§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ [Mr. JEFFREYS (Hampshire, N.) in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1:—
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
had on the Paper an Amendment to provide for two Schedules; one containing a List of Acts to be "continued until repealed." and the other containing a List of Acts to be continued, in whole, or in part, till the 31st December, 1903. The hon. Member said he understood that his Amendment was ruled to be out of order.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
Yes, I think it is out of order, because it proposes to make various expiring laws into permanent Acts of Parliament, and that is not within the scope of the present Bill.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
I take it that your objection is to the form of words I employ. The object of this Bill is the continuance of certain Acts of Parliament: surely it is for the House to say for how long they shall be continued. The Bill proposes to continue certain Acts until 1903; is it not competent for me to move to substitute 1953? What I propose to do is to divide the Acts into two schedules.
§ SIR ALBERT ROLLIT (Islington, S.)
said he had intended to propose a similar Amendment, although in a somewhat 554 different form, and although he had great respect for the ruling of the Chair, he must confess he did not see the validity of the ruling in this particular instance. Why could they not have in the schedule a column stating for how long each Act should continue? He failed to see why such an Act as the Ballot Act, which had the approval of the entire House, should not be rendered permanent. He should have thought that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundee was in order, but if not, he wished to know if his suggestion to carry out a similar object would he in order.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said that, with all due respect, he would strongly urge the view that if the proposal of his hon. friend were accepted it would mean that, in an obscure way and by a side wind, the Committee would ho making perpetual Acts, which, up to the present, had been renewable from year to year.
* THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
As regards the point of order raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundee, I am quite clear on the subject. Every Act continues in force until it is repealed, and the proposal of the lion, and learned Gentleman to continue certain expiring laws for fixed periods, or till repealed by Parliament, would be out of order. I do not give that opinion as from myself only have consulted the authorities of the House, and I am fortified by their opinion also.
§ Motion made and Question proposed, "That Clause I stand part of the Bill."
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
said he ventured to repeat the hope he expressed last night that this was the last occasion on which the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill would be presented in its existing form. After the admissions which had been made by the First Lord of the Treasury, the inclusion of the Ballot Act and the Employers Liability Act in the Bill could not be defended for a moment, it was the universal view of the House that that was a scandal. The Prime Minister himself admitted the force of their contention, which was that when the Bill had to be brought in again, permanent Acts should be made permanent, and temporary Acts should be continued as; 555 at present. He ventured to appeal to the Attorney General for an assurance that a different policy would be pursued in the future.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said he quite agreed with his hon. and learned friend that it was absurd that an Act like the Ballot Act, which had been accepted by all parties as one of the irrevocable laws of the country, should have to be renewed from year to year; but he strongly protested against the doctrine that legislation which Parliament deliberately meant to be experimental and temporary should be made perpetual by such a summary process as putting it into the schedule of the Expiring Laws Continuance Hill. Of course hon. Gentlemen would understand how the Irish Members felt on the question, but apart altogether from the fact that Acts dealing with fundamental rights in Ireland wore included in the Bill, there were other questions, many of them accepted by both Parties in the House on the strict condition that their operation should be confined to a certain number of years, in order to see how they worked. That was a proper way to deal with many social experiments; and while he joined in the appeal to the Attorney General to say that measures which had practically become part of the constitution should not be subject to this process year by year, he wished to safeguard himself and his hon. friends against the idea that they would not regard it as a serious danger to make perpetual measures which Parliament in its wisdom had declared to be experimental and temporary.
§ SIR ALBERT ROLLIT
said he wished to assure his hon. friend who had just spoken that the very last idea they had was to force on any section of the House, by indirect means, measures which were objectionable to them. There was obviously a clear distinction between controversial Acts and Acts which were universally accepted. He wished to join in the appeal to the Attorney General, who he knew would be sympathetic, to remove what he considered a great blot on their mode of legislation. They were not only re-enacting a large number of obsolete Statutes, but were positively incorporating in the fourth column five or ten times as many extraneous references to other Acts of Parliament, and yet they acted on the assumption that 556 the people were familiar with the law and were bound to obey it at their peril. That mode of legislation was a disgrace to the present century. They saw how Germany had devoted a very large sum of money, as well as the best minds in the country, to the preparation of a code. That course was also being taken in comparatively new countries like Egypt; and when they realised the great advantage to the French nation of the Code Napoleon, he thought the time had come when there should be, on the part of law reformers, the strongest possible protest against what he could only call a marine store mode of legislation. The present Bill was the penance which Parliament had to suffer for the scandalous mode in which so much of its legislation was effected. This patchwork kind of legislation was as discreditable to the Legislature as it was injurious to the best interests of the country.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said he agreed in the abstract with what his hon. friend said as to the Bill not being a desirable mode of legislation; but what had been said by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division showed that there was some difficulty in giving practical application to the very excellent principle which had been laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman. To the main principle advanced he should be disposed to give his most entire and hearty assent; but he would point out that it was largely a matter of Parliamentary time, and that the subject was only one branch of the larger subject referred to by his hon. friend the Member for South Islington, viz., the codification of the law. He did not quite agree with his hon. friend as to the excellence of the Code Napoleon, as, when he had to look up a question of French law, he had to examine a mass of decisions. If we codified our laws 557 it should be on a more complete and thorough plan than that of the Code Napoleon.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said he thought the Egyptian Code was better than the Code Napoleon. With regard to the particular subject before the Committee, he did not think it could be looked upon apart from the general subject of which it was a branch. If that subject was to be dealt with, the House should be content to delegate to a Committee the task of dealing with the details.
§ SIR. ROBERT FINLAY
said that there were a number of other Acts, and the Committee would have to deal with the subject as a whole. The difficulties which would arise from an Act being made permanent involved questions of such nicety and detail that he could foresee several weeks of Parliamentary time being consumed in Committee of the Whole House on the subject. There was very great jealousy on the part of the House to delegate a task of that character, and as long as that jealousy continued, he was afraid that the prospects of codific ation were somewhat remote. He had the most entire sympathy with the general principle enunciated, but he could not undertake on behalf of the Government that the subject would be dealt with next session. No undertaking could be given until they knew how the House would be disposed to look at the larger question, and how much Parliamentary time would be available.
§ MR. O'SHEE
said he desired to call attention to the fact that there was no reference whatever, except in the preamble of the Bill, to Part II. He asked for an explanation.
§ Clause 2 agreed to.
§ Motion made and question proposed, "That the Schedule be added to the Bill."558
§ MR. FLYNN
said that he handed in an Amendment to the schedule yesterday which was of a perfectly clear and comprehensible character. He now found that his Amendment appeared three times over, and each time referred to a different Act. His object was to omit the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1881; but he was also apparently inviting the Committee to omit the Corrupt Practices Act, 1854, and the Corrupt Practices Commission Expenses Act, 1869.
* THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
If the hon. Gentleman will state the lines in the Schedule he wishes to omit, I will call upon him.
* THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN
I can only judge by the Paper in my hands at the present moment, and in that I find that the hon. Gentleman proposes to leave out lines 30 and 31. If any hon. Gentleman has an Amendment before that, I will call on him.
§ MR. O'SHEE
said he desired to omit in page 2, lines 39 and 40, which referred to the Labourers (Ireland) Act, 1860. That Act, which was now obsolete, was to enable the Board of Works in Ireland to advance money to owners of land for the erection of labourers' cottages. Since the passing of the Act of 1 883, he had never heard of the Act of I860 being put into operation, although he was specially interested in the housing of agricultural labourersin Ireland, especially in Munster. If any hon. Member representing an Irish constituency would say that within his experience that Act had been used since 1883, he would withdraw his Amendment. The Act of 1883 put on the local authority the duty of providing labourers' cottages, and he did not see why an obsolete Act should be included in the Bill.
In page 2, to omit lines 39 and 40."—(Mr. O'Shec.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."559
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said before the Amendment was disposed of it might be well to hear what the Attorney General for Ireland had to say on the subject.
§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.)
said that the Act of 1883 enabled loans to be made to the local authority for labourers' cottages, whereas the Act of I860 enabled loans to be made to the owners of land for that purpose.
§ MR. T. P O'CONNOR
asked if, as a matter of fact, any loan had been issued under the Act for years.
§ MR. ATKINSON
said he could not answer that question offhand, but he thought that the Act of 1883 had to a great extent superseded the Act of 1860, but at the same time it was not desirable to repeal it.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON moved to omit in page 3, the Promissory Notes Act, 1863, and the Promissory Notes (Ireland) Act, 1864. It was suggested on the previous night that these Acts had been incorporated in the Bills of Exchange Act.
§ SIR ALBERT ROLLIT
said that his hon. friend was mistaken. The Acts dealt with the validity of promissory notes between £1 and £5, and, if repealed, there would be some doubt as to whether such notes were valid or not.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said the Acts it was proposed to omit suspended the operation of certain other Acts, which restrained the issue of such notes. The proper way to deal with the matter would be, not to make the suspending Acts permanent, but to repeal the original Acts themselves.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. POWER (Waterford, E.) moved to omit from the Schedule the Prosecutions Expenses Act, 1866. He wished to know if the expenses of the prosecutions which were now taking place in Ireland were authorised under the Prosecutions Expenses Act, 1866. If that were the case it would be the duty of the Irish Members 560 to have an explanation of some of the things that were now occurring in Ireland.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR ALBERT ROLLIT
said he should like to refer to the Locomotives Act, 1865, which he took as a sample of the kind o legislation against which they were protesting. He had prepared a synopsis as to the effect of the Act now being extended for another year, and he found the state of the law, which everyone was assumed to know, was apparently as follows. By the provisions of the Act a person carrying a red flag was required to precede a locomotive. That provision was reenacted with Amendments by the Highways and Locomotives Act, 1878, which, in its turn, was repealed by the Locomotives Act, 1898. He would ask the Committee whether they thought that it was a satisfactory state of the law to enact a penal statute for one year, which had been amended by four permanent Acts. He confessed he did not comprehend them all himself, yet the people were expected to understand the law and obey it. He fully appreciated the sympathetic expressions of the Attorney General, but it was time to give serious attention to this state of things, and if no steps were taken by the Government, or some one more qualified than he was, he certainly should endeavour next session to secure the appointment of a Select Committee to remedy this matter. He should not, however, move in the matter now.
§ MR. O'SHEE moved to omit from the Schedule the Locomotives Act, 1865. In Ireland they had steam-rollers in operation on the roads, and in front of each there was a man with a red flag. Experience in the rural parts of Ireland, however, showed that motor cars were far more dangerous in passing vehicles or pedestrians than steam-rollers; and unless a provision were inserted requiring a red nag to be carried before every motor car, he should object to the renewal of the Locomotives Act. It was 561 unfair that a man should have to be employed to precede a steam roller with a red flag, when they were told that County Councils had no right even to regulate the speed of motor cars at the present time. Some of the County Councils in Ireland endeavoured to ascertain from the Local Government Board if they had any power to regulate the speed of motor cars, but they were referred to some Department in England.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said he hoped the Committee would not think it necessary to enter on a full discussion of the fascinating subject of motor cars. No doubt the law was not in an entirely satisfactory condition with reference to motor ears, but that was in a great measure due to the fact that the House insisted on dealing with the question itself; and he confessed he almost despaired of any satisfactory solution being arrived at until the House saw its way to appointing a strong Committee to consider the matter.
MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN
said that for the protection of the public, ho would suggest that every motor car should be preceded by the steam-roller, and every steam-roller by a man with a red flag.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ (10.10.) MR. DALZTEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs) moved to omit from the Schedule the Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, 1875. He said this was a measure which was obviously passed by way of an experiment, and which was intended to be limited in its operation, in order to give the House an opportunity of expressing an opinion on its success or non-success. No hon. Member would deny that there was very good ground for an alteration in the law as far as this Act was concerned. First of all, he contended that the expenses of returning officers were 562 in many cases too high. It was simply ridiculous that a presiding officer who might live only a few miles from the polling place should be entitled to charge expenses for three days. He should have thought that, in such a case, expenses for one day would be quite enough. Then as to ballot boxes, they went dancing about at five or six different Parliamentary elections, and each candidate had to pay for them. That ought not to be. Ballot boxes which were used three or four times ought not to be charged in every case as if they were new. Another objection he had to the Act was that it placed the expense of the election on the shoulders of the candidates. The elections were not the candidates' elections, but the elections of the country; and that candidates should have to pay for them seemed to him exceedingly unjust. It was not a Party matter at all, and was really expenditure which ought to be paid out of the National Exchequer, in which case the expenses would be kept much lower than they were at present. The fact that the expense of an election was so very high was a barrier in many cases to men taking their seats in the House of Commons, and if the Act were not renewed they would see a very much larger number of labour Members in the House than at present, to, he believed, the advantage of the House. Another point was that some reasonable notice ought to be given of the candidates who were to be nominated. At one of his own elections, no other candidate had even been mentioned up to the morning of election. He thought his return was perfectly secure, and on the day preceding the nomination he travelled to a place 200 miles from his constituency. He received an intimation that he had better be careful. He returned by the night train; and next day, not in the morning, but at one minute to one o'clock in the afternoon, a nomination paper was produced nominating a gentleman who had never been in the constituency. A somewhat similar case occurred in Ireland. It was thought that as he did not expect to be opposed, he might not have provided the necessary security; and if he had not taken the precaution he would have lost the election, and the constituency would be represented by a man it had 563 never previously seen or heard of. It ought not to be possible to snatch a seat in such a manner, and he would therefore suggest that proper notice should be given of the candidates who were to be nominated before security was required. If the Committee refused to sanction the renewal of the Act, the Government would have to take definite action in the matter, and introduce a new Bill during the present session.
In page 4, to leave out lines 5 to 8, inclusive."—(Mr. Dalziel.)
