§ MR. JOHN REDMOND (Waterford)
said he did not suppose that any one would deny that the inauguration of a period of coercion in the government of Ireland was a matter of the gravest possible import, and the fact that this coercion regime was not open and avowed made the matter all the worse. The complaint he had to make was that while the pretence was held out in England that Ireland was to-day being governed according to the ordinary law, in reality the Government had entered upon a course of government of the country under exceptional legislation, which did not exist in any other part of the United Kingdom or the Empire. He was not there to defend law-breakers, but what he did complain of was that men under those circumstances charged in Ireland were about to be tried, not under the ordinary law, but under an exceptional law which existed in Ireland alone. In September, 1902, the Coercion Act, which had not been in operation for some considerable time before that date, was suddenly put into operation over a great portion of Ireland. A considerable number of counties were proclaimed by the Lord-Lieutenant. Sections 2 to 4 were put in force in those districts. Section 2 provided for the total prohibition of trial by jury, and the trial of serious offences by tribunals, consisting of deputies of the Executive Government. Section 3 provided that in the case of trial by juries in those districts, the ordinary juries could be set aside, and what were called special juries empannelled for the trial of the case. These special juries consisted of holders of £100 and upwards valuation, and it was not necessary to point out to anyone acquainted with Ireland, that that meant a very select and a very small body of the population. Section 4 provided that a change of venue from one county to another might be carried out. British Members might say that special juries and change of venue were things not unknown in Great Britain. Quite so but those things in Great Britain were 1072 only to be obtained under the ordinary law by regular reasoned and argued motions made in the Courts, while under the sections he had quoted they were granted as a matter of course without any notice to the parties, without any argument—granted as a right on the motion of the Attorney-General. Under the provisions of the Act a number of people, including several Members of Parliament, were imprisoned.
But a change came over the spirit of the dream of the Irish Government, and they were told that those methods were to be cast aside, and that, owing to the better spirit shown both by the Irish people and by their rulers, a new era was about to commence, and that the ordinary law was sufficient to govern Ireland. And one of Lord Dudley's first official acts was the revocation of the coercion proclamation. Section 2, the most offensive of those proclamations, was withdrawn absolutely, and Lord Dudley himself openly gloried in the fact that he was able to put an end to coercion. Speaking on February 11th, 1903, a few days after the revocation of those proclamations, Lord Dudley said—Prophecy was always dangerous, especially in Ireland, but there was abundant reason to hope that they were entering upon a period when conditions would be very different from those of the immediate past. The reports from the country were satisfactory, and they were happily able lo remove much of the exceptional treatment which they had been obliged to impose in the earlier part of last year. He hoped with all his heart that those who were responsible for the Government of Ireland would never again be compelled to enforce treatment of this kind. Never in his life had he signed anything more gladly than the proclamation of last week" (that was the proclamation revoking the proclamation of the Coercion Act). "He believed, indeed, that there was a good time coming.At that time the general sentiment of England was that coercion had come to an end. Immediately after that speech the prison doors were opened, a number of Members of Parliament were released, and they were told that coercion was at an end. But it appeared now that all the time when that pretence was made (he did not use the word offensively with regard to Lord Dudley) that coercion was at an end in Ireland, the Government were keeping up their sleeve a stone in the shape of the powers under Sections 3 and 4 of the Act which now 1073 they were going to put into force. Three or four or five months ago a cry was raised by the Press of Great Britain and certain politicians in Ireland, that coercion should once again be put in force in Ireland, and a conspiracy was set on foot to delude the people of Great Britain into the belief that certain parts of Ireland were in a state of disturbance and crime. That conspiracy was set on foot, as he believed, with the direct intention of forcing the proclamation of Ireland under further powers of the Coercion Act, and once more abolishing trial by jury in those districts. They all knew what occurred—how bogus outrages were reported at full length in the London papers, how the changes were rung day after day upon them, and how in every single case of such an alleged outrage it was proved on investigation that the whole story was untrue and that no outrage had taken place at all. The truth was that no outrages had been committed in Ireland, and the country was to-day, as it had been during all those months, in a state of crimelessness and peace which compared most favourably with that in any part of England, Scotland, or Wales. The hollowness of that conspiracy was exposed, with the result that the plot failed.
Another plan of campaign was then adopted, of trying to put in force those sections of the Crimes Act which were not revoked by Lord Dudley in 1903. At the present moment Galway was absolutely free from crime. The Recorder had recently said there was nothing unusual in the state of the country. But notwithstanding this fact the Government Lad arrested some fifty or sixty men, almost all of them connected with branches of the United Irish League, for trial on charges of unlawful assembly. His objection was that these men were not to be tried by any ordinary law but by juries made up of men who were their accusers. The object of the meetings which these men held was to promote the satisfactory working of the Land Act. He had visited this place of Galway. The situation there had been for a generation absolutely appalling. There was no spot in Ireland where so many magnificent grass lands were to be found, but alongside were these wretched congested 1074 districts where people could not wring from the soil sufficient to pay rent or to live. Unfortunately the district was cursed with landlords whose conduct could not be defended even by Colonel Saunderson—men who ground the faces of the poor and never made a concession to enable the people to eke out a livelihood. To these people the Land Act was a mockery; it had no meaning. These people had called upon the landlords to sell, and for the good of the country, and almost for the sake of humanity, to agree to enable the Act to work. There was no allegation that they did any violence or disturbance, and the only unlawful character attributed to the meetings was that they tried to bring public opinion to bear upon these men to put the Land Act in operation. The jury panel under which these people would be tried was made up entirely of landlords of the district and agents and graziers. Under such circumstances trial was a mockery, when one remembered that in addition the Attorney-General, as representing the Crown, through his position had the unlimited right of challenging any juryman who came into the box to be sworn and ordering him to stand aside.
