HC Deb 21 February 1905 vol 141 cc834-80

Order read, for resuming adjourned debase on Amendment [February 20th] to Main Question [February 14th], "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—

"Most Gracious Sovereign,

"We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—

Which Amendment was— At the end of the Question, to add the words, 'But humbly represent to Your Majesty that the present system of Government in Ireland is in opposition to the will of the Irish people, and gives them no voice in the management of their own affairs; that the system is consequently ineffective and extravagantly costly, does not enjoy the confidence of any section of the population, and is productive of universal discontent and unrest, and has proved to be in. capable of satisfactorily promoting the material and intellectual progress of the people.'"—(Mr-John Redmond.) Question again proposed, "That those words be there added.

Mr. PURVIS (Peterborough)

said he did not propose to join in the wrangle which had taken place over Sir Antony MacDonnell. The two extreme Parties in Ireland were struggling to obtain and exploit the Administration of the day. The point for English Members was far more important than anything connected with either the Chief Secretary or Sir Antony MacDonnell. The essential words of the Amendment asserted that the present system of government in Ireland was in opposition to the will of the Irish people, and, by way of comment on that, the hon. Member for Waterford stated that the Amendment involved the whole question of the government of Ireland, and made clear the fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite were irrevocably committed to Home Rule, and sought to put into the hands of the Irish people the management of their own affairs. Hon. Members from Ireland declared themselves to be the exponents of Irish opinion; but did the hon. Gentlemen go as far as Irish opinion in Ireland itself did. Hon. Members had disclaimed, in the course of that debate, complete separation and spoke of devolution; he was not very sure that the majority of the people of Ireland did not go further than that. Let hon. Members suppose that the majority of the Irish people desired complete separation, would the exponents of Irish opinion in this House defer in such a case to the opinion of the Irish people in Ireland or not? If they did, what became of all this talk of devolution. If they did not, what became of their principles as the champions of the Irish people and the exponents of Irish opinion. If they did not defer to Irish opinion then they wore not striving for what the Irish people themselves thought best, but what they thought best for the Irish people. The Unionist Party was in much the same position, they also were striving not for what they believed the Irish people thought best for themselves, but for what they thought was best for the Irish people. The principle of the Nationalist Members and the Unionist Members was the same, the only difference was in its application. Irish Nationalist Members opposite did not argue for complete separation which meant a separate Army, a separate Navy and separate diplomacy, but for separate legislation, and the Unionist Members were of opinion that separate legislation would be dangerous and would lead to all the rest. They believed that with regard to foreign diplomacy and other matters Ireland could not be prosperously separated from the United Kingdom; it was a case of common action for mutual advantage.

He did not wish to enter historically into this question, but he would just remind hon. Members opposite that a Parliament had been tried in Ireland, and that Grattan's Parliament was found to be absolutely intolerable. He could see no reason why the same argument for separation and Home Rule in Ireland should not be applied to England and to Wales. But supposing that wore carried into effect the result would be that there would be first, a supreme Convention, next a Federal Parliament, then four subservient Executives, and in such a state of things as that what became of Ministerial responsibility? It would be a state of chaos come again. It seemed to him that devolution was only a device to induce this country to give a concession to Ireland which would necessarily involve further concessions. He was somewhat of an optimist in Irish matters; he believed that the Irish were not irreconcilable. Changes had been made with regard to Ireland which had amounted to a social revolution, and by the various Land Acts which had been passed much had been done to remedy the wrongs from which Ireland had suffered. He was a great admirer of the Irish people, and was not without hope that what had happened to Scotland would eventually happen to Ireland. Scotland for centuries had been a separate kingdom with a national life of its own. It became united to this country and the people of Scotland furbished up their claymores and matchlocks and invaded England asserting their right to Home Rule vi et armis. Both in 1715 and 1745 they got as far as Derby and frightened the people of London out of their wits, but were then beaten back, and being a sensible people they thought better of the matter, shook hands, and had been prosperous eversince. The sea ran high for a long time after the storm had subsided, and he could uot help hoping that after a lapse of time all this old Castle business would have been swept away. The improvements which had been made were not exhaustive, the Government had not reached perfection, nor yet was it in its dotage. It was hard to conceive anything more opposed to the best traditions of modern history than this. During the past fifty years there had been three great political works, favour's work of uniting Italy, Bismarck's work of unifying Germany and turning it into the mightiest of Continental countries, and the War of Secession in America, in which the patriotism of the Northerners prevented the dismemberment of the United States. Should Britain wreck an Empire so great that every fourth child born into the world is born a British subject, when she is at the present moment seeking by some system of common defence between herself and her Colonies to bind their young vigour to her ancient strength? Should she introduce the principle of dissolution at her very heart? It could never be, nor would Ireland herself ever wish it. when she had her wrongs removed.

MR. MOONEY (Dublin County, S.)

said the hon. Member for South Deny had risen in his place to contradict the statements of fact by the hon. Member for North Louth as to the position in which the Catholics of Ireland were placed with regard to the Royal Irish Constabulary. He did not think the hon. Member for South Derry had attempted intentionally to mislead the House, but rather that he had spoken with an imperfect knowledge of the subject. As a matter of fact the statement that the district inspectorships were filled by competitive examination was only partly true, for, for every vacancy there were five nominations, and after the nominations there was examination. Where the mistake was made, however, was this, that four out of the live nominations went by right to the sons of existing district inspectors, and so the game went merrily on and Catholics were excluded from positions which they would win if they depended on success in competitive examinations. But to leave what was, after all, a small point compared with the larger issues which they had to consider, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had, in his opinion, in no way met the case which had been made out in the course of this debate. In spite of the right hon. Gentleman's declaration of his unaltered and unalterable objection to Home Rule, and in spite of his declaration that there was nothing between Homo Rule and the present system, he had, no longer ago than the previous day, advocated in that House a radical change in the government of Ireland. The hon. Member for Waterford had given many instances of Englishmen who had gone over to Ireland to govern her according to English traditions, yet when they had a mail of distinction attempting to govern Ireland on sympathetic lines they had the remarkable spectacle of the Unionists of Ulster in full revolt. He wondered if the Ulster Unionists had heard of another gentleman who at one time used to make just as fierce attack on English Members in that House who were willing to do justice to Ireland as any ever made by the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh, or by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Antrim. Lord Rossmore was not a gentleman in the habit of mincing matters. He was the Grand Master of the Orangemen of Monaghan, and speaking to the Camla Orange Lodge in 1882, he compared Mr. Gladstone to a mad dog, and said that, If a human mad dog came along and wilfully and wantonly destroyed thousands of people, what ought they to do with him? The mad dog ought to be done away with before it injured more people with its snapping and snarling of Home Rule rabies. But the same Lord Rossmore, with a change of opinion brought about by a wider knowledge of ihe working of the Orange gang, and the C istle system, wrote a short time ago to his friends in Ulster thit it was a source of deep regret to him that Orangemen did not think out matters for themselves. He wrote, and the hon. Member would like to call the attention of the Attorney-General for Ireland to this passage as it appeared to him to have a somewhat personal application— To him they appeared to be following blindly a few professional politicians whose advice seemed to be the result of a contemplation of personal interests. These were not the observations of a rabid Home Ruler, but of an Orange Grand Master, and when they saw such a change as that in. a man of such pronounced views he wanted to know what had caused him to alter his opinion. Was it not that he had had a more intimate acquaintance with the working of Dublin Castle, and that even he had to admit that the system was rotten to the core. They could go on multiplying instances of Englishmen who had gone to Ireland, and who had eatisfied themselves about the miserable character of Irish government. A good many Englishmen at ihe present moment believed that the irifh Members talked bunkum and nonsense, and that Ireland was as well governed as England, but those who had acquired a little experience of Castle government soon became satisfied as to its true character. The hon. Member for Shropshire had deprecated the introduction of personalities and innuendoes into the debates, but did they never do it on the other side, he had some recollection of the personalities indulged in by the Solicitor-General for Engliind and also by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birminghrm. But there was no question of innuendo here at all. Irish Members made a plain and definite statement and said that the right hon. Gentleman had deliberately sacrificed the permanent Under-Secre-tary. The right hon. Gentleman had come to give an explanation of what was called the MacDonnell incident, and he had been asked to produce the correspondence which had taken place between him and Sir Antony MacDonnell, and he had not done so. He did not think the righthon. Gentleman had done himself justice in this matter. The right hon. Gentlemen was asked on Wednesday last to produce the correspondence alleged to have passed between Sir Antony MacDonnell and himself. He had never answered the request to that moment. He did not wish to do the right hon. Gentleman an injustice, but one fact in connection with the letters struck him. The right hon. Gentlemen was challenged in the House as to the extent of his knowledge as to how far Sir Antony MacDonnell was going, and in support of that the charge was made against him that he knew all about the letter which Sir Antony MacDonnell wrote to Lord Dunraven in October, 1903, in which Sir Antony MacDonnell said any help he could give he should be happy to afford by supplying him with facts and information, "but I think, and Mr. Wyndham agrees with me, I had better not appear prominently." The Chief Secretary said that that letter had no reference to the proceedings now under discussion in the House, but the sooner the whole correspondence was produced the better, because if that letter was not written when the negotiations for devolution were going on, it was a very curious thing that the person to whom the letter was sent said, in another place, that it referred to devolution, and that the person to whom it was not written said in this House that it had nothing to do with devolution. The right hon. Gentleman had been asked the previous night if Lord Dudley had been censured by the Cabinet, and his answer was that the Cabinet at that time were not aware that Lord Dudley knew of the negotiations with Sir Antony MacDonnell. What was the position now? There had been a Cabinet meeting that day, he understood, and they were now in full possession of the facts. He wanted to know if the cersure of the Cabinet had been now extended to Lord Dudley. The right hon. Gentleman would have appeared in a much better light if he had given a straightforward answer to a straightforward question, instead of having had statement after statement dragged out of him as from a reluctant witness. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich had delivered a gratuitous lecture on nationalities, and had said that the Home Rule question was dead and buried. It seemed to him, from the choruses sung on the Benches opposite and on those Benches, that Home Rule, instead of being dead, was very much alive, and that they were assisting at the demise of the Unionist Party, and of the Castle government policy in Ireland. It was not often they wished a speedy death to anyone, or anything, but certainly every Irishman desired a speedy death to the Castle system of government in Ireland.