§ Question proposed, "That lines 5 to 8, inclusive, stand part of the Schedule."
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said he thought the Committee would be sensible that some provision must be made with regard to the expenses of returning officers in Parliamentary elections. No one would wish that the measure should be allowed to lapse, and on this Bill the provisions of the Act could not be amended.
§ SIRROBERT FINLAY
said he ventured to submit to the hon. Member that that course would be very unreasonable. The hon. Member was very indignant with the law on the subject. He said that the expenses were excessive, and that candidates should not have to bear them. That opened up a very large question, on which it would be improper to enter on a Bill such as that before the Committee. Then the hon. Member referred to another matter, no doubt of great importance, but which had really little or no relation to the Act under consideration. He referred to notice being given of candidates to be nominated, but that did not depend on the Act.
§ MR. DALZIEL
said the words of Act were "the end of the two hours appointed." His contention was that it should not be two hours but twenty-four hours.
§ SIR ROBERT FINLAY
said that the hon. Member wanted to amend the law relating to Parliamentary elections in order that twenty-four hours' notice or a 564 week's or a month's notice, should be required before candidates were nominated. That might or might not be reasonable, but it could not now be dealt with. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would be satisfied with having expressed his views on the subject.
§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
said the Attorney General had not told the Committee what would happen if the Bill were not renewed. It would not interfere with elections; it would simply mean that the expenses, in the first instance, would fall on the returning officers. It would therefore be necessary to pass a Bill immediately, or to let the returning officers bear the expense for a time, afterwards indemnifying them. It was simply a question of another Bill. As this was the only opportunity of protesting against an iniquitous and abominable system which was used for the benefit of propertied candidates, he should support the Amendment.
§ MR. O'SHEE
supported the Amendment. The question of the payment of returning officers' expenses had been discussed for many years, and Labour candidates and organisations had over and over again claimed that those expenses should be paid out of the national exchequer. Irish Members suffered less from this grievance than Members from other parts of the United Kingdom, inasmuch as elections in Ireland were generally not contested, and the expenses consequently were small. But that was no reason why the Nationalists should not support the Amendment on the principle that no man ought to be debarred by his poverty from obtaining a seat in Parliament.
§ MR. JOHN WILSON (Durham, Mid)
said that, although this question had not been said to have a personal aspect for the Labour Members, he might be allowed to say that, in his opinion, the expenses of men who came to the House of Commons to do the country's work ought to be borne by the country. The House of Commons was not the worse, but the better, for the presence of the Labour Members, who in no way detracted from its dignity, or lessened the influence of its discussions. To take only one item—why should the ballot-boxes used in an election be charged to each candidate, seeing that the same boxes served for the election not in 565 one constituency only, but in several? Before he could he nominated as a candidate he had to produce a deposit of £350. It was impossible for a man of his class to produce such a sum, and why should the society to which he belonged be burdened with so heavy payment? He hoped an attempt would be made to take this burden off the shoulders of the individual candidate and place it either on the rates or the national exchequer.
thought that, while the Attorney General was justified in saying that the present was not the proper opportunity for making such a change in the law as had been suggested, a promise might very well be given that the Government would seriously consider the existing state of the law. It was most desirable that, the House of Commons should have within its walls representatives of every class of the community, and that no barrier
§ whatever, especially of a pecuniary character, should be put in the way of such representation. There were a lot of trifling but vexatious expenses connected with elections which it was to the interest of nobody to maintain, and he hoped the subject would receive the attention of the Government.
§ MR. ALEXANDER CROSS (Glasgow, Camlachie)
said he sympathised with the views which had been expressed on the other side, and he believed they were shared by many Unionist Members. It was a question not for Labour Members only, but for the nation at large. There should be no impediment placed in the way of any man becoming a candidate for a seat in this House.
§ (10. 38.) Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 160; Noes, 103. (Division List No. 408.)567
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||Johnstone, Heywood|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Doughty, George||Kenyon Slaney, Col. W. (Salop|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O||Duke, Henry Edward||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline Fitz Roy||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Lawson, John Grant|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir. J. (Manc'r||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Finch, George H.||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W. (Leeds||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Fisher, William Hayes||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth|
|Bignold, Arthur||Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Macartney, Rt. Hn. W. G. Ellison|
|Bill, Charles||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Blandell, Colonel Henry||Forster, Henry William||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)|
|Bond, Edward||Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.||Malcohn, Ian|
|Brassey, Albert||Galloway, William Johnson||Milvain, Thomas|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets||Moore, William (Antrim, N)|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Gore, Hn G.R.C. Ormsby-(Salop||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Greene, Sir EW (B'ry S Edm'nds||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer|
|Cavendish, V. C.W. (Derbysh're||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury||Mount, William Arthur|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Gretton, John||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.||Groves, James Grimble||Myers, William Henry|
|Chapman, Edward||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Charrington, Spencer||Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Hardy, Laurence (Kent, Ashf'rd||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Percy, Earl|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Haslam, Sir Alfred S.||Pilkington, Lieut.-Col. Richard|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow||Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Helder, Augustus||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Henderson, Sir Alexander||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Purvis, Robert|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Hickman, Sir Alfred||Randles, John S.|
|Cust, Henry John C||Hogg, Lindsay||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Davenport, William Bromley-||Hoult, Joseph||Ridley, Hon M. W. (Staly bridge|
|Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.|
|Ropner, Colonel Robert||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Round, Rt. Hon. James||Stewart Sir Mark J. M'Taggart||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford||Stone, Sir Benjamin||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Stroyan, John||Wortley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart|
|Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Seton-Karr, Henry||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Sinclair, Louis (Romford)||Thornton, Percy M.||Younger, William|
|Skewes-Cox, Thomas||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Smith, HC (North'mb. Tyneside||Valentia, Viscount|
|Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES— Sir Alexander Acland|
|Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Spear, John Ward||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)||Hood and Mr. Anstruther-|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Hayden, John Patrick||Okelly, James (Roscommon, N.|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale||O'Shee, James John|
|Allan, Charles P. (Glouc., Stroud||Helme, Norval Watson||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)||Horniman, Frederick John||Rea, Russell|
|Bell, Richard||Jones, David Brynmor (Sw'nsea||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Black, Alexander William||Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Brigg, John||Jordan, Jeremiah||Rigg, Richard|
|Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)||Joyce, Michael||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Burns, John||Kennedy, Patrick James||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)||Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)|
|Caldwell, James||Leamy, Edmund||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Campbell-John (Armagh, S..||Leng, Sir John||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Levy, Maurice||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Cawley, Frederick||Lloyd,-George, David||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Lough, Thomas||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Lundon, W.||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Craig, Robert Hunter||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Spencer, Rt Hn CR. (Northants|
