives of a hostile member of the Empire. They come here, therefore, with no great love for this Assembly, and professing no great love for this Assembly—in whose honour, however, they affect to speak tonight. It is their duty, perhaps, to discuss many questions of acute and heated controversy connected with the government of their country. They are themselves of a fiery, passionate, and excitable disposition, and I, at all events, do not dissent from the view that a less rigid measure of discipline may occasionally be meted out to them than is proper to the colder temperament of the majority. But, Sir, it is an outrage that Gentlemen who have been so treated, not merely by the present occupant of the Chair, but by his predecessors, should come down to this House in the garb of the oppressed, telling us that they have not the liberty of speech given to Gentlemen above the gangway on that side of the House or to Gentlemen on this side of the House, or that they are not allowed that free expression of opinion which is given in such large measure to ourselves, and to pose as the oppressed martyrs of a small minority. I cannot but think that on sober consideration they will feel that of all charges that can be brought, will not say against the Chair, but against the majority of this House, the charge I have just mentioned is that which has least foundation, least justification, least plausibility in the everyday life of this House, and I speak to Gentlemen who have heard these debates on all subjects, Irish and British, for many years past. It is really more than any patience can easily tolerate to hear the hon. Gentleman whose friends have occasionally abused to the utmost, as I think, the licence of this House, tell us that he belongs to an oppressed minority.

The occasion on which we have met tonight is in itself a, petty one—a few sentences, cast across the floor of the House, upon a matter which has almost passed out of memory. But in the vote we have to give tonight a much larger issue is involved than whether an expression used by this or that Member of the House is one that was wise or unwise, in conformity or no in conformity with ordinary Parliamentary practice. We have come down here to support the Chair, to give it that strength and confidence without which Parliamentary debates are impossible and free institutions would be a vain imagining. And I earnestly trust that every Member of this House, be his views what they may about General Vilonel, or the Boer War, or the merits of any controversy of any political question, will join together and go into the same lobby in support of the only principle on which free debate is possible—namely, that Mr. Speaker, as long as he exercises with impartiality the great duties and heavy responsibilities with which we have entrusted him, has, and ought to have, our ungrudging and our loyal support.

(10.10.) SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (Stirling Burghs)

In the few words I feel it my duty to address to the House I shall endeavour, not to imitate, but to avoid, the tone which has been exhibited by the First Lord of the Treasury. The question which has been brought before us, and upon which we shall vote if it goes to a division, is in reality a small and narrow one, and I cannot see any occasion for the heat the right hon. Gentleman has introduced into the discussion. There was only one passage in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in which I entirely concur, and that was the passage in which he said that we should settle this matter with no regard whatever to the character and history of General Vilonel, or the merits of the Boer War, or any extraneous subject of that kind. Sir, what we have to decide presents itself to my mind as a simple question. Mr. Speaker, the House has the most perfect confidence in the impartiality and the good judgment with which you preside over our deliberations. We recognise that it rests entirely on your discretion, sometimes in a hurried moment, to decide the course which you think it would be best to take to meet or deal with the occasions or tendencies of undue heat or irregularity in debate. Well, Sir, on this occasion the course which you pursued was to rebuke—a course no doubt you thought most conducive to the preservation or restoration of order—to rebuke the two Members who were concerned—["No "]—to rebuke the two Members who were concerned for the reciprocal retorts in which they had indulged. Yon expressed no opinion, Sir, that any words used were in order or according to Parliamentary usage, but yon called upon them to cease from that manner of conducting debate. As I have said, we gladly recognise your complete discretion in such a matter, and that was the decision you came to. By accepting that decision, we do not endorse any of the language that was used: we are absolved from the necessity of expressing any opinion upon it; and I feel certain that the House of Commons will, with a great degree of unanimity, support the action you took.

(10.13.) Mr. LEAMY (Kildare, N.)