The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim had, in a speech which almost everyone listened to, enthusiastically delivered a great indictment against the Government, but it looked as if his courage was evaporating as the division hour approached, and that after all his professions of dissatisfaction with the Government, he would not be found in the Opposition lobby. The colleagues of the hon. Member—the reserves as he called them— were not showing much alacrity in obeying the summons addressed to them, and when the 3rd of March came they would probably be as hard to mobilise anywhere outside the Treasury Bench, as would the paper Army Corps of the Member for West Belfast. As long as the Ulster Members had five of their number in the Government, the Unionists of Ireland would come there and make most violent assaults against the Government, but they would never have the courage of their convictions to vote against it if they thought they might find a chance of a sixth, seventh, or eighth place in the Government of the day.


said that the hon. Member who had just sat down would hardly expect him to follow him into his disquisitions on the MacDonnell affair, which were really addressed to the Chief Secretary. In one portion of his speech the hon. Gentleman had referred to some observations made by Lord Rossmore, and rather inferred that that noble Lord had changed his mind and become a Home Ruler.


said he had simply stated that Lord Rossmore had receded from the position which he had taken up in 1882, and was now of opinion that the present system of government in Ireland was impossible.


said that he had gathered from the hon. Member that Lord Rossmore had changed his mind to a greater extent than his Lordship had really done. The hon. Member had given three reasons why Home Rule should be granted— the bad housing in Ireland, the want of drainage, and the fact that there were no forests on the hill territory in that country. He admitted that, to a certain extent, all these things were evils, but only minor evils. They were all agreed that there were bad houses in Ireland, but he did not see how the grant of Home Rule would improve the houses. As to the laud being water-logged, he admitted that largo schemes of drainage were wanted for some parts of the country which would be of benefit to the Irish people; but for the execution of these works British credit was necessary, and as soon as the British people were assured that Ireland was quiet and governed in an ordinary manner in accordance with those ideas which found favour with the English people who lent the money, it would be discovered that money would flow into the country as it had done in the past. He acknowledged that the re-afforestation of the hills was important, and it was a question in which he had taken a great deal of interest. But his neighbour, Dr. Cooper, an authority on the subject, had never been able to persuade him that the re-afforestation of Ireland would be a profitable matter. No doubt it would improve the beauty of the hills, but it was desirable that that should be left to be done by wealthy people.

The hon. Member for St. Patrick's Division asked whether constitutional government in Ireland was not a fraud? Before that question could be answered they had to explain a number of words. The phrase in itself had no meaning whatever. Taking the words in their ordinary acceptation, Ireland was part of the two islands which formed the United Kingdom, and at the present moment it had a certain amount of constitutional representation as perfect as that of the Isle of Wight. The hon. Member must state what views he held of constitutional government. If ho said that Ireland was in itself a nation, and that everything that was a nation ought to have a separate Parliament, then he would establish his proposition. But then the hon. Gentleman must remember that his proposition was not admitted. He did not think that anyone in the House had a right to say that the Chief Secretary had sympathy with the system of devolution promulgated by Lord Dunraven, when that right hon. Gentleman had stated distinctly that he was not, and never had been, in favour of it.

The hon. Member for Bolton, who said he was in favour of Home Rule, had appealed to the Leader of the Opposition to make an authoritative declaration on the question. They on that side of the House naturally sympathised with that wish. They wanted to know exactly what kind of Home Rule it was which the right hon. Gentleman and his followers supported. They might apply the words "Home Rule" to hundreds of different schemes, varying in details and principles. The hon. Member for Bolton had stated that when he was abroad he was always reproached with the British government of Ireland. He did not dispute that entirely, but believed it was absolutely due to ignorance of the real state of that country. People, even on his own side of the House, who lived outside Ireland believed that it was almost a dangerous country to reside in. They thought it was an uncivilised place, and that was the opinion of a very large number of people in England who conceived that there was a certain amount of danger in going about. Of course that view was partly derived from the lurid pictures of the state of Ireland drawn by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was certainly true that their pictures, drawn from the very worst and most unfortunate districts of the country, were applied to the whole of Ireland, and he was sure that the hon. Member for Bolton had not drawn his gloomy picture from personal experience, He, himself, had always found that there was no pleasanter part of the United Kingdom to live in. It was a misfortune that money was kept from investment in the country by these pictures; for what was wanted more than anything else was that money should be spent in that country. Speaking in the capacity of an Irishman for the moment, although he was not one—hon. Members knew perfectly well what he meant—speaking on the ground of having married an Irish wife, he insisted that what was wanted in Ireland was capital.

He did not wish to enter into the details of the case of Sir Antony MacDonnell. The hon. Member for Donegal had said that Sir Antony MacDonnell had been selected as Undersecretary to play the part of a decoy-duck. He believed that the Chief Secretary had selected Sir Antony MacDonnell for the post of Under-Secretary because he thought that gentleman would be useful to him in the administration of Ireland, and that the idea that he was to be a decoy-duck had never entered into the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. It was impossible that anyone who had sat in that House for any time could believe for a moment that the Chief Secretary intended to make a decoy-duck of Sir Antony MacDonnell. The reason for his appointment was that that gentleman's experience, obtained in India, might be useful in Ireland. An hon. Member on that side of the House had objected to Sir Antony MacDonnell, had objected to him on that very ground, because ho thought his Indian experience, instead of being a benefit, would be a hindrance, as Sir Antony would be inclined to follow lines of administration not applicable to Ireland. He would not enter into that question. The objections of himself and those who agreed with him, who were connected with Ireland, to the appointment of Sir Antony MacDonnell were taken on entirely different grounds. In the first place they had absolutely nothing at all to do with that gentleman's religion. Hon. Gentlemen knew that in Ireland itself Unionists usually had the support of wealthy neighbours who happened to be Roman Catholics. Their objections were based on the fact that Sir Antony MacDonnell apparently held—it was not disputed—views which were irreconcilable with those of hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House—views which were diametrically opposed to those which the Chief Secretary had been placed in Ireland to carry out. It was on that account that they believed the appointment was unwise. The Chief Secretary necessarily could not look into every detail of administration, and these had to be put into the hands of the responsible Undersecretary. What had occurred had justified the Unionist opinion as to the unwisdom of Sir Antony MacDonnell's appointment. They, however, repudiated the idea that the Chief Secretary was blameworthy in the matter of the Dunraven devolution agreement.


What about the desertion of Sir Antony Mac-Donnell?


said that there was no question of the desertion of Sir Antony MacDonnell. The Chief Secretary did not know what was happening, and how could they expect a man to know everything that was occurring behind his back? Suddenley, however, the Chief Secretary discovered that Sir Antony MacDonnell had been going further than he would have authorised had he been consulted. Was it to be said that the Chief Secretary, who merely did not know what was being done, had approved of what had been done? The Chief Secretary had absolutely no option, as soon as he heard of what Sir Antony MacDonnell had done, than to say that he disapproved of it, and that it had not been done with his consent. Without destroying the whole system of government he did not see how anyone could blame the Chief Secretary for having done what he did. As to a Catholic University, that was not thoroughly germane to the Amendment, but was one of the grievances brought in by a side wind.


said that the question had been specially mentioned in the Amendment.


said he had always had the very greatest sympathy with the views expressed many times by the First Lord in regard to Catholic University education. It had been shown that the chief cause of complaint in regard to education in Ireland was the ignorance which existed there among the. Roman Catholic population. The Prime Minister felt that that was an evil, and believed that the dispelling of that ignorance would be the very greatest benefit to Ireland and therefore to the United Kingdom. Personally he had always held that any University which could be started in Ireland to enable the Catholic youths of the country to be educated would be of paramount importance. He did not care under what influences it was established. His experience was that the influence exercised over youths in a University after the very impressionable age of, say, thirteen, had very little effect upon them in after life. Indeed, the tendency rather was for a Radical professor to bring up Tory pupils. Therefore he did not place very much stress on the colour of the University; but he felt that the Roman Catholic population of Ireland were in an awkward position. They were told that Trinity College, Dublin, was open to them. That was a perfectly good piece of advice, but—


said he did not think that a discussion on the kind of education to be given in a Catholic University in Ireland was in order.