|Crean, Eugene||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Strachey, Sir Edward|
|Cullinan, J.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Sullivan, Donal|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||M'Crae, George||Taylor, Theodore Cooke|
|Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan||M'Kean, John||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|Delany, William||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Thomas, David Alfred(Mertbyr|
|Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.||Markham, Arthur Basil||Thomas, J A (Glam'rgan, Gower|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Moss, Samuel||Toulmin, George|
|Doogan, P. C.||Murphy, John||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Edwards, Frank||Nannetti, Joseph P.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Fenwick, Charles||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Wilson, Fred. W. (Norfolk, Mid|
|Ffrench, Peter||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'r'ry, Mid||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Fitzmaurice, Lord Edmond||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Young, Samuel|
|Flynn, James Christopher||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Griffith, James||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Dalziel and Mr. John|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||O'Dowd, John|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo. N||Wilson (Durham).|
§ (10.48.) MR. FLYNN moved the omission of the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1881. He described the title as a misnomer, and contended that the Act was in reality a peace-disturbing Act. When the Act was passed Ireland was in a state of peace and quietude, and now Ireland was still more peaceable. [At this stage the result of the Devon port election reached the House and was greeted with Ministerial cheers.] He begged to thank hon. Members opposite for the highly appreciative way in which they had received his remarks, and he was glad to see that even the Colonial Secretary joined in the jubilation. Irishmen 568 did not enjoy even the liberty which Russia granted to her subjects, and in Cork or Dublin they were simply Outlanders in their own country, and they did not enjoy those equal rights which were the first privilege of free citizens. At a time when it was urged that in every hamlet and village rifle shooting should be practised, he was anxious to see men trained in the use of firearms in Ireland, and therefore he hoped that this disabling Act would be removed from the Statute-book. Even in South Africa the Government had been compelled by the duress of circumstances to allow the conquered Boers the right to carry arms, 569 although by this Act they denied that right to the inhabitants of a nation who lived only three hours journey from the shores of this country. No Irishman had a right to carry an ordinary fowling piece to shoot crows with, without going before a removable magistrate appointed by the right hon. Gentleman, and humbly beseeching to have that right granted him. Not only this, but any ordinary constable had a right to take any man into custody if he suspected the concealment of arms. In such a case the constable could go and arrest all the inhabitants in a house in which the concealment of arms was suspected, even without a warrant. He might desire to carry a fowling piece to shoot pheasants, or snipe, or other game, but in order to do so he would have to go before a magistrate and prove that he was a loyal citizen of the highest possible character, and practically prove that he was a true blue. In any foreign country, such as France or Germany, an Act of this description would be denounced as tyranny incompatible with the freedom of the twentieth century. A young ragamuffin of the criminal class in London could purchase a pistol or a revolver without any trouble, but a respectable man in Ireland could not carry a revolver or cartridges, or even a fowling piece for sport, without going before the magistrate, Questions had been put by the Irish Members as to why a county councillor in Ireland who possessed the confidence of his fellow citizens could not obtain a licence to carry firearms. He went before a removable magistrate, who refused to grant him a licence to keep a gun which he required to scare away the crows from his fields. Could they find an example of tyranny plainer than that? Upon certain dates in July and August each year, they heard of His Majesty's subjects firing off cannon in the North of Ireland. What became of those cannon for the rest of the year? If it was an offence to carry a fowling piece, surely it was a greater offence to fire off cannon. They all knew that those cannon were concealed somewhere, but they never heard of any arrests in connection with them. Irishmen were not allowed the right to carry firearms even to protect their own property. He protested against this Act as it was protested against twenty years ago when it was 570 first passed. The Act was then quite uncalled for, but it was now ten times more uncalled for than it was before, and it had become an insult to Irishmen.
In page 4, to leave out lines 30 and 31."—(Mr. Flynn.)
§ Question proposed, "That lines 30 and 31 stand part of the Schedule."
§ MR. WYNDHAM
said that anyone who listened to the opening of the hon. Member's speech must have supposed that the Irish nation had no outlet for its martial proclivities. The hon. Member was under a misapprehension if he believed that to be the case. Reference had been made to the institution of rifle clubs, but he had to point out to the hon. Member that when he was at the War Office he took care that rifle clubs should be allowed to be established just the same in Ireland as in England. No distinction had been made between Ireland and England in respect of rifle clubs, and the Irish Militia had rendered very good service in South Africa. It was also said that this was a specially tyrannical Act which ought not to be continued for a day longer on the statute-book. It had often been pointed out that the present Government succeeded to this Act as a heritage from their predecessors. It was originally introduced by Mr. Gladstone's Government in 1881, and he believed it was brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouth.
§ MR. WYNDHAM
said the hon. Gentleman opposite was generally correct in regard to these matters, but he thought that in this case he was mistaken. It was brought in for five years, and it was continued in 1886 by the predecessors of the present Government under the auspices of the right hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs. In 1887 the Conservative Party came into office, and they continued the Act for another five years, to be incorporated for that period in the Criminal Law and Procedure Act. In 1892 the right hon. Member for the 571 Montrose Burghs again became responsible for the government of Ireland. Did he withdraw this Act as a measure of tyranny, insult, and injury to the people of Ireland? No; he was asked to do so by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who objected to the Peace Preservation Act as a measure of coercion. But the right hon. Member for the Montrose Burghs said that it was a measure of police regulation. He associated himself with the sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman, and he regarded the Peace Preservation Act as a wise measure of police regulation applicable to the conditions of Ireland. The hon. Member opposite took special, exception not only to the existence of this Act but to the tribunal which had administered it. There again he doubted whether the hon. Gentleman had studied the previous history of this Act, because in 1898 an Amendment was moved to it and supported by the hon. Member for East Mayo, providing that the jurisdiction under this Act should be reconstituted. Therefore, he had the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Montrose Burghs for the necessity of the Act, and in support of the tribunal he quoted the hon. Member for East Mayo, who was still with them, although at the present time he was occupied in America. He doubted if any one acquainted with the operation of this Act could maintain that it was tyrannical in its character. Last year the number of licences to carry arms granted in Ireland up to the 30th of June was 6,089, and the number of licences refused was only 619, or about 9 per cent of the entire number of applications. The number of licences revoked was thirty-one. Therefore more than 6,000 people applied and were allowed to carry arms, and he thought that ought to meet the demand for legitimate personal defence or sporting purposes. It had been said that under this Act the Government instituted a number of vexatious prosecutions and inflicted penalties of a severe character. That was not so. Last night they listened to a very interesting historical speech from the hon. Member opposite, and he laid great stress upon the fact that in the year 1873–74 a certain eminent statesman on the Conservative side held the view that the Peace Preservation Act should no longer be embodied in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It seemed to him that they were bound by precedents 572 in this matter, but if the other doctrine were to be accepted, and he did not think it had ever been accepted, at any rate let it be reciprocal. Originally under the Act of 1844, the penalty was two years imprisonment with hard labour. That was modified by the Act of 1856 to one year with hard labour. The present Act imposed a maximum penalty of three months imprisonment without hard labour, with the alternative of a fine not exceeding £20. He would ask the House to consider how these penalties had been, imposed. In 1901, there were thirty-two prosecutions, of which three were withdrawn and six resulted in acquittals. Of the remainder, terms of imprisonment were imposed in three cases only, the other delinquents being fined small sums. There was nothing exceptional in the Act, or tyrannical in its administration.