I had hoped that the First Lord would deliver a speech which would have rendered it possible to avoid going to a division; but he has instead made a speech the most offensive I have ever heard from his lips. He has, as I think, quite improperly, stated that the question before the House is whether or not the Chair should be upheld. That is not the question at all. Before Mr. Speaker entered the House he was a member of a great and honourable profession, and if he had not been called to the Chair of the House of Commons he would, in all probability, have filled a place on the judicial bench. Is it to be said that if a decision he had given as a Judge of the Supreme Court was appealed from to a higher court, it would be a personal nsult? Your position, Sir, is a great position, but above and beyond you is the House of Parliament, and we are entitled to appeal from the decision of the Chair to the decision of Parliament itself. We may lose our appeal tonight—[Laughter.] Members may laugh. I can quite understand that we may lose our appeal in consequence of the votes of men who will not listen to an argument. But who will suffer? Not the Irish minority, but Parliament itself. The First Lord worked himself into a white heat; it was impossible to tell the line of argument he intended to take, until at last he fell back on the declaration that the Chair was outraged and insulted, and we must support the Chair. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford has already said that all supporters of representative institutions must recognise the necessity of upholding the President of such bodies. We have never questioned that the authority of the Chair must be upheld, but we contend that we are entitled to ask whether a decision of the Chair was right or wrong. If Parliament decides that the decision was right: very well, we have nothing more to say, we have lost our case. If the right hon. Gentleman is not to be called to account for the language he used, am I to be permitted tomorrow to stand up in the House and say that the right hon. Gentleman is a good judge of turncoats, or that the right hon. Gentleman who now waves the Imperialist flag is a good judge of Republican rats? If indulgence in that kind of language is to be permitted, where are we going to stop? We know that words are frequently thrown across the floor of the House in the heat of debate which do not express the actual and honest sentiments of the speaker, but what we want to know is whether there is to be one law for the Treasury Bench and another for our Benches? We are accustomed to having in Ireland one law for the Nationalist and another for the so-called Loyalist. If the same principle is to be followed here, we shall be prepared to face it. Pass all the Rules you like, we shall still be able to hold our own against you. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of the licence allowed to Irish Members. What are these new Rules brought in for? I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not make a speech more worthy of his former reputation. We understand he is not likely to remain much longer in this House, but, at all events, he might have shown some respect for its constitution and traditions. I can only repeat that in bringing forward this question we are not seeking to make any precedent against you, Sir, or even against the Colonial Secretary; we wish simply to ensure that the same liberty shall be given to the Members on these Benches as is accorded without stint to hon. Gentlemen opposite.

(10.20.) MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)

I rise, Sir, with the greatest regret, but with an absolute conviction as to my public duty. Your office, Mr. Speaker, is high and enviable, and it is also a very responsible and difficult office—one in which you deserve, and are entitled to, every consideration in the discharge of the arduous and delicate duties which devolve upon you on the spur of the moment and in the heat which accompanies debates in this House. But I do not believe that you, Mr. Speaker, occupy, in theory or ought to occupy in practice, the position which the right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Treasury has made for you in his speech tonight. You are a high executive officer of this House, but it is its instructions, its views, and its orders which you are expected to execute. You speak its voice to the best of your ability, and you pronounce its judgments; but the House is entitled to supervise and revise those judgments which in its behalf you give, and to it you are responsible for every word and action of the Chair. That power is not the phantom to which the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury would reduce it. That power is a real and effective power, and without its existence this House would be your concrete slave, and you, Mr. Speaker, its absolute master. I quite agree that the power of revising your sentence and pronouncing upon it is one which ought not to be undertaken every day; that this is a power which ought not to be lightly used. Frequently you act, or abstain from acting, without any call upon you for decision. But the case, in my judgment, is wholly different when an appeal is directly made to the Chair, when an expression used in Parliament is challenged, and the question is put to you whether that expression is orderly or not. In that case, and under those circumstances, I maintain that it is the right of the humblest Member of this House to obtain a judgment upon the point whether or not a disorderly and unparliamentary expression has been used towards him; and that is the essence of the complaint which we are obliged to make against your conduct, Mr. Speaker, upon the occasion in question.