While the pretence of trial by jury was still kept up they were sent to a special panel struck under the Coercion Act and consisting of their enemies; and then, lest one of them might be fair, the Crown could come in and pick and choose any twelve men they liked of the lot. If it was his case he would prefer to be tried by a coercion tribunal of two magistrates under Section 2 rather than be tried under the formality of trial by jury when in reality there was no trial by jury at all. The provisions of this section had not been put in force for over two years, and that was the point of his asking permission to move the adjournment of the House. From the time that they were told that coercion would be dropped these provisions were permitted to remain a dead letter, but now, for some extraordinary and unexplained reason, they were resuscitated and put in force. He protested against this action. He said the Government ought either to have the courage of their convictions and proclaim these districts I under Section 2, abolish trial by jury, and 1075 try these men by two removables from Dublin Castle, or else they ought to leave trial by jury to its natural course. They were not doing one thing or the other. They had not the courage—courage was, perhaps, the wrong word to use in a case of this kind—they had not the audacity to proclaim Galway and abolish trial by jury nakedly and honestly, when in the view of their own Judges there was no crime in the district. On the other hand, they had not the fairness to allow these men to be tried by the ordinary tribunal. They had taken a middle course, and were relying upon nominal trial by jury on a specially selected and packed tribunal. This was a very serious matter. It meant the inauguration in Ireland of a coercion campaign, and of a mean, cowardly, and dishonest coercion campaign. He would far prefer that trial by jury should be openly abolished than that trial by jury should be maintained, while the substance and reality of it was filched away from the people. He would leave his hon. friends who were more intimately acquainted with the particular districts to amplify what he had said. He contented himself with declaring that he regarded this proceeding as the inauguration of a dishonest and cowardly campaign, and he invited the right hon. Gentleman, if he wanted to put in operation exceptional laws and powers in Ireland, to do so openly, and not to act in this way under the pretence of trial by jury.
§ MR. ROCHE (Galway, E.)
seconded the Motion. He said he would not have intervened in the discussion at all were it not that the vast majority of the men referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford were constituents of his own. He was thoroughly conversant with all the facts of the case. He happened to be present when two batches of prisoners were tried before a removable magistrate. He was aware of the treatment which some of these prisoners received at the hands of the constabulary, who, of course, were acting on the dictates of Dublin Castle. One batch of prisoners, numbering thirteen, were arrested between four and six in the morning. They were taken out of their feeds and were not allowed even to have their breakfast. They were driven into 1076 the Court House at Ballinasloe and kept there until about twelve o'clock, when they were brought before a removable magistrate. They had a farce of a trial, and were committed to appear before the Judge of Assize in about a fortnight hence. What he complained of in this particular matter was that the alleged offence took place more than a month previous to the morning of the arrest. During all that time recourse might have been had by the Crown to the ordinary law. The men might have been summoned, and he could assure the House that not one of them would have attempted to evade the summons or the responsibility attaching to it. But that would not gratify the graziers, landlords, and grabbers in the district. At the trial of four of the men, everyone of the witnesses swore positively that not the slightest intimidation was used towards them by the prisoners, and yet in face of that these four men were sent for trial—
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON, Londonderry, N.)
No. Is it in order to discuss the evidence which witnesses will give at a trial that is now pending, and may take place within the next ten days?
§ MR. ATKINSON
No. I should not have intervened so long as he discussed the arrest, but he is now discussing the evidence that witnesses will give.
§ MR. SPEAKER
It is very undesirable to discuss the evidence on which prisoners are going to be tried, and I am sure no hon. Member would wish to say anything which would prejudice the trial.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
That is only one of the qualifications. I do not intend to suggest that the £100 is an essential 1077 qualification of a special jury, but what I mean is that a £100 is one of five qualifications.
§ MR. ROCHE
said some of the jurymen were in possession of farms from which tenants had been evicted. Did the House imagine that men of that stamp were going to mete out justice and fair-play to the unfortunate creatures who came before them? No matter what amount of coercion might be used he warned the government that it would fail, and that the people of the districts concerned were determined to have their rights under the Land Act. It was the wrong policy to try to govern the country by prosecuting the people. If the Government wanted to rule Ireland with peace they must adopt Lord Dudley's principle of governing the Irish people according to Irish ideas.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. John Redmond.)
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)
said he was considerably satisfied that this debate had taken place, because the memory of the House of Commons and the country was short. The Motion and speech of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford served as a reminder to the House and the country that in some parts of Ireland the state of affairs, the state of opinion, and the state of politics, was practically as it was. If he had the temerity to address a Radical meeting in this country and he were to describe the condition of affairs in the agricultural parts of Ireland, not only would he not be believed but he should be called an Orange fanatic, traducing and caricaturing his country. He did not think that debate was meant for the House of Commons. He rather thought the debate was meant for Galway. Undoubtedly a debate of that kind might influence one or two men there, but whatever the Motion was meant for, one thing had astonished him in the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford. He said that the object of the meetings in Galway, the object of the National League in holding these meetings, was to further the successful performance of the Land Act. But in 1078 doing that why should they threaten? If hon. Gentlemen opposite contented themselves by holding meetings and explaining the Land Act and showing how the people could take advantage of it, he would be ready to admit that there was something in the hon. and learned Member's observation, but he could not understand how it came about that it was necessary not to advise but to threaten—
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON
said the tenants in Ireland who refused to obey the law of a certain society, of which the hon. and learned Member was chief, were threatened. Over and over again he used to point out that there were two laws in Ireland—the law of the land and the law of the League. In the hon. and learned Member's view the law of the League ought to be supreme. A grazier farmer in Galway who had grazed land for years—whose ancestors had grazed land for generations—and wanted to go on in the same way should be allowed to do so without let or hindrance. The hon. and learned Member and his friends said he should graze land no longer. Often he heard of friends of his saying they were going off to India to shoot tigers or to the Rocky Mountains to shoot bears. But he could point out to them how they could get equal excitement at far less expense. Let them become graziers. A grazier in Galway had just as much right to remain a grazier as he had to remain on his land in the North. Even some of the hon. Gentlemen opposite had land, and they would think twice if they were asked to leave their land in order that somebody else should take their place. This was just one of those harmless devices that occurred from time to time in order to induce these graziers in Galway to give up the land they had held for many years. He would read them a resolution which had appeared in a report in the Connaught Leader on 18th February last. It was as follows—That we strongly condemn the action of those who are not living in Clare Madden, as tenants or tenants' sons, to send proposals to 1079 the Estates Commissioners for farms while the tenants are able to occupy them as an addition to their small holdings, on which they have suffered for years, some of them living on two acres, whilst this land is their lawful right, and we protest against any outside interfering. It is not in keeping with the national spirit to do so, and we will use the sword of the United Irish League against any such cool-minded, so-called Nationalists.The sharpness of the sword of the National League depended a good deal on whether or not the Crimes Act was enforced. That Act had taken a good deal of the edge off. Of course, hon. Gentlemen opposite did not want the Coercion Act to be put in force. He asked any law-abiding man would England, Scotland, or Wales tolerate any organisation to deliberately go outside the law of the land and proclaim that a man should, under the penalty of the sword of the League, give up his land. They would be accused of exaggeration if they were to tell the people of England that these things existed in Ireland. As far as the juries were concerned the hon. and learned Member for Waterford condemned them. He would really like to know what sort of jury Mr. Redmond would approve of.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND
I have said over and over again that no man should be tried in Ireland except by precisely the same sort of jury as he would be tried before in England.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSON
said the House of Commons had decided that the ordinary law was not sufficient to deal with the law set up by the organisation of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Well, as far as the jurymen were concerned to try these gentlemen he said nothing. What the House must remember was that this action of hon. Gentlemen opposite—and they had a perfect right to take that action—was part of a policy. The attacks which they were making on the juries in Gal way—attacks which they made through the organisation of the National League—formed part of their policy. They held one view of that policy, and he held another. He did not judge the prosperity of Ireland by the amount of wealth in Ireland. He had always objected to that test, and when he had brought figures for- 1080 ward—and figures were awkward things—to show that Ireland was more prosperous hon. Gentlemen opposite rather demurred. Their argument was that population was the test of prosperity in Ireland. He did not hold that view. He looked at two well-to-do Irishmen as indicating more prosperity than six poor, struggling Irishmen. [NATIONALIST cries of "Oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen opposite disagreed with him. They desired that Ireland should be a great congested district—[NATIONALIST cries of "Oh!"]—composed, as far as he could make out, of priests, patriots, and paupers. That did not accord with his view of the prosperity of his countrymen. Irishmen were as intelligent as any other nation in the world, and he believed that if an intelligent Irishman was offered the alternative of becoming possessed of four or five acres of land or of going to America, Australia, or other countries where Irishmen always flourished, he would choose the latter. He did not think the proposal to break up grass lands, which had produced large numbers of cattle, and fill them up with a population unaccustomed to agriculture, to grow turnips and potatoes, would secure the prosperity of Ireland. On that point hon. Gentlemen opposite and himself were absolutely opposed. They had the right to ask this Government, or any Government deserving of the name, to secure even for the grazier the right which every subject of the King possessed to live unmolested on his own land.
§ MR. CHARLES DEVLIN (Galway)
said he had followed this debate with some interest, because it referred to matters affecting the county he had the honour to represent. The speech of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh were somewhat entertaining but not convincing. He had observed since he came into the House that the chief object the right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to have in addressing this House was to poke fun at the expense of the majority of the people of Ireland. If legislation of a beneficial character which had been passed for Ireland were looked over, and if the debates which preceded the bringing about that legislation were studied, it would be found that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was 1081 invariably opposed to that legislation, and to-night he continued that rôle.
§ MR. CHARLES DEVLIN
All the Land Acts, with the exception of the last one, which was of special benefit to himself. There was one remark which ought not to have come from the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, and that was in dealing with the poverty of the people of Ireland. He made it practically a crime for the people of Ireland to be poor; and he pointed out that in other countries where just laws prevailed Irishmen had risen from poverty to affluence. But why should Irishmen remain poor in Ireland? He maintained that the cause of the poverty of Ireland was the unfortunate, drastic, criminal, and cruel laws which, at the instigation of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the section he represented, had been passed by this House against Ireland. The people of Ireland had property, but it was stolen from them; they had means, but they were taken from them by the Party and class to which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman belonged, as was shown by the past history of their country. Poverty, therefore, should not be thrown into the teeth of Irishmen by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Irishmen might be poor in their own land, but it was through no fault of their own. When they had a fair field they were able to rise to the highest positions, even in the British Government as represented in other lands. The Grand Dukes, who had long held sway in Ireland, were the very men who had brought about the poverty of the country. When one of his colleagues in the county of Galway pointed to men who had been taken from their homes at four o'clock in the morning, not allowed to get breakfast, and put into a cart to be dragged to prison, the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General burst out into laughter. Was that a laughing matter? They might imagine they could afford to laugh; but they had not the confidence of the Irish people. They had never made a sacrifice for Ireland, and only drew their £7,000 a year! They 1082 were the judges and prosecutors in this case, and they laughed at their victims. They were the last men in this House who should laugh at this matter. In the King's Speech, at the beginning of the session, Ireland had no mention; but now they were to get coercion until the next general election had passed. The representatives of the majority of the people of Ireland would see to it that even the strong man who had been sent to Ireland as Chief Secretary would not have it all his own way in grinding down the people without having his conduct exposed in this House, and to the people of the country.
During his eight years' residence in Ireland he had been told that the people were struck down and batoned, but he had never seen anything of it until the case under discussion arose. He went to address a meeting in his county of Galway, and had no idea that that meeting would be forbidden by the authorities on the benches opposite, and had no reason to expect it. When he arrived at the meeting place he was confronted with a few hundred policemen. He had seen political life in other countries, and had been a Member of another House within the limits of the British Empire. Hon. Members boasted of the loyalty of the colonial possessions and of the attachment of Australia and Canada to the motherland; but if they attempted to commit such deeds as he had described in these lands, he wondered how long they could boast of having them They knew what the policy of the Chief Secretary was in respect to the western portion of Ireland. The facts were brought out by the I Leader of the Irish Party. Crime was the excuse for the imposition of this coercion policy. That day his hon. friend who represented the city of Limerick asked if the Judge of Assize in that district had been presented with white gloves, and the answer was "yes." The fact was that there was no crime there. And what occurred last week in Galway? There were only nine cases set down at the Assizes, five of which were for malicious injury, I but not one of these five had been proved—all were dismissed. Crime was not at the bottom of this matter. It was 1083 that certain hon. Gentlemen opposite wished that persecution and prosecution should go hand in hand so that they might get some substance for their speeches on July 12th! He knew that the Attorney-General, when he came to reply, would mention that there were threatening letters. Fortunately some of these letters had appeared in the Press in England, when it was seen that there were practically no threats. What were the facts? Any man who went to the West of Ireland would at once be struck not only by the poverty of the people, but by the sight of ruined homes, evicted holdings, and big grazing farms. The right hon. Gentleman asked what right they had to dispossess a grazier from his farm? He, in return, asked what right had they to dispossess the poor people who were born on that land of their small holdings and give them over to the graziers The result of all this policy was that the people were still fleeing to other lands to try and get there what they could not obtain in their own. He held that the land of Ireland should belong to the people of Ireland, who should be allowed to live there; and that the legislation should not be such as to make them hate the law. This House passed the Land Act in 1903 because it was said that it would bring peace and prosperity to Ireland. Why was it that peace and prosperity had not come? It was because the landlords would not sell, and because the people could not get the land which should be theirs. The people of Ireland had a right to meet together as the people of England, Scotland, and every other civilised country were allowed to meet for the purpose of forming a combination and keeping public opinion alive as to their wants and necessities. But, in the West of Ireland, they were forbidden to meet, and if they did meet they were dragged off to prison at four o'clock in the morning. He protested against such treatment, and against the policy initiated by the Chief Secretary in the West of Ireland. But, in view of the successes which had been won in spite of the opposition of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the Irish Members had no fear for the future. They were satisfied that in this, as in many other struggles, the people would get their 1084 land, and that the miserable policy of coercion would fail.