§ (11.12.) MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said he was in the House of Commons twenty-one or twenty-two years ago, when this Act was passed for the first time. It was enacted for five years. The Chief Secretary was not accurate in stating that the Bill was brought in by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Monmouthshire. It was brought in by the late Mr. Forster, who was then Chief Secretary, but the Member for West Monmouthshire was one of the persons responsible, he being in the Government. On that occasion, the hon. Member made a speech in which he quoted from a speech made by the Member for West Monmouthshire strongly protesting against the action of a Conservative Administration in prolonging the Act for more than three years. In 1885, three years were considered sufficient, but now, such was the progress of Irish liberty, it was considered quite in accord with the eternal fitness of things, that the Act should be made perpetual. The progress of the regard and respect for Irish liberty in this House was quite on the same lines as the progress of the population of Ireland, and the prosperity of the Irish people. He felt some curiosity as to the kind of defence which the Chief Secretary would make for this measure. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that the Member for the Montrose Burghs refused the request that it should not be renewed when asked by the hon. Member 573 for South Tyrone. But surely the Chief Secretary knew what the state of Ireland was at the time. There were scenes of violence and bloodshed going on in Belfast. He was informed that at that time a large section of the population of the North of Ireland was armed, and that they were able to use their arms, not in bloodshed, but rather in alarming the people who differed from them. The reason m favour of restraining the granting of licences for arms then lay in the almost rebellious condition of the North of Ireland—a state of rebellion which was largely brought about by the inspiriting eloquence of a Conservative statesman who visited Belfast about that period. He did not say that Belfast was quiet now, but it was comparatively so. Its energies had taken a religious rather than a political turn. Now, they were told that Ulster would fight and that Ulster would be right—not in preventing a measure of self-government for Ireland, but to save that province from the wiles and machinations of a Jesuitical Government which had brought forward the Education Bill. He was not concerned to stand between the Government and their Protestant assailants in the city of Belfast. He understood from the public Press that one result of this suspicion, of the Protestantism of the Government had been the return to parliament of a Gentleman who was entirely outside the Orthodox pale of the Conservative organisation in that city. But that was a domestic quarrel which he had no desire to enter. It was not his business or duty to give the Government a character for the thoroughness of their Protestantism. That was a matter he would leave them to fight out with their own supporters. The reason that existed for the Arms Act in those days was the rebellious state of Belfast on political grounds, but that argument was no longer to be found in the condition of that belligerent and exuberant province. As a matter of fact, they could all in that House go to all the weddings of all their friends for the next ten years without going to the hosier's if they could only get possession of the white gloves which were being presented to the judges, both of the High Courts and the County Courts. The Chief Secretary was not justified in applying to the Irish people a disarmament law which had not been applied 574 to the people of the Transvaal even after three years' war. What did the Chief Secretary say in reply? He said there were plenty of opportunities in Ireland for the outlet of that martial spirit which the Irish people had. He spoke of the deeds of valour of the Militia in South Africa, but he passed by the deeds of valour of the Irish Yeomanry there. Was the argument about, the Militia one which the right hon. Gentleman really put forward seriously? They knew that the British Government was quite ready to buy Irish valour at 1s. per day. and that when the Irish soldier had risked his life and lost his livelihood, this generous Government allowed him to end his days in the Irish workhouse. All these facts were perfectly familiar, but they were not relevant to the question of the disarmament of the Irish people. The right hon. Gentleman said they had the privilege of raising rifle clubs in Ireland it they got the sanction of the National Rifle Association in London. What a privilege that was for Ireland‡ Either the people of Ireland were contented or discontented with the Government of tins country. If they were discontented he could quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman should demand a disarmament Act; but let him not say at the same time that the liberties and rights of the two countries were the same. They all knew that this Act was an instrument of tyranny in the hands of the authorities in Ireland. It was a Coercion Act, an Act in restraint of the liberties of the people, and it was a monstrous use of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill to pass a Coercion Act among a number of obsolete Acts.
§ (11.30.) MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)
said he desired to say a few words on this measure as regarded its sectional operation. Let them assume for the purpose of argument, which of course he denied, that this Act had some value for executive purposes, and let them look at the partial manner in which it was applied. Take the recent case of the proposed incursion of the Orange party into Rostrevor. Rostrevor was a purely Catholic district. He should think that nine-tenths of the people were Catholic, but being in close proximity to Belfast, and not in a proclaimed district of the country, it was possible for Orangemen 575 by excursion trains to pour thousands of armed men into the Rostrevor area. The Government did proclaim it on 12th of July last, but the hon. Gentleman lately elected a Member of this House for one of the Divisions of Belfast [Mr. Sloan] had stated that at whatever peril he would on the next 12th of July, the date when the Orangemen of Ireland celebrated the battle of the Boyne or some other battle, insist on going to Rostrevor and holding a meeting there. They all knew, in the immortal words of Dean Swift, that "ten men armed to the teeth are more than a match for one man in his shirt," and if ten thousand Orangemen come down from Belfast, or anywhere else, into the little Catholic village of Rostrevor with rifles and arms, he really did not see what prospect there was for the Catholic people of the district, the nuns of the district, and the Catholic priests of the religious institutions of that district. He did not see what force the Government could oppose to that loyal body. Even if they assumed that this measure was a necessity to the government of Ireland, its operation was so partial and so unjust, that it really became, for those Catholics who lived on the borderland of this unhappy district, a very serious thing. Those Orangemen were always thinking of William III., or Queen Anne, and persons who had been dead for a long period, and whose microbes still disturbed the Orange intelligence. It was really a serious thing for the Catholics in this district to be prohibited by the Government from arming themselves and preventing aggression under the circumstances of the case. He had noticed ever since the Chief Secretary took office that when the Nationalists attacked him it was on perfectly sound grounds, but when the Orangemen attacked him it was not for giving them hard labour, or making them bankrupt. The ground of the Orange attack was that he had not permitted them to murder the Catholics. He had read most powerful denunciations of the Chief Secretary, assailing him because he did not permit the Rostrevor demonstration, and threatening him with what would happen on the next occasion when this anniversary cane round. 576 Did he think these Orangemen would be so keen to come into Catholic districts if they thought that the Catholics could shoot straight, or if they had the means of repelling these aggressions? He absolutely deplored and deprecated in every way the keeping up of these animosities, and he was amazed that sensible men could have anything to do with them. But Privy Councillors like the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh put themselves at the head of these armed bands, and by appealing to the Bible and to "the Sword of the Lord and of Gideon," and all these considerations, on the date of these anniversaries, worked up these unhappy people in order to assail by vituperation and assault their fellow citizens. In the South of Ireland there were absolutely no arms except those carried by returning emigrants in their trunks, and these were immediately taken from them at Queenstown. The North of Ireland was the only region where, since the rebellion of 1798, anybody had been killed in political strife. In Belfast, County Down, Armagh, and Antrim there were regions which were not proclaimed, and here they had a whole district absolutely incited by these incitements to come down and slay their fellow countrymen. And these organisations were headed by the supporters of the right hon. Gentleman opposite who were the adornment of law and order in Ireland. Was that a fair position of affairs? This Arms Act was a relic of the times when Ireland was supposed to be, in some way, formidable and dangerous