The First Lord of the Treasury adopted a tone which I was glad to hear the Leader of the Opposition repudiate. The First Lord brought up ad captandum arguments, and he referred to various matters wholly irrelevant to the consideration of this question; matters which I am perfectly convinced never entered into your mind, Mr. Speaker, as grounds for your judgment, and which I should have been sorry to think for a moment could enter your breast in coming to your conclusion upon this subject It is necessary, in view of the line which the right hon. Gentleman has taken, to advert to the history of this transaction. [Ministerial cries of "Oh, oh!"] Surely some hon. Members who do not realise that history would like to learn it. I maintain that the interruption of my hon. friend the Member for East Mayo was not disorderly, it was not unparliamentary, and it was not offensive. It was not disorderly if it was not an irrelevant interruption, and if it was not offensive towards any Member of this House. Interruptions are the commonest things that occur in our debates. In the very speech in the course of which this interruption occurred the Colonial Secretary was interrupted no less than eight times by the Leader of the Opposition, and not one of those interruptions was disorderly; not one of them was considered improper; and for not one of them was he called to order, although there were some lively passages-at-arms during those interruptions. Interruptions within well-understood limitations are the very salt of our debates. They allow, at the best moment, of explanation, of inquiry, of suggestion. I should like to know how this House could endure the enormously long speeches made on both sides of the House, especially from the Front Benches, if hon. Members were not occasionally relieved from the strain of earnest attention to that long-sustained eloquence by relevant interruptions. It is, then, always a question of degree and circumstance. And where the interruption is more than an interjection, the Member in possession can always protect himself by declining to yield. Where it is improper, you, Mr. Speaker, can, and do, interfere. Therefore, it can never be said that interruptions per se are disorderly. But this interruption which we are discussing was a relevant interruption. The Colonial Secretary had been dealing with the question of improved tone in the thoughts and feeling of our enemies with reference to peace and the prospect of their acceptance with confidence of our terms, and he alluded to those who had been our former enemies who were then fighting with the British forces. He brought up the special case of General Vilonel; whereupon my hon. friend the Member for East Mayo interrupted and said that General Vilonel was a traitor. The House has heard the evidence. My hon. and learned friend the Member for Waterford has read the story, which shows that my hon. friend the Member for East Mayo was literally correct. Vilonel had actually been tried, condemned, and sentenced for treason. But, even apart from that, the statement was justified, because General Vilonel had changed sides, and after fighting in the ranks of his own countrymen, as he had been a little before, he was found fighting in the ranks of our forces. Under these circumstances, even if there had not occurred the sentence for treason, there was a very obvious sense in which the observation that General Vilonel was a traitor would have been justified. I am not at all certain that the old saying— While we love the treason If it is on our side, We hate the traitor still— is not applicable to this case. I would ask hon. Gentlemen who are disposed now to take General Vilonel to their bosoms how they would feel if it had been, say, General Pole-Carew, or any other English General you please, who, under similar circumstances, had placed himself in this position. So the interruption was true. And it was obviously relevant as to the suggestion of the Colonial Secretary about confidence and good feeling. Again, the interruption was not personal to the Colonial Secretary in the slightest degree, and it was not, therefore, offensive in a Parliamentary sense. I deny altogether the justice or the Parliamentary propriety of the statement made by the First Lord of the Treasury that the interruption of my hon. friend was an offensive one. Words may be used, and rightly used in the freedom of debate in this House, towards men outside this House, which are not permitted to be used towards hon. Members. It is our safeguard as guardians of the public welfare to have immunity for what we speak of those outside, and I am glad to say that in this Assembly the defenceless generally receive adequate consideration; and, although—indeed, I may say because—hon. Members know that they are free from prosecutions and from any legal danger, there is a praiseworthy restraint upon what they say in this House affecting men outside. But in a Parliamentary sense the words used were not offensive, being applied to a stranger. In the case under notice the Colonial Secretary is said to have retorted, but he was not making a retort to any personal attack made upon him. There had been no such attack—nothing said in the slightest degree to wound his feelings or to excite that ardent passion which we know he can sometimes hardly adequately control. But, had it been otherwise, his duty was not to meet offence with offence, but to appeal to you. The Colonial Secretary retorted with the expression that my hon. friend was a good judge of traitors.