, on a point of order, said that the Amendment set forth that the Irish Government had proved to be incapable of satisfactorily promoting the material and intellectual progress of the nation, and it seemed to him that the discussion of the provision of University education, acceptable to the majority of the population, was in order.


said it was quite open to the hon. Member to say that there was a want of a University in Ireland, but to proceed to deal with the kind of education to be given in a Catholic University was a different thing.


said he apologised for entering into these details and hoped that the final result of this discussion would be the rejection of the Amendment before the House.


Mr. Speaker, this debate has been very properly and naturally conducted for the most part by Irish Members, and from my particular section of the House there has been a very scanty contribution to the debate; but I think it will be expected and desired that I should say something in the course of the discussion. A few weeks ago there would probably have been—even among those who, like myself, have supported and still continue to support a policy of thorough and fundamental alteration in the whole system of Irish government—a feeling that this Amendment might be regarded almost as inopportune and uncalled for. They might have said that, as during the last two years two great remedial measures have, under the auspices of the Unionist Government, and with the entire and cordial concurrence of all Parties in the House, been carried for Ireland, it would be well to leave the matter of the Irish government until we lad a little further experience of those measures, and of the beneficial working of the extension of popular rights in the Irish counties—and I believe that hitherto that system has been most successful—and, on the other hand, of the further operation of that great revolution in the land question which is of more recent origin. There is a great deal to be said for that view, though I do not know that I should have taken it myself. But now the revelations and disclosures of the last week have completely altered the case, and no one can doubt the extraordinary opportuneness of an Amendment calling attention to the character and condition of the present government of Ireland. This has been a most instructive debate, and has thrown a flood of light upon the question. What puzzles me is, who can vote against the Amendment? Of course, there is the barrier we always encounter at this period of the session—the fact that, according to our rules or conceptions of the matter, a vote for an Amendment to the Address must be resisted by the Government and their followers as if it involved a vote of want of confidence in the Government. But, putting that technical rule aside, has any one remarked the extraordinary fact that, to the best of my observation, not a single Member— not a single Irish Member at any rate—has said a word in favour of the present system of government in Ireland?

The Amendment declares that the present system of government is inefficient, costly, and restrictive of the progress of the country, is estranged from the people, and finds no support from that general confidence of the governed which is the rock upon which any good system of government must be based. What reason have the Government on the merits for disputing this declaration? Consider the question in the light of this MacDomiell episode. When Sir Antony MacDonnell was appointed Under-Secretary he was not an ordinary candidate. He did not rise by promotion in the office. He was taken from the outside; but even there he was not the first man in the street. He had had a distinguished career and had achieved a great position. Yet he takes what in itself was a subordinate position with narrow powers. He was selected by the Government with full knowledge of his views and sympathies. It was not that they took an eminent Indian statesman who had done great service to the Empire in his career, and then, when they had appointed him, discovered that he sympathised with the desires of the mass of the Irish people. They knew all that before they appointed him; so that they must have selected him either because they desired to give him an opportunity of doing something, and of taking some serious steps to improve the government of Ireland, or else they must have appointed him with a view of inducing other people to think that that was what they intended that he should do. The former is the more creditable supposition, and I am quite willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. He was appointed, as we know, on special conditions, of which the Government were completely aware, and to which they were parties in every respect. Not only so. He was given freedom of action of a breadth and scope far beyond that of ordinary officials. He was invited and expected to assist them on certain subjects, among others the organisation of the Government departments and the co-ordination of authorities. The Chief Secretary speaks of him as having been taken into his counsels as a colleague rather than as a clerical assistant. The Cabinet, then, must have felt dissatisfied with the system of government in Ireland, or they never would have attached their sanction to such conditions to the appointment. They must have felt that Sir Antony MacDomiell was peculiarly marked out for the work or they would never have entrusted him with such large powers and freedom of initiative. Here we have the Government gravely dissatisfied with the present condition of things, feeling that something must be done, and that he was the man to do it. In my opinion, looking back upon these facts, and considering the present condition of affairs, we are entitled to have a full disclosure from the Government of the policy they intended and intend to pursue in this matter—not only what they objected to in Sir Antony MacDonnell"s conduct, but what they themselves had and have now in their minds with respect to the management of Irish affairs. Unless we are in possession of that information, how can we properly appreciate the force and necessity of the censure which has been placed upon him? We want to know their view of what Lord Lansdowne called "the old-fashioned and complicated organisation," how it was to be dealt with, and what was to take its place. Without that how can we judge how Sir Antony MacDonnell deserved the blame put upon him? His action was censured as indefensible, not because he went beyond the functions of an ordinary Civil servant in his high position. He had his commission to act with extraordinary authority. At what point, then, did his proceedings become reprehensible and blameworthy? What was it he did? He proceeded to confer with those likely to assist him in this matter. With whom did he confer? Not with Nationalists. If he had, he would have had the sanction of previous Conservative statesmen. He went to pillars of Unionism, to unimpeachable Unionists, to men of the landlord class in Ireland— to the very men who had been mainly instrumental, or, at any rate, had largely helped, in passing the Land Purchase Bill, the great achievement of the present Irish Government. But his conduct is said to be indefensible. "Indefensible" is a strong and, as I think, a fatal word. "Irregular" I could understand. The whole thing was irregular, and improper much of it. But "indefensible," capable of no defence! That is the word which is applied to a man who was acting, as we know, with the knowledge and consent of his superiors in Ireland. Apparently his offence lay in getting these Unionist gentlemen to take soundings on behalf of the Government in order to see how far the governing classes in Ireland and their friends in England could be got to go in enlisting the confidence of the people of Ireland in the government of the country. That is Sir Antony Mac-Donnell's real offence. What a terrible offence it is! Did the policy of the Government, as communicated to him, forbid him to consider and examine the bearings of any suggested changes on the wider question of bringing the Government into a new relation with the people? That is not alleged. And yet his conduct is said to be indefensible. What, then, of the conduct of the Viceroy and the Chief Secretary? How and at what point had that which was patriotic in them become indefensible in Sir Antony MacDonnell? If such matters as an elective financial board or statutory authority with delegated legislative powers were forbidden ground, why was he not told so and warned off? He was allowed to range at large. In censuring Sir Antony MacDonnell, as I say, the Government have in effect censured also the Chief Secretary and certainly the Viceroy.

The Chief Secretary has explained his relations in the matter, and undoubtedly the right hon. Gentleman was largely cognisant of what was going on. We have no reason to know the particular point at which his cognisance ceased. He has quoted some parts of the correspondence. Let us have the whole of this correspondence. For the information of the House, for the satisfaction of the country, for the vindication of the Government, and also to give Sir Antony MacDonnell a chance of vindicating himself against the reprimand to which he has been subjected, I think the whole of that correspondence ought to be made public. The Chief Secretary said that he was aware of—and I think I gathered that he rather liked the idea of—financial independence in Ireland. He has said and done things in the course of the last two or three years which show that that would not be inconsistent with his general view. But he was brought up sharp by the fact that it turned out that, however desirable the Indian financial system for securing local control over financial expenditure might be, however excellent, it was elective. That was quite enough for the Chief Secretary, anything but what was elective! A system which would do very well in India he first of all thought must be very well applicable to Ireland, two countries governed more or less on arbitrary principles; but when he found it was elective, that was another story. Whether that was the only thing that altered the Chief Secretary's mind I do not know. I make an appeal, and, I hope, a temperate, as it is a serious appeal, to moderate men of all Parties in this House, and of course especially to members of the Party opposite. I regret that the appeal should be received with some small suspicion. I appeal to them not to maintain and carry further old prejudices and old antipathies. Can they support the system of government in Ireland of which this Amendment speaks, and for which apparently no word can be said, at any rate has been said, in this House or any other quarter? Have they considered how singular it is that on one occasion after another capable men, some of them distinguished men, have gone over to Ireland full of prejudices against the ideas prevalent in Ireland, and, after examining for themselves the circumstances of the case, have thrown away their prejudices, and have admitted the whole case? Lord Carnarvon, I think, was an instance some years ago. But the other day we had a declaration by Sir West Ridge-way, which, I think, the hon. and learned Member for Waterford referred to. Sir West Ridgeway was not prejudiced one way or the other, he was chosen on accounts of his merits and experience. He was the right hand of the present Prime Minister while he was ruling Ireland by the system which we, on this side at all events, call coercion; he was with him through all that time and did not flinch in the duties imposed upon him. But he tells us now that in 1889 he wrote a Memorandum, he being then in the position of the Under-Secretary. He says— I advocated in that Memorandum the concession of a liberal measure of local government in provincial as well as county councils; the administration of the education grant and other funds raised for that purpose by a local body at least partially elected, with safeguards for the minorities in the various localities; the decen- tralisation of finance, and consequently the loosening of rigid Treasury control; the reorganisation of Dublin Castle, and especially the abolition of that chaotic anachronism—administration by semi-independent boards whereby three men do the work of one; and the erection of a council to advise the Chief Secretary, such as that of the Secretary of State for India, and comprising the representatives of all Parties. Now, I do not say at all that the system, the alterations Sir West Ridgeway sketches out, would be sufficient to meet the desires of many of us, or that they would form an ultimate solution of the question. But it shows at all events that Sir West Ridgeway, from his observation and experience, was satisfied of the truth of this Amendment, and that is the point I wish to make, and that he had not a word to say in defence of the system as it was then exercised.