to this country. Why, since the invention of the modern rifle, not to speak of the pom-poms and Maxim guns, the pretence that from a military point of view an unarmed and even an unorganised people could ever be formidable to this country was absurd. How did Mr. Gladstone get round Lord Spencer in 1881, when he was hesitating upon this Home Rule Question? Mr. Gladstone said that if Ireland gave the least trouble to England when she became organised tinder an Irish Parliament, England could tow Ireland after it as a battleship could tow a cockboat, and that was as true today as it was true sixteen years ago. So that if every Irishman possessed a Mauser rifle the notion that they could do anything against the might of England when battleships could enter Dublin Bay on one side and Galway Bay on the other, 577 and shoot cannon balls that would meet at Athlone, was, from a military point of view, a grotesque absurdity, and from a military point of view this Bill was archaeological. Therefore this Bill could only be important to the Government from the point of view of the prevention of crime. How did Ireland stand in regard to crime? They had at this moment in Ireland an organisation which was striving to the utmost of its ability to prevent crime, but in addition to that they had the fact that owing to the passage of Land Acts agrarian crime had positively disappeared from the country. If they wanted to commit the crime of murder they could buy in the Strand a rifle about two feet long for 15s., which would put a bullet in a landlord just as well as a blunderbuss 6 ft. long. There was no means which he knew of for pre-venting people determined to commit crime from possessing themselves of weapons of this character. They had come now to the days of Maxim guns and smokeless powder, and weapons of facility and precision, and the notion that this particular Bill did anything to keep Ireland quiet and subdued was a view borrowed from the last century. One word more. He did think the Tory Party had in the arguments against Home Rule had a most chameleon set of contentions, which changed their lines according to the kind of attack made upon them. Had; the Tory Party who pretended that Ireland was an integral portion of the British Empire, no shame when they said that they themselves wore proclaiming the necessity of promoting the martial qualities of the people, in keeping up year after year in the form these Bills had now taken, this disability, which, as he had shown, had no grounds of military or civil justification, and which operated in the North of Ireland as an incitement to assassination upon a defence less population? If the Tory Party meant to rule Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom, they should endeavour to give Irishmen some of the laws that existed in their own country. He did not profess himself to speak the English language with any facility or any accuracy, but he generally made himself fairly understood. But the Welsh people—a people as Celtic as the Irish—spoke the Welsh language, and even here on these Benches when the Welsh Members conversed with each other they talked Welsh. Now the Welsh 578 people might be a thorn in the side of England, and were just as national in their views as the Irish, and yet England did not hesitate to give them all the rights which they give to the British people. Why then was it that in regard to the Irish nation the Chief Secretary did not attempt to take an original view? They had known Cabinets to go on year after year, but generally after two years they found some Cabinet Minister slain on the altar of his country, and resigning his office. But had anyone known an Irish Secretary resign office? He invited the light hon. Gentleman to give proof that there was no justification for the assaults upon him from that side. He had sent Irish Members to the plank bed; he had made speeches with which they could not agree. Some people believed that he was fighting a lone hand in the Cabinet. Why did he not now, on the question of Ireland, take the view of modernity? Mr. Forster was dead; Mr. Pitt was no more; the right hon. Member for West Monmouth was no longer the leader of the Liberal Party. From the Tory point of view would he not take on his responsibility, as a statesman, some new line in regard to this matter? The landlords were not helping him, and why then should he consent, year after year, to tread this miserable beaten path, strewn as it was with all these records of failure, in regard to this small and petty measure? Why did he not take the stand of Disraeli, Sir Stafford Northcote, and Sir M. Hicks-Beach, and as a Conservative statesman prefer to follow in their footsteps, and if the Arms Act must be renewed, let him, at any rate, give the Irish Members an opportunity of discussing the matter and of making the measure a battle-horse on which the Irish Members could make their assault.
§ * MR. HUGH LAW
said that the Chief Secretary had not put forward any positive argument for the continuance of this Act; his argument had been merely negative. He could not but think that it almost amounted to a fraud on the House that a Bill of this character should be continued year after year under circumstances which were entirely different from those which existed when the House was induced to pass it originally. He wanted to contrast the position taken up by the Government when the 579 Act was first passed with that assumed when they now asked for its continuance. In asking leave to introduce this measure originally, the Home Secretary of the day was able to point to the fact that Judge Fitzgerald had declared that Ireland was in a state little different from civil war. Now, as had been clearly shown by the hon. Member for Scotland Division, Ireland was absolutely crimeless. Then, on the Second Heading of the Bill the Solicitor General for Ireland gave the House some extraordinary particulars as to the state of the country. In the county of Kerry a band of fifty disguised men roamed over the district at night, entered houses, and carried away forty guns, besides money; and at Loughrea another band of 150 men, armed, had made a raid. The Solicitor General went on to say that the Government had asked simply to be armed with powers to deprive would-be murderers of their weapons; and at the end of his speech he said that the Act would only be put in force where it was absolutely necessary for the preservation of peace that the people should be disarmed. Could the Government positively and definitely assure Parliament that the state of Ireland was today anything like it was in 1881? He therefore maintained that it was an abuse of the forms of the House to pass an Act of this sort in a Continuance Bill which was originally framed to meet a wholly different condition of affairs.
§ MR. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)
said he regretted that the short time at his disposal would not permit him to draw attention at length to the neglect of the Government to prevent the firing of revolvers from trains on the occasion of Orange demonstrations. Nearly a quarter of a century ago the Government of the day assured the House that this matter was receiving their careful consideration, and, when this year a similar question was put to the Chief Secretary, the same reply was made. He supposed that twenty-five years hence they should have another English gentleman getting up and telling the House that the matter was receiving the careful consideration of the Government, Everybody knew how Orange demonstrations were got up in Ireland. Men were imported from all parts of the country, 580 most of them armed, and all of them drunk; and these gentlemen fired off revolvers in the gaiety of their hearts, but no prosecutions followed. There was an Orange demonstration where a young Catholic was shot, and the evidence of the police was that the Orangemen had carried away with them sackfuls of rifles. Yet they were told that the Act was impartially administered ‡ In the columns of the Dublin Daily Express, the organ of the landlords in Ireland, there appeared a description of an Orange demonstration.Some pistol shots," it was stated, "were fired in the air in the outskirts of the crowd, and immediately the fire was taken up by several hundreds of persons. Pistols and rifles were produced on all sides, and a continuous fusillade was carried on for fifteen minutes, which the Orange leaders vainly endeavoured to stop. And one would have thought he was the spectator of a sham fight. The police tried to stop the display, which the Orangemen regarded as a splendid joke.Then, this year revolver shots were fired from an Orange excursion train at Newry, and several people were wounded. Only one arrest was made, and although the man had his pockets stuffed with cartridges, the magistrate discharged him because it had not been proved that he had any intention of killing anybody‡ In the south of Ireland, if a man was found with a revolver in his pocket he would be sentenced to the plank bed. He noticed that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh, had been making a speech in his constituency in which he attacked the hon. Member for South Belfast because that hon. Member had announced his intention of marching over to Rome at the head of an army of Orangemen to drive the Pope from his throne. He should think that that hon. Member would have to march at the head of a very formidable body of men to do that. It was perfectly manifest to anyone who watched the administration of the Arms Act in Ireland that it was used in the most one-sided manner. In the north of Ireland any Orangeman could get a permit to carry arms from the magistrate at once.