The First Lord of the Treasury has given to the House a legal definition of a traitor. Let me give the popular sense from Webster's dictionary, which says— One who violates his allegiance, and betrays his country; one guilty of treason; one who, in breach of trust, delivers his country to its enemy. I do not think it can be suggested, even by the First Lord, that my hon. friend comes within that definition of a traitor. But no Member has the right so to stigmatise a fellow Member. Nor does my hon. friend need defence here. The First Lord of the Treasury, in defending you, Mr. Speaker, attempted to suggest faintly a repetition of the insinuation which the Colonial Secretary made against my hon. friend. I will not suppose that that was really his line of defence, but that suggestion was made. I pass it by. There can be no doubt whatever that the Colonial Secretary's statement was not merely an offence against order, but it was a gross offence against order. It was a charge of treason. There can be no doubt whatever that if a phrase of that kind is permitted it will be impossible to keep the debates of this House within any rule or order whatever. There are plenty of retorts to a phrase of that kind not more unparliamentary or offensive than it is; and if permitted they would render life in this House almost intolerable. What had my hon. friend done? 'This was no retort made by the Colonial Secretary, because he had not been attacked and he had nothing to retort to. There was no personal attack upon, him. If there had been, it would not have justified his course; but in truth, the right hon. Gentleman himself made and commenced the personal attack. Under those conditions my hon. friend the Member for East Mayo appealed to you, Mr. Speaker. I have agreed that there are numerous occasions in this House in which in the heat of debate words are used across the floor of the House which it may be wise for you. Mr. Speaker, not to hear, if no hon. Member rises to object. Often you may feel that the interests of order may be best served by your not intervening of your own motion; and, at any rate, in that case, the House, no one having risen to order, would have no right to complain. But although this may be so, it is not at all your practice or the ordinary custom to permit, without instant rebuke from the Chair, offences against order infinitely less gross than this offence committed by the Colonial Secretary, which was; allowed to pass unreprimanded by the Chair. I have here a bushel of such precedents in your own time, Mr. Speaker, and during the time of your predecessor, to show that Speakers have felt then-selves bound at once to check the danger of what may result from the commencement of the use of unparliamentary language by calling, without appeal, for a retractation of such phrases. But while you may do this at your discretion, with the exercise of which we can have no reason to complain when no appeal has been made to you, I maintain that the case is entirely altered when the offended Member appeals to the Chair. Then the question has become serious, for it is the clear right of the humblest Member of the House in such a case to demand the judgment of the Chair as to whether the phrase which has been addressed to him is a. Parliamentary expression or not. The reason of the strict rule against offensive language to fellow Members is not that we are more sacred than outsiders. It is that we are at close quarters. It is that offence will engender heat, further offence, and general disorder. It is based on human nature. Therefore swift and stern repression by the Chair is the only security for decency. And when repression is refused, worse disorder will ensue. In old days offences led to duels. In some countries there are military courts of honour. For hon. Members of the House of Commons there is but one court of honour, and that is the Chair. We must depend on the justice of the Chair sustained by the feeling of the House. It is absolutely essential to the decorum, the dignity, and the decency of debate that hon. Members should refrain from personal and offensive expressions towards one another; and it is just when such offences are not reprimanded and rebuked from the Chair upon appeal that an hon. Member feels, unless he has almost superhuman self-control, driven to that kind of retort which produces results which we all deplore. When an hon. Member appeals to the Chair for justice and does not receive it, it is almost certain that lamentable results will ensue. That is the reason why we feel the gravity of this situation.