What is the main cause, after all, of the evils of Irish government? Why is it so inefficient and costly, falling in with no one's wishes, so that even Ulster does not love it? One main reason is that it does not rest on the consent and sympathy of the people. If an official be suspected of being Irish in feeling, as well as perhaps in blood and residence, if he is suspected of sharing the views of the great majority of his countrymen, it is quite enough to bring him the opposition and suspicion of the ruling dominant class in Ireland. Look back, as an instance, to the case of Sir Horace Plunkett and Mr. Gill. Such a system would never be tolerated here. And after all something is due to the feeling of nationality. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich has disputed whether there was any nationality in Ireland, and has even extended that view to Scotland, Wales, and England. I do not know that there is the same individual feeling of nationality in an Englishman as in a Scotsman—he feels that he is a citizen of the Empire, but I mean as a separate entity. It is natural that feeling in the larger country should not be so keen as in the smaller ones. I can quite understand that the noble Lord does not appreciate the feeling of nationality which pervades the other three countries, but when he said that they had no right to claim any nationality, and gave as his reason that there was such a mixture of blood amongst them, I would put it to the noble Lord whether that argument might not carry him a little too far? There is such a thing as race and family. A man may be very proud of belonging to a family that has held a distinguished place in the country for a good many generations; but why should he have that pride seeing that all the wives that, have come into the family have brought an admixture of other blood? There is just as much force in that with regard to family descent as in the noble Lord's argument as to nationality. The fact is, the noble Lord is carried away by a certain love of paradox which appears to run in his family. The truth is that where there is confidence between the Government and the governed there is a healthy circulation of blood, as it were, in the political system; there is progress and activity. In Ireland we have that stagnation and want of enterprise which an arbitrary Government fosters. Is it the fault of the Irish? That is what we used to be told in the early years of this long controversy. They have faults, no doubt, as we have, but if they have why did you give them the control of theii local countv affairs, and, above all, win did you risk "100,000,000 of your credit upon them? It will not do to talk like that. It cannot be maintained for a moment. Therefore I come to this conclusion, if you realise how you stand after the measures that have been passed, that no dispassionate observer of events car dispute the proposition in this Amend merit. They deserve a better govern ment, and a government different in character and of a different order—a government springing from and controlled by the people themselves. of the existing government in Ireland no defence can be found that I know of Not even His Majesty's Government cai dispute, on its merits, this Amendment although they must, of course, oppose its formal expression here, because bi their action in this very matter, which has come so opportunely to enlighten us, they have admitted as much. Holding these strong convictions, we at least, will cordially support the Amend ment.


The speech o the right hon. Gentleman has beei studiouslv moderate in tone, but I think nevertheless, that among all the speeches I have heard from him in recent years it is probably tne most important, in view of the issues which are to be put before the country—[OPPOSITION cries of "When?"]—I have heard for a long time. The right hon. Gentleman was bold enough to say that not even one of His Majesty's Ministers had the courage to defend the existing methods of government in Ireland. If he meant by that that none of His Majesty's Ministers was prepared to assert that no part of the fabric of State was absolutely perfect, of course nobody states that. Nobody states that reforms may not be introduced both into the sphere of government in England and into the sphere of government in Ireland. We have given notice in the Speech from the Throne this year of a change we propose to make with regard to the official arrangements of the departments in England. But if the right hon. Gentleman meant that none of His Majesty's Ministers was prepared to say that the broad lines now existing as to the government of Ireland are the lines which should be observed, I tell him that there is not one of His Majesty's Ministers who for a moment doubts the fact. It is quite true that my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland did not deal with these issues, or, if he did, not at any length in the speech he made earlier in the debate. And why? Because it is only by the right hon. Gentleman, and perhaps by one or two of his predecessors, that the Amendment has been discussed at all. My right hon. friend was not discussing the broad question of Home Rule. He was compelled by the course the debate had taken to deal with questions of a relatively narrow and wholly personal character—[dissent]—well, of a personal character, and in my opinion he dealt with them adequately. [" Oh ! "] In my opinion he dealt with them adequately; and I think that in these two nights debate far too large a portion of time has been devoted to discussing personal questions, and far too little to the greater issues which the right lion. Gentleman has, with such commendable courage, raised almost at the last moment.

I do not propose to detain the House long, but I must say a word upon both the personal aspect and the general aspect of the question which has occupied us through all these hours of debate. Let me say, first, that there is one aspect which has, I think, not been touched upon in any offensive sense, except by one speaker. But one man in the course of the two days debate has cast a doubt upon the word of my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary. The hon. Member for Mayo, and the hon. Member for Mayo alone, in a long and elaborate speech, endeavoured to show that my right hon. friend was concealing the truth.

MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)

We all associate ourselves with that speech.


We believe it.


I am ready to extend to hon. Gentlemen opposite the courtesy they have not extended to my right hon. friend. I accept their statement. I know they believe it, and I say it is not a creditable belief to entertain. The allegation must mean, if it means anything, that my right hon. friend in reality was cognisant of this particular scheme of devolution now known as Lord Dunraven's scheme, that he kept the knowledge of it from the world at large, from the Irish Members, from his supporters in Ireland, from his colleagues in England, from all those who might either agree with him or disagree with him. It must further be held that my right hon. friend was not only betraying the Unionist cause—for that is what it comes to—not only betraying the convictions that through his whole political life he has championed without change, without wavering, with out hesitation, but that, having set to work to make this insidious breach in the Unionist cause, he went abroad and left the poison to work, and, on the very first day of his return, publicly repudiated his own handiwork. That is not merely accusing my right hon. friend of deception; it is accusing him of something on the verge of absolute idiocy. Some hypothesis of this sort might be constructed by the morbid ingenuity of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They might, perhaps, say that no doubt the Chief Secretary did intend this scheme to be thrown before the public for discussion and acceptance, but that when it became known his colleagues or his friends pointed out the dangers of the course, and he hastily withdrew from his position, and repudiated his own handiwork. But my right hon. friend made his repudiation, as it were, at the very hour of landing, without communication with any human being, without consulting his colleagues or his friends, merely because he saw how much mischief this unfortunate declaration was calculated to convey. Conscious that it was in absolute antagonism to all his own views, he did what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo said was an unusual thing for a Cabinet Minister to do, he sat down at once and wrote to The Times a full repudiation of the essential elements of the project. That, Sir, ought to be, and I believe is, conclusive, to every candid man, and I do not think that I shall do my right hon. friend the disservice of thinking that it is worth while arguing further to this House, who know him, or ought to know him, upon the absolute candour and directness of his character.

Then, Sir, I have been asked by the right hon. Gentleman whether Sir Antony MacDonnell had not been given such a latitude at the time when he became Under-Secretary as would justify him in starting these projects on his own account without consulting my right hon. friend, and in support of that theory the right hon. Gentleman quoted a phrase, I think, from Lord Lansdowne, or at all events alluded to the debate in the House of Lords and to the debate here. I think that view is based upon a profound misconception.


It is the view of the Viceroy.


With all respect to the Viceroy, I think if the Viceroy has made that statement, which I do not remember at the moment—


Lord Lansdowne read a letter to that effect in the House of Lords.


The hon. Member knows perfectly well, having sat in this House as a Member of the Irish Party for a number of years, that the person primarily responsible for the government of Ireland is the member of the Irish Government who is in the Cabinet and, after him, the Cabinet itself. I say, therefore, that that view is founded upon a misconception. The misconception appears to be this, and I do not believe that Lord Dudley ever gave his countenance to the theory which I think I may justly attribute to hon. Gentlemen opposite—the theory, namely, that Sir Antony MacDonnell, at the time when he became Undersecretary, was given authority outside his office and irrespective of the Chief Secretary to initiate projects of legislation, or projects which he might consider to be projects of reform. That is the belief, apparently, in which this case has been argued. That, clearly, is entirely inaccurate. After all, what is the status, and what must be the status, of a Civil servant in this country? The person responsible primarily is the Parliamentary head of the office. It depends, no doubt, upon his character and upon the character of the permanent official at the head of his department what shall be the relations between them. In certain cases it may have happened in the administrative history of this country that, either through the fault of the Parliamentary head or through the fault of the permanent head of the department, the relations between them were little more than the relations of a public servant who submitted minutes and recommendations, and a Parliamentary head of the department who considered, commented on, and decided upon those minutes. I do not think that is the best way of conducting an office. I am glad to think it is not the way in which I personally ever conducted an office. But it is a way in which offices have sometimes been conducted, and it is perfectly consistent with the scheme of government in this country. You may go from that extreme case at one end of the scale up through the whole gamut, and you will reach a condition of things, far more satisfactory in my view and according to my experience, in which the Parliamentary head of the department discusses in the freest and most open manner every aspect of the policy connected with his department, in which the permanent head of the department feels that he is on such terms with his chief that he can give advice, make suggestions, and initiate policies for the consideration of his chief. That, I think, is the method, if it can be practised, by which most is got out of that admirable body of men, the Civil Service, and by which the Parliamentary and responsible head is most likely to be well served.

In the case of this great and distinguished Indian official, the Government went outside the ordinary Civil Service, and Sir Antony MacDonnell had the right, as others in a similar condition have had the right—and he was justified in exercising that right, as others have exercised the right—of insisting that if he were temporarily to leave the main line of his career he should, at all events, be in a position of absolute confidence with the man under whom he was to serve. But it has never been suggested that Sir Antony MacDonnell had powers outside the ordinary office of the Chief Secretary. It has never been suggested that those were the terms on which he was asked to serve. They manifestly I could not be the terms. It is an impossibility, because what do they amount to? Let the House consider. You have a government of Ireland for which the Chief Secretary is responsible to the Cabinet, and the Cabinet is responsible to this House. But if any Civil servant were placed in the position in which hon. Members have fondly supposed Sir Antony MacDonnell was placed, is it not plain that you would have—or you might have—the Chief Secretary and the Cabinet committed to a policy of which they had never heard, and for which they could not be responsible. And I do not believe that in the wildest dreams of Constitution-mongers it would be suggested that even in the worst form of government—which I suppose in the view of hon. Members opposite would be the government of Ireland—there should be an official not directly responsible to the House, not a member of the Cabinet, not a member of the Government, and nevertheless having the power and the right to initiate great schemes and policies about which the Cabinet had never been consulted.


Will the right lion. Gentleman publish the letter containing the terms of the appointment?


I am stating what I believe to be the fact. ["Oh, oh!"] I am stating what obviously must be the fact. ["Oh!"] Does anybody—can anybody believe after the description I have given of the inevitable relations between the officials and the Government—["Oh, oh!"]—does anybody believe that a Government would be so insane as to allow policies to be initiated in their name on which they had never been consulted? ["Oh, oh!"] The proposition has only to be stated for its absurdity to appear.


I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but the Chief Secretary said he would be desirous that the letter should see the light.


Then let the hon. Gentleman ask the Chief Secretary. ["Oh, oh!"] I see no reason why the letter should be published. ["Oh, oh!"] I can assure hon. Gentlemen that the Government never would be responsible for so wild a project as that I have described, I suppose I have not taken pains to make myself clear, because otherwise so plain a truth could hardly remain obscure, If there is any hon. Gentleman opposite I who has had any converse with the practices of government, or if he has ever thought of the way government is carried on, he will not believe for a moment there could be such a position. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose would never, under any circumstances, not even if the Archangel Gabriel offered his services as permanent Under-Secrctary for Irish affairs, allow even that angelic Minister to initiate a policy of which he was not to be informed and for which he was to be responsible.

MR. JOHN MORLEY (Montrose Burghs)

I never would have allowed the Archangel Gabriel or any other candidate to hold a position in an office of which I was the head on any special terms at all—it is unconstitutional, novel, and mischievous. I only wish to ask, is not the Lord-Lieutenant part of the Government?


The right hon. Gentleman has travelled by his question to another part of the subject, and I am willing to follow him. He asks whether the Lord-Lieutenant is not part of the Government. Of course the Lord' Lieutenant is a portion of the Government, but when the Chief Secretary is in the Cabinet, and the Lord-Lieutenant is not, the Lord-Lieutenant is not, in any true sense of the word, the head of the Irish Administration. The very last man in the world to deny that proposition would be the right hon. Gentleman himself. That, I think, disposes of the allegation that permission or consent, not given by the Chief Secretary, could be given by the Lord-Lieutenant.


It was given.


It could not be.


It really was.


The hon. Member is mistaken; it was not. It is true that the Lord-Lieutenant did discuss the matter with Sir Antony MacDonnell, and he understood from Sir Antony MacDonnell that the Chief Secretary did know what was going on. ["Oh, oh!"]


Does the right hon. Gentleman call Sir Antony MacDonnell a liar?


Sir Antony MacDonnell was mistaken. ["Oh, oh!"] Is that an impossibility? No man in the House has greater admiration than I have for Sir Antony MacDonnell's administrative achievements; but he is not infallible, and in this instance he made a mistake, and in consequence the Lord-Lieutenant believed erroneously ["Oh, oh! "]—erroneously that my right hon. friend did know of this Home Rule project. ["Oh, oh!" and "Produce the letter."] I am not criticising either Sir Antony MacDonnell or Lord Dudley in this matter, but I am stating what occurred. One hon. Member asks if I call Sir Antony MacDonnell a liar. He is very fond of making suggestions of that sort, and occupied an hour and a-half this afternoon in making them. ["Oh, oh!"] I have the profoundest confidence in Sir Antony MacDonnell's ability, and I have the profoundest confidence in his honour; but have hon. Members never heard of misunderstanding between two men of absolutely unblemished and untarnished honour? Is that outside their experience? Has there never been misunderstanding in that happy family? No, Sir; I profoundly regret a misunderstandirg like that which has occurred, but I refuse for one instant to entertain the suggestion that it touches the honour even in the smallest degree of any one of the persons concerned. I think it will be admitted by all who have listened to this debate that this personal aspect of the affair would not have excited the vehement passion of which we have seen evidence both yesterday and to-day had it not been associated with a cause which is itself calculated to excite, and has excited in our recent political history, the most vehement passions between, different Parties, different individuals, and different sections of society. Mv noble fiiend the Member for Greenwich, in a very interesting speech made yesterday, told the House that in his judgment Home Rule was dead or swooning.


It is more alive than himself.


He recommended my hon. friends from Ulster to do nothing by their speech or their action to suggest to the British public that this question was still a living one. I agree with a great deal that my noble friend said in his speech, but I do not agree with that particular statement. I think that if he had listened to the debate as it progressed to-night he would have come to the conclusion that Home Rule is not dead, that Home Rule is not even swooning, but that it is in a high state of activity, and, at all events on that Bench, it has a considerable measure of activity still left to it. My memory goes back to the election of 1880 and to the controversies which preceded that election. There was hardly a man in the country carried away by the vehemence of the controversy which Mr. Gladstone had raised on the question of the Near East, there was not an elector whose vote was changed by that mighty storm of impassioned eloquence, who even dreamt that the problem of Ireland was coming upon them in the acutest stage within the next few months. Mr. Gladstone was returned to power; the Near East was absolutely forgotten as if it had never existed; and we found ourselves in the middle of an Irish controversy which for its bitterness has never been exceeded even in some of the bitterest years which have succeeded. What happened in 1885? In 1885 there was an appeal to the country, and after the controversy on which that appeal was made—an appeal of an electoral kind connected with a Reform Bill—no one dreamt that Home Rule was upon them. It never crossed their imaginations, or those of Mr. Gladstone's colleagues, that he would propose within a few months to attempt to carry a great scheme of Home Rule. I remind my noble friend of these facts, and he has only to listen to what comes from the Benches opposite to know that Home Rule is one of the most living and burning questions that we have got to deal with.

The hon. Member for North Louth in a brilliant speech this afternoon described himself, his Party, and his country as being trodden under the heel of an alien tyranny. In the rest of his speech he explained how they had turned out Mr. Gladstone in 1885, how they had turned out the Tories in 1892—I forget how many other Governments they had turned in. It seems to me that these Government-makers can hardly complain of being trodden under the heel of British tyranny and at the same time boast that they are the makers of British Administrations. The two things are hardly consistent. I believe that of the two statements, neither of which is absolutely accurate, the second is much more accurate than the first. I believe that the political power which these gentlemen wield and boast of using——


The right hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken in saying that I boasted of it. I did nothing of the kind.


If the hon. and learned Member will look at the report of his speech he will see that he spoke of the Irish Party turning out Mr. Gladstone here and the Tory Party there; and he quoted a document in which the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool requested all Nationalists to vote for the Tory candidates, which, by the way, they did not do.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)

The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. They did, and we expelled from the organisation every Irishman that did not.


This is an appalling revelation as to the secrecy of the ballot.


You said the same thing.




The right hon. Gentleman said that though the Irish electors were advised to vote for the Tory candidates they did not do so.