§ Question put. "That the Question be now put."582
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 162; Noes, 76. (Division List No. 409.)583
|Agg-Gardner, John Tynte||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Forster, Henry William||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Foster, Philip S (Warwick, S. W.||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Galloway, William Johnson||Percy, Earl|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'ml'ts||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'er||Gore, Hn G. R. CO rmsby-(Salop||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Purvis, Robert|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Greene, Sir EW (B'ry SE dm'nds||Randles, John S.|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Rankin, Sir James|
|Bignold, Arthur||Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs)||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Bigwood, James||Gretton, John||Richards, Henry Charles|
|Bill, Charles||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Groves, James Grimble||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson|
|Bond, Edward||Hamilton, Rt Hn L'rd G (Midd'x||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Brassey, Albert||Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd nd'rry||Ropner, Colonel Robert|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St John||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Heath, James (Staffords. N. W.||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Henderson, Sir Alexander||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hickman, Sir Alfred||Seton-Karr, Henry|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn J. A. (Worc.||Hoult, Joseph||Sinclair, Louis (Rom ford)|
|Charrington, Spencer||Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm||Smith, H. C (N'th'mb. Tyneside|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Johnstone, Heywood||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop.||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Spear, John Ward|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow||Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool||Stroyan, John|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Lawson, John Grant||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Valentia, Viscount|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Walrond, Rt Hn. Sir William H.|
|Cust, Henry John C.||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Whiteley, H. (Ashton und Lyne|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Macartney, Rt. Hn W. G. Ellison||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Davenport, William Bromley-||Macdona, John Cumming||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Denny, Colonel||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E. R.)|
|Dickinson, Robert Edmond||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Digby, John K. D. Wingfield||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire||Wilson, J. W (Worcestersh, N.)|
|Doughty, George||Malcolm, Ian||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Milvain, Thomas||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Darning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Montagu, Hon. J Scott (Hants.)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Moore, William (Antrim, N.)||Younger, William|
|Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r||Morgan, David J (Walth'mst'w|
|Finch, George H.||Morrell, George Herbert||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Mount, William Arthur||Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Murray, Rt Hn A Graham (Bute|
|Fitz Gerald, Sir Robert Penrose-||Myers, William Henry|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Caldwell, James||Cullinan, J.|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Dalziel, James Henry|
|Black, Alexander William||Causton, Richard Knight||Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)|
|Brigg, John||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Delany, William|
|Buxton, Sydney Charles||Crean, Eugene||Devlin, Joseph|
|Doogan, P. C.||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Ffrench, Peter||M'Crae, George||Rigg, Richard|
|Flynn, James Christopher||M'Kean, John||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Gilhooly, James||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Markham, Arthur Basil||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Healy, Timothy Michael||Moss, Samuel||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Helme, Norval Watson||Murphy, John||Sullivan, Donal|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Horniman, Frederick John||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Thomas, J A (Glam'r'gan, Gower|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.||Nussey, Thomas Willians||Tomkinson, James|
|Jordan, Jeremiah||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'r'ry, Mid||Toulmin, George|
|Joyce, Michael||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||While, Luke (York. E. R.)|
|Kennedy, Patrick James||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.||O'Donnell. T. P. (Kerry, W.)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.|
|Leamy, Edmund||O'Dowd, John||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Leng, Sir John||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
|Levy, Maurice||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N|
|Lough, Thomas||O'Shee, James John||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.|
|Lundon, W.||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Pirie, Duncan V.|
§ (12.3.) Question put accordingly, "That lines 30 and 31 stand part of the Schedule."584
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 160: Noes, 75. (Division List No. 410.)585
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Hoult, Joseph|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Davenport, William Bromley||Howard, John (Kent, Faversh'm|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Denny, Colonel||Johnstone, Heywood|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Dickinson, Robert Edmond||Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Doughty, George||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lawrence, Sir Jos'ph (Monm'th|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Duke, Henry Edward||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool|
|Balfour, Rt Hn Gerald W (Leeds||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin||Lawson, John Grant|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Fellowes, Hon. Ailwyn Edward||Long, Rt. Hon Walter (Bristol, S|
|Bignold, Arthur||Finch, George H.||Lonsdale, John Brownlee|
|Bigwood, James||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne||Loyd, Archie Kirkman|
|Bill, Charles||Fisher, William Hayes||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth|
|Bond, Edward||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Macartney, Rt Hn. W. G. Ellison|
|Brassey, Albert||Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Macdona, John Cumming|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Forster, Henry William||MacIver, David (Liverpool)|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Foster, Philip S.(Warwick, S. W||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Galloway, William Johnson||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Malcolm, Ian|
|Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.||Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH ml'ts||Milvain, Thomas|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Gore, Hn. GR.C. Ormsby-(Salop||Montagu G. (Huntingdon)|
|Cecil Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.||Greene, Sir E W (B'ry S Edm'nds||Moore, William (Antrim, N.)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn J. A (Worc.||Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)|
|Charrington, Spencer||Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)||Morgan, David J. (Walth'mst'w|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Gretton, John||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Greville, Hon. Ronald||Mount, William Arthur|
|Coghill, Douglas Harry||Groves, James Grimble||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute|
|Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Hamilton, Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||Myers, William Henry|
|Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry||Nicol, Donald Ninian|
|Colston, Charles Edw. H. Athole||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)|
|Compton, Lord Alwyne||Harris, Frederick Leverton||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Pemberton, John S. G.|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)||Heath, James (Staffords, N. W||Percy, Earl|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Henderson, Sir Alexander||Plummer, Walter R.|
|Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Hickman, Sir Alfred||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Cust, Henry John C.||Hope, J. F.(Sheffield, Brightside||Purvis, Robert|
|Randles, John S.||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Rankin, Sir James||Smith, H. C (N'th'mb. Tyneside||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Reid, James (Greenock)||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.|
|Ridley, Hon. M. W (Stalybridge||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||Spear, John Ward||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.|
|Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.|
|Ropner, Colonel Robert||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Round, Rt. Hon. James||Stroyan, John||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Royds, Clement Molyneux||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford-||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Younger, William|
|Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Seely Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight||Valentia, Viscount||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—|
|Seton-Karr, Henry||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H||Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)||Whiteley, H. (Ashton-und. Lyne|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Joyce, Michael||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Kennedy, Patrick James||O'Shee, James John|
|Black, Alexander William||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Brigg, John||Leamy, Edmund||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Caldwell, James||Leng, Sir John||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Levy, Maurice||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Lough, Thomas||Rigg, Richard|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Lundon, W.||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Crean, Eugene||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)|
|Cullinan, J.||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Dalziel, James Henry||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||M'Crae, George||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Delany, William||M'Kean, John||Sullivan, Donal|
|Devlin, Joseph||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Thomas, David Alf. (Merthyr)|
|Doogan, P. C.||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Thomas, J A (Glam'rgan, Gower|
|Evans, Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Markham, Arthur Basil||Tomkinson, James|
|Ffrench, Peter||Moss, Samuel||Toulmin, George|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Murphy, John||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Gilhooly, James||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.|
|Hayne, Rt. Hn. Charles Seale-||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|Healy, Timothy Michael||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'r'ry, Mid|
|Helme, Norval Watson||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.|
|Horniman, Frederick John||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)|
|Jones, Williams (Carnarv'nshire||O'Dowd, John|
|Jordan, Jeremiah||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)|
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 158; Noes 74. (Division List No. 411.)