In this case, when an appeal was made to the Chair, you, Mr. Speaker, in effect asserted that the hon. Member who appealed to you had justly subjected himself to this so-called retort by reason of his interruption. We cannot assent to that judgment, which does not accord in out-view with the justice or truth of the case. And finding no other means whatever of obtaining redress, and there being no indication that the judgment which had been tendered on the 20th March was not to be the, rule in the future, there was no alternative whatever except for us to submit the case to the decision of the House. We were not so foolish as not to be aware of what will be the result in the Division Lobby. We are quite aware of what that result will be, but that is not, our business. Our business is to submit the question to the justice of the House. The First Lord of the Treasury and the Leader of the Opposition do not regard this as a question of justice, but more as a question of confidence in Mr. Speaker. We do not approach it upon that ground, but as a question of justice. Yet I am quite sure it will have been observed that in the words which have fallen from me, there is no foundation for assuming that I think there has been anything in this matter other than au error of judgment, I desire to state that most distinctly. That is my own absolute conviction. I believe it was but an error of judgment on the part of Mr. Speaker. That error, however, has appeared to us to produce results so grave that we considered it our duty to bring this matter to a final issue here. And I will add this only, that, whatever the result in the Division Lobby may be, I believe this debate will not, be without its fruits. I believe that it will accomplish something to prevent the repetition of such scenes as occurred on the, 20th March by preventing the repetition of such a judgment as was on that day rendered.

(10.40.) MR. DILLON (Mayo, E)

This Resolution, which has now been submitted to the House, was not intended to raise what might be called the case of my suspension. Your decision upon that was rot questioned, but as I have, in the speech of the First Lord of the Treasury, been, as it were, placed on my trial—be made two charges against me—I think I may ask the indulgence of the House for a few moments while I make a statement in reply. He made two distinct charges. The first charge was that I was guilty of a provocative and insulting interruption of the speech of the Colonial Secretary, and he based, to some extent, his justification of the language used by the Colonial Secretary on the provocation which I had given him. But then he went on, in very guarded language, it is true, but as I interpret him, to indicate that the Colonial Secretary, apart from the justification which I provided him with, was justified in calling me a, traitor, as he practically did. Well, speaking as an Irishman, in our ears—I do not know how it would sound in the ears of others—it is impossible to conceive a more insulting epithet, and the sophistries with which the right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to soften the insult of that epithet are completely lost upon me. No man who could be called, with impunity, a traitor should sit in this House. [Ministerial cheers and Irish counter-cheers.] Well, why don't you carry out the logical conclusion of your cheer? Any man who would allow himself to be called a traitor without meeting the charge as it deserved to be met, wherever it is made, ought not to be allowed to associate with honourable men. That at least is our doctrine in Ireland, and I, for my part, will never allow any man to call me a traitor without giving him on the spot my opinion about him. The expression I used in saying that General Vilonel was a traitor was neither offensive to the Colonial Secretary nor to any British soldier. I frankly admit that had I applied that term, as the Speaker thought I did, to the soldiers fighting in the service of His Majesty, it would have been a gross offence; but I did nothing of the sort. The expression was not offensive, personally, to the Colonial Secretary, nor was it calculated to excite his wrath in the ordinary course of things. As a matter of fact, I had sat listening with intense interest to the statement and argument of the Colonial Secretary. One would imagine that I had been interrupting him offensively the whole evening, but it was quite the contrary. I venture to say that he had not a more attentive or a more silent listener in the House than myself. But that was not the case all over the House. He was interrupted five or six times by the Leader of the Opposition. Was that disorderly? I only allude to that for the purpose of showing what ought to be a matter of course. The fact is that interruptions have never been held to be disorderly. Take the case of the First Lord of the Treasury. He is constantly interrupted, and yet he always shows absolutely good humour and appears to enjoy it, and they help him along in his speech. To interrupt is not disorderly. It is consistent with the continual practice of the House, if the interruption is within proper limits—if it is ad rem and not offensive.