§ MR. GORDON (Londonderry, S.)
said that there were two things which struck him in reference to the Motion. In the first place, so far as he could ascertain for himself, the matter which it dealt with was not urgent. It had reference to a state of affairs which began on September 1st, 1902, when this Act of which they had been hearing so much was applied to all these districts. From that date to this nothing had been heard about it. But suddenly, when the Act interfered with the progressive ideas of the United Irish League, it was found to be a matter of urgent public necessity to discuss it! In the second place, from the speeches made that night, it was perfectly obvious that the ideas of those on that side of the House of right and wrong, of crime and innocence, were as far asunder as the poles from those of hon. Members opposite. The views of hon. Members who had spoken were the same as those of the people in the West of Ireland, but they were absolutely different from the views of every right thinking and law-abiding man in England and Scotland. They said that the small farmers in Ireland ought to have large farms which were legally in the hands of other farmers so that these might be divided amongst them. He held that the graziers who were acting within the law ought to have the protection of the law. It was said that under the Act of 1903 these lands were to be acquired and divided, arid because the lands had not been acquired, the people should take the law into their own hands, and that they were absolutely justified in bringing every possible influence to get possession of these grazing lands. The hon. Gentleman opposite said that the people were perfectly right, and he admitted that the object of these meetings was to get the grazing farms broken up.
§ MR. GORDON
said that even if that were so that did not abate one jot or tittle his argument that it was absolutely-indefensible to seek to bring that about by illegal means. The hon. Gentleman opposite said that the meetings in the West of Ireland were only to bring public opinion to bear on the matter. He would read a couple of resolutions which had been passed at there meetings. They had a plan of attempting to drive out all graziers in order to get their farms divided up amongst themselves. Did hon. Members opposite contend for a moment that resolutions of that kind came within the four corners of the law. These gross attacks were made upon the people who had a right to keep those grazing farms in their possession, and these resolutions appeared in such local papers as the Connaught Leader, in order that everybody in the Ideality should know all about it. The unfortunate grazier was not only subjected to words of abuse, but he often found that his liberties were curtailed and his freedom of dealing with others restricted, and probably his own life would be threatened and his cattle injured.
§ MR. GORDON
said he would call the attention of the House to another resolution. [NATIONALIST cries of "Withdraw," and an HON. MEMBER: You are slandering your own countrymen.] He was glad to say that his own countrymen were law-abiding citizens. That kind of abuse they were all used to. On January 1st this year another resolution was passed by a different branch—Referring to communications received in answer to letters sent to graziers we wish to state that we will no longer tolerate such a system—[NATIONALIST cheers]. He really was sorry that they could not call upon representatives on both sides of the House from England and Scotland to hear those cheers. The resolution continued—tolerate such a system in our parish, and hope those gentlemen will reply to us by surrendering their farms on the 1st of April 1086 next, or if they do not" (and this was the cream of the matter) we beg to state that we will bring public opinion to bear upon them very quickly.Public opinion! They knew the form it took there. But, after all, was this to go on or was it to be stopped? If it were to be stopped was it of any use putting into the jury box the men who were the members of the same branch of the League at which those resolutions were passed to try the men who passed them? But what was the terrible thing that was being done? They had under the law provision for common juries and special juries in Ireland, and if a man had an action which might involve every farthing he had in the world, he had a perfect right to get a special jury of that county. That special jury panel was composed of people a little better off, and who perhaps "had less sympathy with crime, and having less sympathy with crime they were chosen in the ordinary way to administer the ordinary law. [NATIONALIST cries of "Oh, oh!"] Was not the proper and reason able way to have a jury who would act fairly and reasonably in the matter? Did the hon. Gentlemen who cried "Oh" assert that the special juries of Galway were as a body unworthy of trust? He was surprised to hear it. He could quite understand it if those so-called bogus cases were taken away to some other parts of the country, but they were tried in the county. Was it creditable that representatives of Ireland made that gross charge against the special juries of their own country?
§ MR. GORDON
I do not think the hon. Member would think much about the principle if he did not fear that it would result in putting an end to what every man deplores. The House ought to reject this belated Motion, and reject it by an overwhelming majority. He was not going to contradict what the hon. and learned Member for Waterford had said about the Recorder of Galway, because he had not himself heard his speech, but the Recorder of Galway dealt with the urban area as well as the county. Sitting in Galway 1087 he would be dealing primarily with the urban constituency. ["No, No!"]
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND
All those cases which I referred to—cases of malicious injuries were from the county.
§ MR. GORDON
was not aware of that, but the fact remained that those meetings had been held, those resolutions had been passed, and meetings had subsequently been held so as to try if they could give effect to them. Those things were in existence, and if the law were applied to put them down that House ought to express its strong approval of such application of the law.
§ MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN (Kilkenny, N.)
said he did not think that the House of Commons, had ever listened to such a deplorable exhibition as the speech they had just heard from the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down. This exhibition of inaccurate statements and bad temper was due to the desperation of a Chancery lawyer—[Mr. Gordon here left the House]—who ran away when his statements were challenged. That was quite characteristic of a man whose one ambition was to become a removable magistrate in his own country. When he rose to point out the gross manner in which the hon. and learned Member had misrepresented what the Recorder had said he deliberately walked out of the House, and refused to listen to his reply. He commended to the attention of hon. Members opposite the tactics pursued by the hon. and learned Member who had abused and attacked his own countrymen, and had based his impeachment of the Nationalist movement upon a series of inaccuracies. There was not a single incitement to crime or outrage, and not a single angry word in any of the resolutions which the hon. and learned Member had read to the House, and yet upon those resolutions he based his statement that Ireland was seething with incitement to outrage. He could well understand how difficult it was for a Unionist Member of this House to understand the real situation in Ireland when the hon. and learned Member opposite was the type of Unionist who, in the name of the Union, came to the House of Commons and made the 1088 most scandalous charges against his countrymen which were based upon absolute falsehoods.