The right hon. Gentleman will know, if he takes any trouble, that the fact whether the Irish vote goes with you or against you is tolerably obvious from the canvassers. [Cries of "Oh!"] But what I want the House, and not least hon. Gentlemen on this side, to realise is that to-night not a new departure, but a new reaffirmation of an old principle, is in the act of being made by the whole of the Party opposite. The hon. Member for Bolton in his speech earlier in the evening adjured his leaders to take a plain, open, and candid course on Home Rule. He said he was a Home Ruler, and that the sympathies of the Party opposite were all for Home Rule, and what they wanted was a lead. I imagine that I am to take the utterances of the right hon. Gentleman this evening as a lead. They were not given in the triumphant tones of a leader assured of his followers; but at all events did state with adequate lucidity that he had been a Home Ruler, that he was a Home Ruler, and that he thought that Home Rule was an impending and immediate question.


As a matter of fact, I do not think I used a single one of the words attributed to me by the right hon. Gentleman.


I do not profess to be quoting the right hon. Gentleman. Am I, then, to understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not consider Home Rule to be an impending and immediate question? [Cries of "Oh!") Does he belong to the academic school of the right hon. Gentleman near him?


He belongs to the school of MacDonnell."


This continual running commentary makes it impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to continue his speech.


I make no complaint; but the House will recognise that I have not been treated with the consideration and courtesy extended to the Leader of the Opposition. I do not think that the House has failed to follow the trend of my argument, and my argument is this, that, whereas last night the more sanguine of us might perhaps have taken the view of my noble friend the Member for Greenwich—we might have taken the view that the only object of hon. Gentlemen opposite was decently to bury Home Rule—no man can take that view to-night. No man after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and after the speeches of other Members below the gangway can doubt that the power of which the hon. Member for Louth spoke is going to be exercised in the future as they have endeavoured to exercise it in the past for driving the not unwilling flock in front of them. [An HON. MEM- BER: What about Wyndham?] Now, Sir, if that be, as I think it is, the situation in which we stand, I would ask my hon. friends from Ulster, who have naturally taken so anxious an interest in this question, whether they think that in this, perhaps the first of the skirmishes in the new combats that are going to take place around this great central and perennial problem, whether they think that in that skirmish they should be found lagging behind. They have made boast not untruly, of the courageous loyalty with which they have served the Unionist Party. We cannot flatter ourselves that the battle in which they have taken so creditable a part is a battle which is over. But I look forward to its consummation without anxiety and without fear if, and if only, the great Party which has ranged itself in favour of the Union remains undivided and undisturbed. [OPPOSITION laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laugh when I describe it as a great Party. It has hurled them to defeat in the past; it will hurl them yet again to defeat in the future. [Cries of "Try it then."] I trust—and this is the only piece of advice which I shall offer to my hon. friends—I think it absolutely vital, if this contest is to be fought out with success, to sink all smaller causes, and, as we are firmly united to attain the end which we have in view, we should not imperil it by any of these smaller controversies, which sink into absolute insignificance beside the great national and Imperial issues which are before us.

MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)

said that although he agreed that the personal question of Sir Antony MacDonnell had taken too large a part in the debate, yet it had an important bearing upon the vital and main question which was now commanding the attention of the House, because the whole of that fresh and novel incident was a striking exemplification of the truth of the proposition stated in the Amendment. It was also an exemplification and demonstration of the fact that the present system of governing Ireland was intolerable, and not in accordance with constitutional principles. Every one of the propositions contained in the Amendment they had defended and were prepared to defend, and to each of those propositions the assent of a very large body of Members of the House of Commons was about to be given. The Amendment proposed to— Represent to Your Majesty that the present system of government in Ireland is in opposition to the will of the Irish people. Who could deny that? The truth of that proposition had been demonstrated by returns to Parliament at election after election almost with-out variation, and four-fifths of the representatives of the Irish people had, session after session, and Parliament after Parliament affirmed its truth. The next proposition in the Amendment was that it Gives them no voice in the management of their own affairs. It was true that the present system gave them a voice in the sense of enabling them to register their protest against the mismanagement of their affairs, but it gave them, in the spirit in which that voice was accepted and regarded by the majority in this House, no effective voice in the management of their own affairs at all. They often protested, but their protests were disregarded. Quite a different spirit was manifested with reference to the affairs of Scotland. Scotland might find progress slower than she desired in regard to her reforms, but there was no attempt made in the House of Commons to legislate for her in opposition to the will of the people, and Scotch legislation was in accordance with the views of the majority of the representatives for Scotland. Why was Ireland treated differently? The fact that any proposal had the support of the Nationalists generally caused it to be regarded with suspicion. The Amendment further suggested— That the system is consequently ineffective and extravagantly costly, does not enjoy the confidence of any section of the population. Was that disputed? If so, he would refer hon. Members to the words of Lord Lansdowne, himself an Irish landlord, in his speech in another place, in which he spoke of the condition of Irish government and its defects. That the Irish Government did not enjoy the confidence of any section of the population had been abundantly proved by the speeches which had been made during the debate. The Amendment concluded by affirming that the present system of government in lreland Is productive of universal discontent and unrest, and has proved to be incapable of satisfactorily promoting the material and intellectual progress of the people. In his opinion Irishmen would be unworthy of their name and fame if they were otherwise than unrestful under such a system of government. With regard to the material and intellectual progress of the people did any one contend that the present Government was even capable of satisfactorily promoting the material progress of Ireland? If they contrasted the population of Ireland and its resources, its wealth and its poverty in the scale of all things material, with that of their more fortunate neighbours on this side of the Channel; if they contrasted the position of the rulers with those they ruled, he ventured to say that in all these respects they would find that the Irish Government had proved itself incapable of satisfactorily promoting the material progress of the Irish people. The Prime Minister had told them years ago that the Unionist Party would not be doing its duty by the country which it was professing to rule if it did not meet the demand for a Catholic University, which was demanded by fourth-fifths to of the population. Although the right hon. Gentleman in his individual capacity held these views and expressed them in the House, he now declared that it was impossible to give effect to them, or to give Ireland that opportunity of the promoting her intellectual progress which he admitted was her due.

Why was that? It was because the North-east corner of Ireland was represented by hon. Members opposite who were opposed to intellectual progress being carried on in accordance with the views of the great majority of their fellow-countrymen. Had it not been proved by the action of the Chief Secretary for Ireland? The right hon. Gentle-man participated in the Prime Minister's views, but he declared that it was hopeless to attempt to give effect to these views unless there was the consent of that small minority to which he had alluded. Their veto interposed and prevented for all time, or until their hearts changed, the intellectual progress of the Irish people according to the views professed by the first Minister of the country, and also by the Minister who was mainly responsible for the government of the Irish people. The same statement was true of any of the propositions affirmed by the Amendment.

Those who voted against the Amendment had the responsibility imposed on them to find a remedy for the miseries, the injustice, and the distressing conditions which existed in the government of Ireland. The Nationalist Members had not disguised now or at any time what they believed to be the only effective remedy. He ventured to close the debate by repeating the statement that it was by the acceptance of the view that the Irish people should be free conduct their own internal affairs according to their own views, suffering for their misconceptions if they did misconceive, profiting by their experiments if they did make them successfully, and undertaking responsibility for the conduct of their own affairs—in that way and in that alone would they find an effective remedy. The feelings and status of the people must necessarily be degraded so long as they were governed from this House in domestic affairs practically irrespective of their own will, and that degradation would be confirmed and deepened, and the conditions of difficulty and despondency would be made greater, if they were compelled to continue, as they would do, the sacred struggle for the rights of the people. They did not profess absolute I wisdom and omniscience as to the remedy. Experiments had been suggested of one kind and another. Half-way houses had been talked of by various politicians, but no definition had ever been given at any time, except the definition given in the Dunraven programme, of what these steps should be. The Nationalists did not enter into them; they were not their proposals. Their views were in favour of self-government, but it was the bounden duty of those who acknowledged the intolerable condition of the present system, and who conceived that amelioration could be found by some minor change, some progressive change, to produce plans, and when such plans were produced they would, no doubt, receive the respectful and attentive consideration of Irishmen, who, in all the heat of this struggle, had pressed for those material ameliorations, which might be made much more effectively by an Irish Parliament. If any honest plan could be devised for ameliorating the condition at the Irish people, in God's name produce it, and they would consider it, and if it was a scheme which showed signs of amelioration, and which was not proposed to them as a finality or as more than a progressive step, why, of course, it would be considered. But if they proposed to give something which substantially did not accord with that which they believed to be vital and essential, it should be understood by anticipation that they, as a self-respecting people having the national instinct of freedom, must meet the proposal with deserved rejection.

He did not agree that the discussion of the question which had been mainly discussed in the debate was irrelevant. On the contrary, he thought it furnished fresh demonstration of the fact that in these days, after all that had been done, the government of Ireland was condemned by those who were attempting the task of governing. Incidentally, personal questions and political questions, all of a constitutional nature of no mean importance, had been raised. He did not think that the experiment which admittedly had been tried on this occa- sion had met with such results as to be likely to induce a repetition. He did not himself understand, after all that had been said on the subject, what precisely was the novel position which had arisen. He did not understand the precise terms and arrangements with reference to Sir Antony Mac Donnell's appointment, nor did he understand the view which was taken of the objects, the attainment of which was to be attempted by his action and the action of the Chief Secretary, without seeing the letters which formulated those views. The Chief Secretary said yesterday— I had talked over Ireland with him before I suggested he should become Under-Secretary, and it was because we were both deeply interested in the possibility of doing something for the good of Ireland, that, after a fortnight's consideration, he decided he could undertake the task, and we embodied in our letters the conversations in which we had been engaged; and these letters make it perfectly plain and clear that Sir Antony MacDonnell was invited by me rather as a colleague than as a mere Undersecretary to register my will. And I was glad to have his advice, to welcome any suggestions from him, and it was made clear, subject, of course, to my control, that he was to enjoy a certain freedom of administrative action. Let me be blamed for that if my hon. friends think I made a mistake in the appointment. I do not think I did. But I made clear to Sir Antony MacDonnell all the subjects which I thought within the conceivable bounds of legislative action. It has been suggested, not here this afternoon, but elsewhere, that when I invited Sir Antony MacDonnell to help me in Ireland I had in my mind, and that I imparted to him, some desire to carry out what is called devolution. That is certainly not the case. Nothing of the kind was ever mentioned by either of us. The letters are extant—they are in Sir Antony MacDonnell's possession—and they show that no such problem was contemplated by me at the time of his appointment. We had proposed to deal, in the first place, with the maintenance of order. The Chief Secretary had given his version of what the letters contained and did not contain. He had made a statement with reference to documents in writing affecting this political question, and the hon. Member conceived that under the Rules of the House on that subject they ought to be laid on the Table. These letters were now in the possession of the Under-Secretary. Let the letters be produced and they would speak for themselves, and their speech and their silence would be alike eloquent in the elucidation of this subject. What did the right hon. Gentleman say that the subjects mentioned in these letters were? The right hon. Gentleman in his speech yesterday said— Here are the problems we hoped to deal with then, and the order in which they were placed—(1) The maintenance of order; (2) a Land Bill on the lines of voluntary purchase, or, where that was impossible, an automatic and cheap system of fixing rents instead of the existing litigious system; (3) education in the spirit of the Prime Minister's views; (4) the co-ordination, direction, and control of detached boards. The co-ordination, or correlation, as I used to call it, of the various boards in Ireland does not suggest to me, and never will suggest to me, the introducing of another board which is to be of an elective character. They knew how the suggestion as to education was acted upon, and that there was a communication with the authorities at Belfast on the subject, by Sir Antony MacDonnell; they knew that an effort was made to carry out the Prime Minister's views. But the curious thing was that they were not the Prime Minister's views; they were the views of Mr. Balfour, and he did not entertain those views as Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman had declared that he could only speak in his private capacity and in his capacity as a Member of Parliament, but that, as Prime Minister he could not bring forward those views at all. The Prime Minister being debarred from taking legislative action on this question, what did the Chief Secretary do? He made education part of the programme which he and his Under-Secretary were to advance, in accordance with the Prime Minister's views. Sir Antony MacDonnell was therefore encouraged and authorised to go on in the formulation of a programme and a propaganda on education in the sense of the Prime Minister's views. Nothing could more clearly indicate the extraordinary degree of power imparted to Sir Antony MacDonnell, and nothing could better demonstate the absolutely unique and unexampled character of the arrangement between the Chief Secretary and that gentleman. The proposal to co-ordinate the forty-two or forty-three detached boards in Ireland involved an immense problem, and it went to the root of the whole question of administrative reform. It seemed to him that the gravest injustice had been done by the Chief Secretary to Sir Antony MacDonnell. The right hon. Gentleman used these words— I had spoken on these lines to Sir Antony MacDonnell, and he, with his Indian experience, found nalogies between my ideas and the views which he had formed in India. But here comes the first source of serious misunderstanding. When Sir Antony MacDonnell has spoken to me of the Indian Budget and of provincial contracts I, who am colossally ignorant about Indian affairs, did not know that in India there is a semi-elective council with a voice in these matters; and therefore it never occurred to me during the conversations I had with Sir Antony MacDonnell that, in pointing out the analogy between Indian finances and some of the ideas I had in my mind, he had in his mind, unexpressed, or at any rate not clear to me, the idea that another board would come into existence partially elective, a board to which I should have to submit my Estimates, in addition to the Treasury and this House. In view of the arrangement made between the Chief Secretary and Sir Antony MacDonnell and the action of Sir Antony, one could well understand that misunderstanding might arise, but what one could not understand in the face of the conditions disclosed was how such a harsh censure should have been passed upon him as had been when he was told that his conduct was indefensible. He agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich that the nearer they got to the truth in this matter the better it would be. It was essential to secure efficiency in the public service, but how could they get the best men if they were to be treated as Sir Antony MacDonnell had been in this matter. His conduct was not indefensible. There was a misunderstanding, but that mis-

understanding ought to have been stated. He was reasonably justified in believing that he had authority for proposing the scheme which was proposed. The discussion of this question had shown the abnormal character of the Irish Government, and the only way to get out of the situation which existed in Ireland was to let the Irish attend to their own domestic concerns.

Question put.

The Housedivided—Ayes, 236; Noes, 286. (Division List, No. 6).