What provoked this interruption of mine? The Colonial Secretary on this occasion was engaged in an argument proving the success, to his own satisfaction, of the conciliatory policy then going on. He came to the question of General Vilonel, and I, feeling strongly, not as a pro-Boer, but from the British point of view, as to the possibility of peace in South Africa, thought, and think still, it was a great blunder, a grievous error, to employ such a man, whom I did not call a traitor because he joined the British, but because I had read the account of his trial, and knew that while serving under Commandant-General Botha, under his own flag—which, remember, was as much a flag demanding loyalty as your flag—he was accused of entering into communication with the British Commander, and was tried and sentenced to penal servitude by a legal tribunal of his own country. He was under that sentence of penal servitude when you captured him, and adopted him as one of your own Generals. At all events, I may be pardoned for taking a strong view in such a case. When the right hon. Gentleman tries to make light of the charge of traitor, perhaps he does not know that that charge carries with it, to us Irishmen, infinitely bitter recollections. No word that can be used against an Irishman is so bitter as the word traitor, and I, Sir, hold that in raising this discussion tonight we are amply justified, and I hold that the issue we have brought before the House is of far more importance than hon. Members would gather from the First Lord of the Treasury, who concluded by saying that they came down in these numbers to support the Chair. No doubt this Motion will be defeated by an overwhelming majority. You, Sir, had great predecessors in that Chair, and they had greater difficulties to contend with than you have had. Those who remember the old days of 1880, 1881, and 1887 in this House will recall the difficulties which the occupant of that Chair had to deal with. In those days terrible scenes were enacted in the House. Members of the Irish Party were suspended again and again, and at one time the entire Party was driven out of the House. But throughout all those storms of passion the Chair never lost the confidence of the persecuted minority, and when Lord Peel came to retire at a later period, the Irish Party joined in the vote of thanks to him. Now, Sir, I hold that the triumph of the Chair is not to defeat a vote of this kind by an overwhelming majority. The true triumph of the Chair is to obtain the confidence of the minority in the House. The real triumph of the Chair is to convince the smallest minority in the House that they can have the protection of the Chair when the majority is most intolerant and most clamourous. I confess that in this instance I left the House with a bitter sense of injustice, which I still feel, and that sense of injustice was aggravated by the fact that, without any provocation, I was subjected to a foul and intolerable insult, and that when I appealed for protection to the Chair I was denied that

protection. When I used language which I frankly admit is intolerable in any legislative Assembly, I was punished, but the original cause and author of the scene was allowed to go scot free.