The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh had given them once-more the same old grotesque jokes and witticisms which were not witty, the same old attacks upon his own countrymen, and the same old appeals to the ignorance of his British listeners. Neither he nor any of his colleagues had brought forward a scintilla of evidence for the charges they had made. The hon. and gallant Member had stated that politics were just the same as they used to be. He wished to remind the House that only the other night Lord Castlereagh, the son of Lord Londonderry, was hounded out of a place in West Down by the Orangemen of the North. He ventured to predict that the hon. and learned Chancery lawyer opposite, who always grew enthusiastic, when attacking his own countrymen, would also be hounded out of South Derry at the next election. The hon. and learned Member for South Derry, it, should not be forgotten, sailed into Parliament on the cry of compulsory purchase in Ulster, and the very first vote he gave in this House was against compulsory purchase. He would, no doubt, go back to his constituency to give an account of his stewardship, and then he would once again appeal to their religious passions, to crime in the West of Ireland, and other considerations which would arouse racial hatred. Probably there would be no need for him to again face the electors of South Derry, because his ambition would probably be satisfied by an appointment as a removable magistrate, and then he would be able to put the Crimes Act into force himself. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh had justified the existence of these large grazing ranches by saying that Ireland was a splendid country where grazing could be profitably carried on, and, in fact, that it was the fruitful mother of flocks and herds. "The hon. and gallant Member did not say that when the Land Act was before the House. The reason why the Nationalist Members accepted the Land. Act was because they believed that it would restore the evicted tenants to their 1089 holdings. In this way they were anxious that a brave and noble peasantry should spring up under decent conditions, instead of being compelled to go to America to be a source of bitterness and ill-feeling against the British Empire, and who would be a force which would have to be reckoned with in any possible differences between this country and America. The hon. and learned Member opposite had sneered at public opinion, but, perhaps, he would give the House a Chancery interpretation of how to solve a problem or undo a wrong without enlightening public opinion upon it. How was the Workmen's Compensation Act brought about, except by public opinion? By public speeches in Ireland, by riveting public attention on the grievances of Ireland, and by giving expression to Irish public opinion in that House, they had extorted from that House every remedial measure that had been passed for Ireland. And merely because they had adopted that constitutional method of calling attention to the condition of the West of Ireland the Coercion Act had been put in force, and sixty honest, decent men were dragged before a jury packed by the right hon. packer, the Attorney-General. He was much amused when the right hon. Gentleman jumped up and said that the £100 qualification was only one of the qualifications necessary for a juror. Possibly that was one of the things which the right hon. Gentleman learned whilst driving through Ireland in a motor-car during the Easter holidays. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tell them what the other qualifications were when he replied.
The Prime Minister, the Member for Dover, and the Chief Secretary had admitted that there could be no proper solution of the land question unless the congested districts problem was satisfactorily solved. flow was he going to solve it? By imprisoning the men who asked him to put the Land Act into operation? This was the strong Chief Secretary who was going to put down all agitation in Ireland, and to rule the nation with a happy hand, and the first thing he did was to bring the Coercion Act into operation again, because it would satisfy Lord London derry and the Unionist Members, and 1090 so that he should stand well with the ascendency class. It would be a great deal more manly thing to suspend trial by jury altogether, and to impeach these men before a tribunal consisting of two men in positions to which they had been raised by the ambitions of hon. Gentlemen opposite; thereby doing the thing fair and straight before the people of Ireland and England. But the Chief Secretary said they would proceed by trial by jury, and he proceeded to pack the jury. They were told that this was equal law, and that Ireland was governed by the same system as operated in England. If the right hon. Gentleman wanted war in Ireland he would get it. Stronger and abler men than he had endeavoured to settle the Irish question by coercion, but there never was a Chief Secretary, from Mr. Forster down to the Member for Dover, who had not learned that John Bright was right when he declared that coercion was no remedy for Irish discontent
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.)
said it was not necessary for him to say, after the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that he rose with the greatest possible misgiving to take part in the debate. The hon. Gentleman had delivered a powerful speech, the great part of which consisted in a great deal of advice to him (the Chief Secretary). They had heard the old familiar statement that it was no use to try and maintain the law in Ireland.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said he did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman even when he made a most offensive and unfounded charge against himself. He had not stated his words, but he had stated what he thought was the effect of his speech. He adhered to what he had said. He allowed the hon. Gentleman to have his opportunity to traduce him and his character, and the least he could do was to let him have his say. He had warned him that fate would overtake him as it had overtaken his predecessors and that he ought to be 1091 dismayed. He had tried to find in: the hon. Gentleman's speech some reference to the Motion before the House. That Motion was one for the adjournment of the House, moved by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, upon grounds which he liberally laid down, namely, that a great and serious crisis had arisen-in which recourse was being made to coercive legislation. After that speech, how much had they heard of trials by special jury? The House would hardly believe that the whole of the case of coercion, as it was called, rested upon the action of the Executive in employing special juries. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was very severe upon him because he said his interruption of the hon. Member for Galway was altogether irrelevant, and he sneered at his knowledge of Irish law, because he suggested that he interrupted that hon. Gentleman incorrectly when he stated that the £100 qualification was one of the qualifications of the special juror. That was not his interruption. He rose for the purpose of reminding the House that the hon. Gentleman was not quite correct when he sought to represent that there was only this particular qualification attached to everybody who served on a jury. As the hon. Gentleman knew, there were five classes who were covered by the special jury selection, and the class to which he referred was only one of the five. The main charge made was that they were falling back on coercion, but what on earth had that got to do with the question of the special jury? The House would hardly believe that they had heard in the debate that by employing a special jury they were trying these men by people who were prejudiced against them. He could not help thinking that this argument was double-edged. What was the argument of hon. Gentlemen opposite? It was that the Government could not trust a common jury to try the men, and that they therefore brought forward a special jury. What was their position? They could not trust a special jury or the Motion would not have been made. The allegation was that the special jury would be composed of men who were interested on one side or were not impartial. He would give the House the panel exactly 1092 as it was returned to him, and he would leave it to the House to decide whether there was any foundation for the charge that the employment of the special jury involved the assumption of unfair treatment of those tried. The numbers given were 293, and they were classified in the following way gentlemen and proprietors, eighty three farmers, 148 merchants, thirteen; shopkeepers, thirty-eight; hotel keepers, two; clerk, one; no special classification, seven; grazier, one. He submitted to the House that that was not a very solid foundation on which to raise the charge that by empannelling a special jury they were reverting to coercion and cruel treatment of the Irish people and were instituting an unfair trial.
What was the second indictment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, because his was really the only speech in which they found any attempt to justify the case put forward? He returned to the old familiar charge about a conspiracy which created crime in order to justify coercion, but he was glad to observe that he did not accompany it by other-charges that they had in the debate in May last. He contented himself with repeating the charge that there had been within the last three or four months in the Press both in England and Ireland a conspiracy which had for its object a return to coercion. The House perhaps, would be interested to know that so far as the Irish Government was concerned—and he was speaking not only for the Irish Government since he had been responsible for it, but also for the Irish Government before he became the Chief Secretary—it had never been actuated in its policy either in Ireland or England by any statements in regard to crime in the public Press in regard to which they had not been able to satisfy themselves there was foundation. He regretted as much as the hon. and learned Gentleman could do that in the Press either of England or of Ireland statements should be made in regard to alleged crime unless those statements had been most carefully tested and sifted, and unless they could be justified. Such statements might not only be justly described as an offensive libel on the county concerned, but they were themselves a most serious 1093 impediment to the maintenance of order. He would be the last to deny that cases of this kind had occurred. There had been statements both in the English and Irish Press of alleged outrage when there was no foundation whatever. On the other hand, he would repeat that the Irish Government, not only since he had been responsible for it but during the time of his predecessor, had never acted in Ireland or in that House upon allegations of that kind, never had they been included in their list of agrarian outrages, and never had they justified their action in Ireland by reference to any crimes of that kind. They had satisfied themselves that the facts were as stated, and had acted only as they believed their duty pointed, solidly in one direction. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that this was the dawn of a new era of coercion, and he said that for some years these particular sections of the Crimes Act had not been put in force. He confessed he listened with some surprise to the reference he made to the Lord-Lieutenant. He had never heard the Lord-Lieutenant quoted when he could not be quoted in opposition, as it was believed, to the Chief Secretary of the day, and what a poor compliment the hon. and learned Gentleman paid the Lord-Lieutenant if he accurately described his conduct! He described the Lord-Lieutenant as having signed with delight the proclamation which would put into operation these sections of the Coercion Act, and he proceeded to denounce the Executive for their action. But what an extraordinary position, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had rightly described him, that put the Lord-Lieutenant in! He was Lord-Lieutenant when the so-called policy of conciliation was adopted, and he was Lord-Lieutenant to-day. Did the hon. Gentleman suggest that while he was willingly Lord-Lieutenant then he was unwillingly Lord-Lieutenant now? If he did not, his reference to the Lord-Lieutenant was uncalled for, and his attempt to create a difference between the head of the Irish Executive and the Chief Secretary was one unworthy of the position he held.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND
said his reference to the Lord-Lieutenant was made with no such intention at all. 1094 His quotation from the Lord-Lieutenant was to show that they were led to believe that at that time coercion was over and was dead and gone. Now it appeared that was wrong, and there was a revival of coercion. Of course, he quoted the Lord-Lieutenant's own words. He should be sorry to do anything unfair to the Lord-Lieutenant. If there were any difference between the Lord Lieutenant and the right hon. Gentleman it was not for him to say.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
Oh, no! I was not referring to what the Lord-Lieutenant said. I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he had no fault to find with the Lord-Lieutenant.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND
No, I said I did not question his sincerity when he made the speech I quoted, and I do not still question his sincerity. Your interpretation was not what I intended at all.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said that in that case he would not pursue the point further. He would return to that part of the question that this was the dawn of a new era of coercion. He did not want to make reference to any action or policy of his predecessor in order to justify the action for which he was responsible, but, at the same time, it must be remembered that the two sections under which that action was taken had been in force for four years, that they were put in force by his predecessor, that they had never been repealed, that in the year 1902 they were acted upon by his predecessor in several cases, and that in July, 1903, the late Chief Secretary exercised the same powers which had been exercised by the Irish Government now. He thought, therefore, he was not unfairly straining his language when he said that it was not quite a fair description of the case to say that these sections had been in abeyance for a long time and had been suddenly revived, when it was a fact that in the time of his predecessor they were used in cases both agrarian and non-agrarian as late as July, 1903.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said it was a case of riot and unlawful assembly, tried at Cork in July, 1903. The defendants pleaded guilty, and were discharged on their own recognisances. It was the very kind of case they were now discussing. The hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken about the present condition of Ireland. He (the Chief Secretary) had said before that he rejoiced to know that in regard to many of the classes of crime which had figured in the history of Ireland the condition of the country at the present moment was far more satisfactory than it had been. He shared in the wish that the benches opposite had been as well filled as they were at the present moment.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said the hon. and learned Gentleman mistook his reason. He was not suggesting blame to the Leader of the Opposition, whose duties he was sure were sufficiently onerous to justify him not being present, nor was he suggesting blame to the right hon. Gentleman's friends for not being present. He wished they had been present for reasons which would not exist in the case of his hon. friends behind him; he wished they had been present because their presence would have enabled them to appreciate, as they could in no other way than by being brought personally in contact with them, the difficulties with which they had to deal. It was perfectly true that hon. Gentlemen below the gangway had cheered sentiments which hon. Gentlemen opposite would-regard as altogether repugnant and detestable if applied to their own constituents. If it were represented to hon. Gentlemen representing county constituencies that the same pressure was to be brought to bear upon owners and occupiers of land in their constituencies to give up their land in order that it might be used for other purposes, however beneficial, as was to be brought upon the graziers of Ireland, he did not believe there was one hon. Member who would not repudiate, and repudiate with indignation, any such attempt. Yet that night the announcement of those views had been received with unqualified applause. There were 1096 other directions in which they must judge the condition of the county. When it was said there was a diminution in overt crime, that was not insufficient by itself to enable them to judge of the actual condition of the country. They had heard a great deal about grazing farms. In 1903, in the East Riding of Galway, there were nine farms and 1,670 acres of land unlet. In 1905 the number of farms had grown to forty-five and the acreage to 6,074. Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheered that as a satisfactory result. It was the result of the agitation they had been carrying on. This result had not been brought about by the voluntary surrendering of these lands, but they had been given up by men who would willingly have continued to hold them, bat were afraid to do so because of the agitation conducted against them. The number of agrarian crimes must be regarded as an indication of the peace of the county or the reverse. From January 1st to May 30th, 1904, the number was seventy-five, of which forty-two were cases of threatening letters. During the same period in 1905 the number was 127, of which eighty were cases of threatening letters. Hon. Members received any reference to threatening letters with derision, but he believed that, if they were in the position of the people who received them, they would not regard them with so much contempt. The small cottier and the small farmer in Ireland were told, and they had been told in the House that night, that their continuance in their holdings was an outrage to those among whom they lived. If that intimation was accompanied by strong language and threats, was it to be wondered at that they should be alarmed?