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Brotherton, Edward Allen||Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)|
|Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel||Burdett-Coutts, W||Cubitt, Hon. Henry|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Cust, Henry John C.|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Dalrymple, Sir Charles|
|Arnold-Forster, Hugh O.||Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Davenport, W. Bromley-|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. (Birm.||Denny, Colonel|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. JA (Worc.||Dickinson, Robert Edmond|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Charrington, Spencer||Digby, John K. D. Wingfield-|
|Balfour, Rt Hon Gerald W (Leeds||Clive, Captain Percy A.||Doughty, George|
|Banbury, Frederick George||Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-|
|Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Coghill, Douglas Harry||Duke, Henry Edward|
|Bignold, Arthur||Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse||Durning-Lawrence, Sir Edwin|
|Bill, Charles||Colomb, Sir John Charles Ready||Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Fellowes, Hn. Ailwyn Edward|
|Bond, Edward||Comptan, Lord Alwyne||Finch, George H.|
|Brassey, Albert||Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Corbett, T. L. (Down, North||Fisher, William Hayes|
|Brookfield, Colonel Montagu||Cranborne, viscount||FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose-|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward Algernon||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Fletcher, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Forster, Henry William||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Sackville, Col. S. G. (Stopford-|
|Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, S. W||Lucas, Reginald J. (Portsmouth||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Macartney, Rt Hn W. G. Ellison||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Godson, Sir Augustus Frederick||Macdona, John Cumming||Seely, Maj. J. E. B (Isle of Wight|
|Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlts||MacIver, David (Liverpool)||Shaw-Stewart, M. H. (Renfrew)|
|Gore, Hn G.R C. Ormsby-(Salop||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)||Smith, H. C. (N'th'mb. Tyneside|
|Greene, Sir EW (B'ry S Edm'nds||Malcolm, Ian||Smith, James Parker (Lanarks.|
|Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)||Milvain, Thomas||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Greene, W. Raymond-(Cambs.)||Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)||Spear, John Ward|
|Gretton, John||Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)||Stanley Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk|
|Greville, Hon. Ronald||Moore, William (Antrim, N.)||Stanley, Lord (Lancs.)|
|Groves, James Grimble||More, Robt. Jasper (Shropshire)||Stroyan, John|
|Humilton Rt Hn Lord G (Midd'x||Morgan, David J (W'lthamst'w||Sturt, Hon. Humphry Napier|
|Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'rry||Morrell, George Herbert||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Mount, William Arthur||Thornton, Percy M|
|Harris, Frederick Leverton||Murray, Rt Hn A. Graham (Bute||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley||Myers, William Henry||Valentia, Viscount|
|Heath, James (Statfords., N. W.)||Nicol Donald Ninian||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H.|
|Henderson, Sir Alexander||Palmer, Walter (Salisbury)||Whiteley, H (Ashton und. Lyne|
|Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Hickman, Sir Alfred||Pemberton, John S. G.||Willox, Sir John Archibald|
|Hope, J. F. (Sh'ffield, Brights'de||Percy, Earl||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.|
|Hoult, Joseph||Plummer, Walter R.||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Howard, John (Kent, F'versh'm||Pretyman, Ernest George||Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)|
|Johnstone, Heywood||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward||Wilson-Todd, Wm. H. (Yorks.)|
|Kenyon-Slaney, Col. W. (Salop||Purvis, Robert||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B Stuart-|
|Lambton, Hon. Frederick. Wm||Randles, John S.||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Rankin, Sir James||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Lawrence, Sir Joseph (Monm'th||Reid, James (Greenock)||Younger, William|
|Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Ridley, Hon. M. W. (Stalybridge|
|Lawson, John Grant||Ritchie, Rt. Hn. Chas. Thomson||TELLER FOR THE AYES—|
|Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)||Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Mr. Anstruther.|
|Long, Rt. Hn Walter (Bristol, S)||Ropner, Colonel Robert|
|Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.)||Joyce, Michael||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo. N|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Kennedy, Patrick James||O'kelly, James (Roscommon, N.|
|Black, Alexander William||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)||O'Shee, James John|
|Brigg, John||Leamy, Edmund||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Caldwell, James||Leng, Sir John||Pirie, Duncan V.|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Levy, Maurice||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Lough, Thomas||Rickett, J Compton|
|Crean, Eugene||Lundon, W.||Rigg, Richard|
|Cullinan, J.||MacDonnell, Dr. Mark A.||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Dalziel, James Henry||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Delany, William||M'Crae, George||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Devlin, Joseph||M'Kean, John||Sheehan, Daniel Daniel|
|Doogan, P. C.||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Evans Samuel T. (Glamorgan)||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Ffrench, Peter||Markham, Arthur Basil||Thomas, J A (Gl'morgan, Gower|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Moss, Samuel||Tomkinson, James|
|Gilhooly, James||Murphy, John||Toulmin, George|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Nannetti, Joseph P.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Hayne, Rt. Hon. Charles Seale-||Nolan, Joseph (Lonth, South)||Whitley, J.H. (Halifax)|
|Healy, Timothy Michael||Nussey, Thomas Willans||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Helme, Norval Watson||O'Brien, Kendal (Tipp'r'ry, Mid||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||O'Brien, P.J. (Tipperary, N.)|
|Horniman, Frederick John||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Jones, William (Carnarv'nshire||O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)||Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.|
|Jordan, Jeremiah||O'Dowd, John|
§ Question put, "That this be the Schedule to the Bill."587
§ It being after midnight, and objection being taken to further proceedings, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow.588
§ MR. SPEAKER,
in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 16th October, adjourned the House without Question put.
§ Adjourned at half after Twelve o'clock.