(10.53.) The House divided:—Ayes, 63; Noes, 398. (Division List No. 165.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Joyce, Michael O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Ambrose, Robert Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)
Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Leamy, Edmund O'Dowd, John
Blake, Edward Lundon, W. O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)
Roland, John MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A. O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N
Burke, E. Haviland- MacNeill, John Gordon Swift O'Malley, William
Burns, John MacVeagh, Jeremiah O'Mara, James
Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) M'Fadden, Edward O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Cogan, Denis J. M'Govern, T. Power, Patrick Joseph
Condon, Thomas Joseph M'Hugh, Patrick A. Reddy, M.
Crean, Eugene M'Kean, John Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Cremer, William Randal M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)
Delany, William Markham, Arthur Basil Roche, John
Dillon, John Minch, Matthew Sheehan, Daniel Daniel
Doogan, P. C. Mooney, John J. Sullivan, Donal
Ffrench, Peter Murphy, John White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Field, William Nannetti, Joseph P. Young, Samuel
Flavin, Michael Joseph Nolan, Col. John P.(Galway, N.)
Flynn, James Christopher Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)
Gilhooly, James O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Grant, Carrie O' Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid Sir Thomas Esmonde and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)
Hayden, John Patrick O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.)
NOES.
Acland-Hood, Capt. Sir Alex. F. Bigwood, James Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Bill, Charles Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Black, Alexander William Chamberlain, J. Austen (Worc'r
Aird, Sir John Blundell, Colonel Henry Chamberlayne, T. (S'thampton
Allhusen, Augustus H'nry Eden Bolton, Thomas Dolling Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry
Anson, Sir William Reynell Bond, Edward Chapman, Edward
Anstruther, H. T. Boscawen, Arthur Griffith- Charrington, Spencer
Archdale, Edward Mervyn Boulnois, Edmund Clare, Octavius Leigh
Arkwright, John Stanhope Bowles Capt. H. F. (Middlesex) Clive, Captain Percy A.
Arnold-Forster, Hugh O. Brand, Hon. Arthur G. Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H A. E.
Arrol, Sir William Brassey, Albert Coghill, Douglas Harry
Asher, Alexander Brigg, John Cohen, Benjamin Louis
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Brotherton, Edward Allen Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready
Austin, Sir John Brown, Alexander H. (Shropsh. Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole
Bailey, James (Walworth) Bryce, Rt. Hon. James Compton, Lord Alwyne
Bain, Colonel James Robert Brymer, William Ernest Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)
Baird, John George Alexander Bull, William James Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)
Balcarres, Lord Bullard, Sir Harry Craig, Robert Hunter
Baldwin, Alfred Burdett-Coutts, W. Cranborne, Viscount
Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r Butcher, John George Cripps, Charles Alfred
Balfour, Capt. C. B. (Hornsey) Buxton, Sydney Charles Crombie, John William
Balfour, RtHn Gerald W. (Leeds Caldwell, James Cubitt, Hon. Henry
Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Dalrymple Sir Charles
Banbury, Frederick George Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Davenport, William Bromley-
Barry, Sir Francis T. (Windsor) Causton, Richard Knight Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan
Bartley, George C. T. Cautley, Henry Strother Denny, Colone
Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks Cavendish, R F. (N. Lancs.) Dewar, T. R (T'rH'mlets, S. Geo.
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Cavendish, V. C. W (Derbyshire Dickinson, Robert Edmond
Beresford, Lord Chas. William Cawley, Frederick Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Cayzer, Sir Charles William Digby, John K. D Wingfield-
Bignold, Arthur Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles
Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph Helder, Augustus Middlemore, Jno. Throgmorton
Dixon-Hartland. Sir Fr'd Dixon Helme, Norval Watson Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Dorington, Sir John Edward Henderson, Alexander Milvain, Thomas
Doughty, George Hickman, Sir Alfred Mitchell, William
Douglas, Rt Hon. A. Akers- Hoare, Sir Samuel Molesworth, Sir Lewis
Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Hobhouse, Henry (Somerset, E. Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)
Doxford, Sir William Theodore Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants.)
Duke, Henry Edward Horner, Frederick William Moon, Edward Robert Pacy
Dunn, Sir William Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Moore, William (Antrim, N.)
Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin Hoult, Joseph More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)
Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart Houston, Robert Paterson Morgan, David J (W'lthamstow
Edwards, Frank Howard, Jno (Kent, Faversham Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)
Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton Howard, J. (Midd., Tottenham) Morley, Charles (Breconshire)
Elibank, Master of Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil Morley, Rt. Hn. John (Montrose
Emmott, Alfred Hudson, George Bickersteth Morrell, George Herbert
Evans, Sir Francis H (Maidstone Hutton, John (Yorks. N. R.) Morrison, James Archibald
Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan) Jackson, Rt. Hon. Wm. Lawies Morton, Arthur H. A. (Deptford
Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W.) Jacoby, James Alfred Moss, Samuel
Fardell, Sir T. George Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse Moulton, John Fletcher
Farquharson, Dr. Robert Jeffreys, Arthur Frederick Mount, William Arthur
Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.
Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith) Johnston, William (Belfast) Muntz, Philip A.
Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J.(Manc'r Jones, D'vid Brynmor (Swansea Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)
Finch, George H. Kenyon, Hon. Geo. T. (Denbigh) Murray, Col. Wyndham (Bath)
Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop. Myers, William Henry
Fisher, William Hayes Keswick, William Newdigate, Francis Alexander