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E. Cremer, William Randal Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton
Abraham, William (Rhondda) Crombie, John William Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.
Allen, Charles P. Cullinan, J. Hammond, John
Ambrose, Robert Dalziel, James Henry Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil
Asher Alexander Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen) Harmsworth, R. Leicester
Ashton Thomas Gair Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan Harrington, Timothy
Asquith,Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry Delany, William Harwood, George
Atherley-Jones, L. Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway Hayden, John Patrick
Barlow, John Emmott Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.) Hayter, Rt, Hon. Sir Arthur P.
Barran, Rowland Hirst Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh. Healy, Timothy Michael
Barry,E. (Cork, S.) Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles Holme, Norval Watson
Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire) Dillon, John Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.
Beaumont, Wentworth C. B. Dobbie, Joseph Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Bell, Richard Doogan, P. C. Higham, John Sharpe
Benn John Williams Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.
Black, Alexander William Duffy, William J. Holland, Sir William Henry
Blake, Edward Duncan, J. Hastings Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)
Bolton Thomas Dolling Dunn, Sir William Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.
Brand,Hon. Arthur G. Edwards, Frank Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)
Bright, John Elibank, Master of Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Bright, Allan Heywood Ellice,CaptEC (S.Andrw'sB'ghs Johnson, John
Broadhurst, Henry Ellis, John Edward (Notts.) Joicey, Sir James
Brown, George M. (Edinburgh) Emmott, Alfred Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)
Brunner Sir John Tomlinson Evans,Sir FrancisH (Maidstone Jordan, Jeremiah
Bryce Rt. Hon. James Eve, Harry Trelawney Joyce, Michael
Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn Farrell, James Patrick Kearley, Hudson E.
Burke E Haviland Fenwick. Charles Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.)
Burns, John Ferguson. R. C. Munro (Leith) Kennedy,Vincent P. (Cavan, W.
Buxton, Sydney Charles Ffrench, Peter Kilbride, Denis
Caldwell, James Field, William Kitson, Sir James
Cameron, Robert Findlay, Alexander (Lanark N. E. Labouchere, Henry
Campbell, John (Armagh,s.) Flavin Michael Joseph Langley, Batty
Campbell Bannerman, Sir H. Flynn, James Christopher Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)
Carvill Patrick Gco. Hamilton Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.) Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)
Causton, Richard Knight Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Layland-Barratt Francis
Cawley Frederick Freeman-Thomas, Captain F. Leese,SirJosephF. (Accrington)
Channing, Francis Allston Fuller. J. M. F. Leigh, Sir Joseph
Cheetham, John Frederick Gilhooly, James Levy, Maurice
Churchill Winston Spencer Gladstone. Rt. Hn Herbert John Lewis, John Herbert
Clancy John Joseph Goddard, Daniel Ford Lloyd-George, David
Cogan Denis J. Grant. Corrie Lough, Thomas
Condon, Thomas Joseph Grey.Rt,Hon. Sir E. (Berwick) Lundon W.
Craig. Robert Hunter (Lanark Griffith. Ellis J. Lyell, Charles Henry
Crean, Eugene Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
MacNeill, John Gordon Swift O'Shaughnessy, P. J. Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (N'thants)
MacVeagh, Jeremiah O'Shee, James John Stevenson, Francis S.
M'Arthur, William (Cornwall) Parrott, William Strachey, Sir Edward
M'Crae, George Partington, Oswald Sullivan, Donal
M'Fadden, Edward Paulton, James Mellor Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
M'Hugh, Patrick A. Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) Tennant, Harold John
M'Kean, John Pirie, Duncan V. Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen, E.)
M Kenna, Reginald Power, Patrick Joseph Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) Rea, Russell Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)
Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh, N.) Reckitt, Harold James Thompson, Dr E. C. (Monagh'nN
Mooney, John J. Eeddy, M. Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)
Morley. Rt. Hn. John (Montrose) Redmond, John E. (Waterford) Tomkinson, James
Moss, Samuel Reid, SirR. Threshie (Dumfries) Toulmin, George
Moulton, John Fletcher Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th) Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Murnaghan, George Rickett, J. Compton Ure, Alexander
Murphy, John Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Nannetti, Joseph P. Roberts, John H. (Donbighs.) Wallace, Robert
Newnes, Sir George Robertson, Edmund (Dundee) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Nolan,Col.John P.(Galway,N.) Robson William Snowdon, Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.
Nolan. Joseph (Louth, South) Roche, John Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Norman, Henry Roe, Sir Thomas Weir, James Galloway
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Rose, Charles Day White, George (Norfolk)
Nussey, Thomas Willans Runciman, Walter White, Luke (York, E. R.)
O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork) Russell, T. W. White, Patrick (Meath, North)
O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland) Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Schwann, Charles E. Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)
O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) Scott. Chas. Prestwich (Leigh) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Shackleton, David James Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)'
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Shaw. Thomas (Hawick B.) Wills.Arthur Walters(NDorset)
O'Doherty, William Sheehy, David Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)
O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) Shipnian. Dr. John G. Woodhouse,Sir JT(Huddersf'd)
O'Dowd, John Sinclair, John (Forfarshire) Young, Samuel
O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Slack, John Bamford
O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N Smith, Samuel (Flint) TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
O'Malley, William Soames, Arthur Wellesley Thomas Esmonde and Cap-
O'Mara, James Soares, Ernest J. tain Donelan,
Agg-Gardner, James Tynte Bull, Willaim James Dickinson, Robert Edmond
Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel Burdett-Coutts, W. Dickson, Charles Scott
Allhusen,Augustus HenryEden Butcher, John George Dickson-Poynder. Sir John P.
Allsopp, Hon. George Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ. Dimsdale.Rt.Hn.Sir Joseph C.
Anson, Sir William Reynell Carlile, William Walter Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph
Arkwright, John Stanhope Carson. Rt, Hon. Sir Edw. H. Dixon-Hartland.Sir FredDixon
Arnold-Forster.Rt.Hn.HughO. Cantley. Henry Strother Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers
Arrol, Sir William Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) Doxford, Sir William Theodore
Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.) Duke. Henry Edward
Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Dyke.Rt.Hn. Sir William Hart
Bailey, James (Walworth) Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton
Bain, Colonel James Robert Chamberlain.Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.) Elliot. Hon. A. Ralph Douglas
Baird, John George Alexander Chamberlain.Rt Hn.JA(Worc.) Fardell, Sir T. George
Balearres, Lord Chaplin, Rt, Hon. Henry Fergusson.RtHn SirJ.(Manc'r.)
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manchr') Chapman. Edward Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.
Balfour.RtHn GeraldW(Leeds) Clare, Octavius Leigh Finlay.Sir RB.(Inv'rn'ssB'ghs.)
Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.) Coates, Edward Feetham Fisher. William Haves
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Fison, Frederick William
Bartley, Sir George C. T. Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose
Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin Colomb.Rt.Hn.Sir John C. R. Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon
Beach,RtHn.Sir Michael Hicks Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole Flannery. Sir Fortescue.
Bentinck. Lord Henry C. Compton. Lord Alwyne Flower, Sir Ernest
Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas Forster, Henry William
Bigwood, James Corbett, A, Cameron (Glasgow) Galloway, William Johnson
Blundell, Colonel Henry Cripps, Charles Alfred Gardner, Ernest
Bond, Edward Cross, Alexander (Glasgow) Garfit, William
Boscawen, Arthur Griffith Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.
Bousfield, William Robert Cubitt, Hon. Henry Godson, SirAugustusFrederick
Bowles.Lt.-Col.HF (Middlesex) Cust, Henry John. Gordon, HnJ.E. (Elgin&Nairn)
Bowles,T.Gibson (King's Lynn Dalrymple. Sir Charles Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets
Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John Davenport, William Bromley Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-
Brown. Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.) Davies'.Sir HoratioD(Chatham) Gorst. Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon
Brymer, William Ernest Denny, Colonel Goschen, Hon. George Joachim
Goulding, Edward Alfred Lowe, Francis William Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander
Graham, Henry Robert Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale) Samuel,Sir Harry H.(Limehouse
Gray, Ernest (West Ham) Lucas,Col. Francis (Lowestoft) Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles
Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth Sassaon, Sir Edward Albert
Greene.Sir EW(B'rySEdm'nds) Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury) Macdona, John Cumming Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)
Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) Maconochie, A. W. Seton-Karr, Sir Henry
Grenfell, William Henry M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool) Sharpe, William Edward T.
Gretton, John M'Iver,SirLewis (EdinburghW. Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)
Guthrie, Walter Murray Majendie, James A. H. Simeon, Sir Barrington
Hain, Edward Manners, Lord Cecil Sinclair, Louis (Romford)
Hall, Edward Marshall Marks, Harry Hananel Skewes-Cox, Thomas
Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F. Martin, Richard Biddulph Smith,Abel H. (Hertford,East)
Hambro, Charles Eric Maxwell,Rt.Hn.Sir HE(Wigt'n Smith,HC (North'mb.Tyneside
Hamilton,Marq.of (L'nd'nderry Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfrieshire Smith,RtHn JParker(Lanarks.
Hamilton,Rt,Hn.LdG(M'd'sex) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)
Hardy,Laurence(Kent, Ashford Milner.Rt.Hn.Sir Frederick G. Spear, John Ward
Hare, Thomas Leigh Milvain, Thomas Stanley,Hon.Arthur (Ormskirk
Harris, F. Leverton (Tyne'mth) Molesworth, Sir Lewis Stanley.Rt.Hon.Lord (Lanes.)
Halsam, Sir Alfred S. Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart
Haslett, Sir James Horner Montagu, Hon. J.Scott (Hants.) Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.
Hay, Hon. Claude George Moon, Edward Robert Pacy Stock, James Henry
Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley Morgan,David J(Walthamstow Stone, Sir Benjamin
Heath, Sir Jas.(Staffords.N.W.) Morpeth, Viscount Stroyan, John
Heaton, John Henniker Morrell, George Herbert Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley
Helder, Augustus Morrison, James Archibald Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford,W.) Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. Mount, William Arthur Thorburn, Sir Walter
Hickman, Sir Alfred Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. Thornton, Percy M.
Hoare, Sir Samuel Muntz, Sir Philip A. Tollemache, Henry James
Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Som's't, E. Murray, Charles J. (Coventry) Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. .M.
Hogg, Lindsay Myers, William Henry Tritton, Charles Ernest
Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside) Nicholson, William Graham Tuff, Charles
Homer, Frederick William Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury) Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward
Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry Parker, Sir Gilbert Tuke, Sir John Batty
Hoult, Joseph Parkes, Ebenezer Tumour, Viscount
Houston, Robert Paterson Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlington Valentia, Viscount
Howard J. (Midd., Tottenham) Peel, Hn.Wm. Robert Wellesley Vincent, Col.Sir C E H (Sh'ffi'd)
Hozier,Hn.James Henry Cecil Pemberton, John S. G. Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)
Hudson, George Bickersteth Percy Earl Walrond,Rt.Hn.Sir WilliamH.
Hunt, Rowland Pierpoint, Robert Wanklyn, James Leslie
Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred. Pilkington, Colonel Richard Warde, Colonel C. E.
Jessel,Captain Herbert Merton Plummer, Sir Walter R. Webb, Col. William George
Kennaway,Rt,Hn.Sir John H. Powell, Sir Francis Sharp Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (T'n'ton)
Kenyon, Hon.Geo.T.(Denbigh) Pretyman, Ernest George Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)
Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.Col. W Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd
Kerr, John Purvis, Robert Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne
Kimber, Sir Henry Pym, C. Guy Whitmore, Charles Algernon
King, Sir Henry Seymour Quilter, Sir Cuthbert Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)
Knowles, Sir Lees Randies, John S. Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.
Lambton, Hon. Frederick Win. Rankin, Sir James Wilson, John (Glasgow)
Laurie, Lieut-General Ratcliff, R. F. Wiison-Todd,Sir W. H. (Yorks.)
Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) Reid, James (Greenock) Wodehouse, Rt, Hn. E. R. (Bath
Lawrence,Sir Joseph(Monm'th Remnant, James Farquharson Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson
Lawson.Hn. H.L.W. (Mile End) Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine Wortley, Rt, Hon. C. B. Stuart
Lawson.John Grant (Yorks, N. R. Renwick, George Wrightson, Sir Thomas
Lee,ArthurH. (Hants.,Fareham Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) Wylie, Alexander
Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Leveson Gower, Frederick N. S. Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong
Llewellyn, Evan Henry Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter
Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R. Round, Rt. Hon. James TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine Royds, Clement Molyneux Alexander Acland-Hood and
Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham Rutherford, John (Lancashire) Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.
Long,Rt.Hn.Walter (Bristol,S. Saekville, Col. S. G. Stopford

Main Question again proposed.

And, it being after Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

Adjourned at twelve minutes after Twelve o'clock.