He was inclined to believe that if those hon. Members who sat for English constituencies, and who were inclined to sneer at the dangers of these men, were placed in the same position, they would be the first to demand that the law of the land should give them protection. The hon. and learned Gentleman and his supporters had denounced the Government because they had fallen back on special dries. He thought he had shown there was justification for special measures in the condition of things in some parts of the country. Whether or not 1097 he had satisfied the House in that respect, he was content to fall back on the general proposition that he believed it to be the duty of the Government to give protection to all and to enable all to do their duty in the way they thought right, so long as they acted within the law. If in maintaining those principles he was guilty of the charge which was levelled against him by hon. Gentlemen opposite, all he could say was that he would bear it with considerable equanimity. He had reason to know that what had been said in the House that evening did not represent the views of all the people who were most intimately concerned. He had reason to believe there were many small farmers, graziers, and tenants in Ireland who, whatever might be their political views, were anxious that there should be freedom and that they should have the protection of the law. It had been said with great unfairness that the beneficial operations of the Act of 1903 had been interfered with by the action of his right hon. and learned friend. There was no shadow of foundation for that charge. The Land Act had gone steadily forward. So anxious were hon. Gentlemen opposite to drive home the charge of coercion that they had not said a word of acknowledgment of the good work which had been done by the Estates Commissioners and the Congested Districts Board in the direction they had advocated—namely, the turning of the uneconomic into an economic holding, Great steps had been taken in that direction. There were large districts which had been already turned into economic holdings. The responsibility lay with hon. Gentlemen opposite for retarding the operations of the Act if they made speeches supporting a policy which sought to bring grass land into the market by illegitimate and coercive measures rather than by supporting the policy of maintaining the law and carrying out the development of the Land Act of 1903 by legitimate and peaceful methods.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said that one of the reasons why the Nationalist Members gave the Act of 1903 their support was that they believed the measure would deal primarily with the congested districts and 1098 the evicted tenants. The district which was the subject of this Motion was the one district of all others in Ireland where they looked for a remedy under the Act of 1903, and yet they found that instead of being dealt with the old conditions remained practically the same, the land still remained unoccupied, men were still evicted, and the war between Lord Clanricarde and his tenants still continued. It was a dishonest argument to bring the foul shadow of crime over this discussion when all over Ireland the Judges were receiving white gloves because there was no crime in Ireland. He knew that in Ireland in times of excitement strong statements were frequently made. He could, if necessary, give instances of similar statements having been made in this country. He confessed that he had listened with some trepidation to the reading of those terrible resolutions which had been read to the House by the hon. and learned Member opposite. What did they state? They simply stated that they would bring the force of public opinion to bear in order to see that the Land Act was carried out in those districts, and in his opinion they were quite justified in taking that course. Were the people of a country which was bleeding at every pore from the effects of bad government to be blamed because they insisted upon their holdings being increased under the operation of the Land Act by the addition of the untenanted land which was now given up to sheep and cattle grazing? They would not be men and patriots if they did not protest against this state of things, and bring public opinion to bear in order to obtain what was promised them at the passing of the Land Act. What was the remedy of the Government and of the right hon. Gentleman opposite? To put in force the Coercion Act. One would imagine from the euphemistic language of the right hon. Gentleman that the Coercion Act was one of the mildest and most innocuous processes of law that could possibly be, and the Attorney-General for Ireland assumed an air of pious and saint-like attachment whilst this beautiful system of special juries was being described by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. What did a special jury mean? The right 1099 hon. Gentleman had read out a list, but a more monstrous attempt at mystification was never before attempted in the House of Commons. He said there was only one grazier on this particular jury, but as a matter of fact there was practically nothing else but graziers upon it. Every man on that jury must have a valuation of £100. That meant that he must possess in Ireland 100,200, and even 300 acres of land, and only graziers possessed that amount of land. Who were the men who sat upon these juries? They were landlords and land-agents. Mr. Tennant was one of them, and he was the land agent for Lord Clanricarde. That was the kind of jury before which these poor tenants, were going to be tried. Besides this the Crown had an unlimited right of challenging jurymen, and he ventured to say that upon this particular jury the Crown would use its right of challenge until in the end these poor Irish, Catholic, Nationalist peasants would be tried by twelve of their bitterest opponents in creed, in class, and in interest. To call that trial by jury was a mockery. He wished to say a word or two about jury-packing. The right hon. Gentleman accused them of calumny when they
§ charged these special juries with deciding against the weight of evidence. Had the Attorney-General never heard of the name of Sheridan. Why was Sheridan able to send four or five men to prison for six and twelve months, and for penal servitude, in Sligo? Why was Sheridan, able to send those four men to prison for a crime which he and his colleagues had committed with their own hands? Simply because the Attorney-General did in Sligo what he was now proposing to do in Galway, that was to put into the jury box the political, the religious, and the class opponents of the poor wretches who stood in the dock. By that means, as the result of the blind class hatred which unfortunately still divided Ireland, they were able to secure convictions in the Sheridan case upon evidence on which any body of impartial men would have dismissed the prisoners. That was the issue which they were trying to-day, and that was a specimen of the equal laws and the equal justice which the Government were meting out to Ireland.
§ Question put—
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 136; Noes, 17G. (Division List No. 240.)1103
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)||Dobbie, Joseph||Jones, Leif (Appleby)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Doogan, P. G.||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)|
|Allen, Charles P.||Duffy, William J.||Jordan, Jeremiah|
|Ashton, Thomas Gair||Duncan, J. Hastings||Joyce, Michael|
|Baker, Joseph Allen||Elibank, Master of||Kennedy, Vincent P. (CavanW|
|Barry, E. (Cork, S.)||Ellice, Capt E.C (SAndrw's Bghs||Kilbride, Denis|
|Boland, John||Ellis, John Edward (Notts)||Lamont, Norman|
|Brigg, John||Emmott, Alfred||Langley, Batty|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Farrell, James Patrick||Law, Hugh Alex (Donegal, W.)|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Fenwick, Charles||Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Ffrench, Peter||Layland-Barratt, Francis|
|Bryce, Rt. Hon. James||Findlay, Alexander(Lanark NE||Leigh, Sr Joseph|
|Burke, E. Haviland||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Levy, Maurice|
|Buxton, N. E. (York NR Whitby||Flynn, James Christopher||Lough, Thomas|
|Caldwell, James||Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John||Lundon, W.|
|Cameron, Robert||Goddard, Daniel Ford||Lyell, Charles Henry|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.||Griffith, Ellis J.||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift-|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Haldane, Rt. Hn. Richard B.||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Hammond, John||M'Crae George|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Harcourt, Lewis||M'Kean, John|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Harmsworth, R. Leicester||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Harwood, George||Mooney, John J.|
|Crean, Eugene||Hayden, John Patrick||Moss, Samuel|
|Cremer, William Randal||Helme, Norval Watson||Muldoon, John|
|Crombie, John William||Hemphill, Rt. Hn. Charles H.||Murphy, John|
|Cullinan, J.||Higham, John Sharp||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Dalziel, James Henry||Holland, Sir William Henry||Nolan, Col. J. P. (Galway, N.)|
|Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway||Hope, John Deans (Fife, West||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Hutchinson, Dr. Chas. Fredk.||Nussey, Thomas Willans|
|O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid.)||Roche, John (Galway, East)||Thomas, J A (Glamorgan, Gower|
|O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Roe, Sir Thomas||Tomkinson, James|
|O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W||Rose, Charles Day.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Runciman, Walter||Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan|
|O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Russell, T. W.||White, George (Norfolk)|
|O'Dowd, John||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Shackleton, David James||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.|
|O'Malley, William||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Sheehy, David||Wills, Arthur W. (N. Dorset)|
|Partington, Oswald||Shipman, Dr. John G.||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W.R.|
|Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)|
|Power, Patrick Joseph||Slack, John Bamford||Young, Samuel|
|Priestley, Arthur||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Reddy, M.||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Donelan and Mr Patrick O'Brien.|
|Redmond, John E. (Waterford||Sullivan, Donal|
|Rickett, J. Compton||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe|
|Robson, William Snowdon||Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr|
|Agnew Sir Andrew Noel||Fergusson, Rt Hn. Sir J. (Manc'r)||MacIver, David (Liverpool)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst||Maconochie, A. W.|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt.Hn.Hugh O||Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ss B'ghs||M'Killop, James (Stirlingshire)|
|Arrol, Sir William||Fisher, William Hayes||Majendie, James A. H.|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hn. John||Fison, Frederick William||Malcolm, Ian|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Flower, Sir Ernest||Martin, Richard Biddulph|
|Bailey, James (Walworth)||Forster, Henry William||Milner, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick G.|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Foster, P. S. (Warwick. S. W.)||Montague, Hn. J. Scott (Hants)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Galloway, William Johnson||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manch'r.)||Godson, Sir Augustus Fredk.||Morrell, George Herbert|
|Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W.(Leeds||Gordon, Hn J.E. (Elgin & Nairn)||Morrison, James Archibald|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)||Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Mount, William Arthur|
|Banner, John S. Harmood||Graham, Henry Robert||Muntz, Sir Philip A.|
|Bartley, Sir George C. T.||Greene, Henry D (Shrewsbury||Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry)|
|Bathurst, Hn. Allen Benjamin||Greene, W. Raymond(Cambs)||Myers, William Henry|
|Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Hall, Edward Marshall||Nicholson, William Graham|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nd'ry||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
|Bingham, Lord||Hardy, L. (Kent, Ashford)||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)|
|Bond, Edward||Hare, Thomas Leigh||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Bowles, Lt. Col. HF. (Middlesex||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington|
|Brassey, Albert||Heath, Sir Jas. (Staffords. NW||Percy, Earl|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hn. St. John||Heaton, John Henniker||Pierpoint, Robert|
|Brotherton, Edward Allen||Helder, Augustus||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Brymer, William Ernest||Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford. W||Plummer, Sir Walter R.|
|Bull, William James||Hoare, Sir Samuel||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp|
|Butcher, John George||Hogg, Lindsay||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside)||Pryce-Jones, Lt. Col. Edward|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham||Pym, C. Guy|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Hunt, Rowland||Randles, John S.|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.||Jebb, Sir Richard Claverhouse||Rankin, Sir James|
|Chamberlain, RtHn. J. A. (Worc)||Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Chapman, Edward||Kerr, John||Renshaw, Sir Chas. Bine|
|Clive, Captain Percy A.||Keswick, Wiliam||Renwick, George|
|Coates, Edward Feetham||Knowles, Sir Lees||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Cochrane, Hn. Thos. H. A. E.||Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Corbett, T. L. (Down, North||Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. Mile End||Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert|
|Cross, Herb Shepherd (Bolton)||Lee, A. H. (Hants, Fareham)||Round, Rt. Hn. James|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Rutherford, John (Lancashire|
|Cust, Henry John C.||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Leveson-Gower, Frederick N. S||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol. S||Saunderson, Rt Hn. Col. Edw. J.|
|Davenport, William Bromley||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Seely, Chas. Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Lowe, Francis William||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Loyd, Archie Kirkman||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers||Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth||Smith, H. C. (North'mb Tyneside|
|Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. Hart||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Smith, Rt Hn J. Parker(Lanarks|
|Fellowes, Rt. Hn. Ailwyn Edw.||Macdona, John Cumming||Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs)|
|Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart||Tuff, Charles||Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.|
|Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.||Tuke, Sir John Batty||Wilson-Todd, Sir W H (Yorks.)|
|Stroyan, John||Turnour, Viscount||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley||Walrond, RtHn Sir William H.||Wylie, Alexander|
|Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)||Warde, Colonel C. E.||Wyndham, Rt. Hn. George|
|Talbot, RtHn. J. G. (Oxf'd Univ.)||Welby, Lt-Col, A.C.E. (Taunton)||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth||Whiteley, H. (Ashton undLyne|
|Thornton, Percy M.||Whitmore, Charles Algernon||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.|
|Tollemache, Henry James||Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)|
|Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
Bill read the third time, and passed.