Fison, Frederick William Kimber, Henry Nicholson, William Graham
FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose- King, Sir Henry Seymour Nicol, Donald Ninian
Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon Kitson, Sir James Norman, Henry
Flannery, Sir Fortescue Knowles, Lees Nussey, Thomas Willans
Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Flower, Ernest Langley, Batty Palmer, George Wm. (Reading)
Forster, Henry William Laurie, Lieut.-General Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)
Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W. Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Parkes, Ebenezer
Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Lawrence, Joseph (Monmouth) Partington, Oswald
Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) Paulton, James Mellor
Fuller, J. M. F. Lawson, John Grant Pease, Herbt. Pike (Darlington)
Garfit, William Layland-Barratt, Francis Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley
Gibbs, Hn. A. G. H (City of Lond. Lecky, Rt. Hn. William Edw. H. Pemberton, John S. G.
Gibbs, Hon. Vicary (St. Albans) Lee, Arthur H (Hants., Fareham Penn, John
Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead) Percy, Earl
Gordon, Hn., J. E (Elgin&Nairn) Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Philipps, John Wynford
Gore, Hn G.R.C.Ormsby-(Salop Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard
Gore, Hon. S.F.Ormsby-(Linc.) Leigh Bennett, Henry Currie Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S. Pretyman, Ernest George
Goschen, Hon. George Joachim Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. Price, Robert John
Goulding, Edward Alfred Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward
Graham, Henry Robert Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham Purvis, Robert
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S) Pym, C. Guy
Green, Walford D (Wednesbury Lonsdale, John Brownlee Quilter, Sir Cuthbert
Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury Lowe, Francis William Randles, John S.
Grenfell, William Henry Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale) Rankin, Sir James
Gretton, John Loyd, Archie Kirkman Rasch, Major Frederic Carne
Greville, Hon. Ronald Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred Ratcliff, R. F.
Griffith, Ellis J. Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison Rattigan, Sir William Henry
Gunter, Sir Robert Macdona, John Cumming Rea, Russell
Guthrie, Walter Murray MacIver, David (Liverpool) Reid, James (Greenock)
Hain, Edward Maconochie, A. W. Remnant, James Farquharson
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Renshaw, Charles Bine
Hambro, Charles Eric M'Calmont, Col H. L. B (Cambs. Renwick, George
Hamilton, Rt Hn L'rd G (Midd'x M'Calmont, Col. J.(Antrim, E.) Ridley, Hn M. W.(Stalybridge)
Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry M'Crae, George Ridley, S. Forde (Bethnal Green
Hanbury, Rt. Hon. Robert Wm. M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W Rigg, Richard
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Sir William M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire) Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson
Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd Majendie, James A. H. Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)
Hare, Thomas Leigh Malcolm, Ian Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)
Harmsworth, R. Leicester Maple, Sir John Blundell Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)
Harris, Frederick Leverton Martin, Richard Biddulph Robinson, Brooke
Harwood, George Mather, William Robson, William Snowdon
Haslam, Sir Alfred S. Maxwell, Rt. Hn Sir H. E (Wist'n Roe, Sir Thomas
Hay, Hon. Claude George Maxwell, W. J H (D'mfriesshire Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye
Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale- Mellor, Rt. Hon. John William Ropner, Colonel Robert
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Melville, Beresford Valentine Round, James
Heath, James (Staffords, N. W. Meysey-Thompson, Sir H. M. Royds, Clement Molyneux
Runciman, Walter Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) White, Luke (York, E. R.)
Rutherford, John Stevenson, Francis S. Whiteley, H (Ashton-und-Lyne
Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford- Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander Stone, Sir Benjamin Whitmore, Charles Algernon
Samuel, Harry S. (Limehouse) Strachey, Sir Edward Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Stroyan, John Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos Myles Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier Williams, Rt Hn J Pow'll-(Birm.
Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) Talbot, Rt. Hn. J. G (Oxf'd Univ. Wills, Sir Frederick
Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln) Tennant, Harold John Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.)
Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) Wilson, John (Falkirk)
Seton-Karr, Henry Thomas, Alfred (Glamorgan, E.) Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Sharpe, William Edward T. Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew) Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.) Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)
Simeon, Sir Barrington Thornton, Percy M. Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R.(Bath
Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Tollemache, Henry James Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Sinclair, Louis (Romford) Tomlinson, Wm. Edw. Murray Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Skewe-Cox, Thomas Tritton, Charles Ernest Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-
Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East) Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Smith, HC (North'mb, Tyneside Valentia, Viscount Wylie, Alexander
Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.) Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter) Yoxall, James Henry
Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) Warde, Colonel C. E.
Soares, Ernest J. Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Spear, John Ward Warr, Augustus Frederick TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R (Northants Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) Sir William Walrond and Mr. Herbert Gladstone.
Spencer, Sir E. (W. Bromwich) Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk Welby, Lt.-Col. A C E (Taunton)
Stanley, Ed ward Jas. (Somerset Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon-