§ Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Question (March 27th), "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ Question again proposed.
*SIR THOMAS ESMONDS (Wexford, N.)
said he desired to direct the attention of the Government to the question of the encouragement of Irish fisheries. He and his colleagues had repeatedly urged the claim of the Irish fisheries and Irish fishermen to Government assistance, but so far without any practical result. The late Chief Secretary promised, two or three sessions ago, to institute an inquiry into the subject. He thought they were entitled to ask what had become of that inquiry, and, if it had been held, that the result of the investigation should be made public. In July last, again, they had what he regarded as a distinct Parliamentary pledge from the Secretary to the Treasury that, if the Chief Secretary came 1278 forward with a definite scheme, he would give it all the assistance in his power. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had a very large surplus and might very well spare a few thousands of pounds toward carrying out the pledge given by the Secretary to the Treasury.
The development and encouragement of the Irish fisheries was a matter in which the people of Ireland took a very great interest. It affected practically the whole of the country, North, South, East, and West, and so far as that part of the country with which he was acquainted was concerned, the counties of Dublin, Wicklow, Wexford, and Waterford, every single public body had unanimously invited the Government to deal with this question, and to relieve the, fishermen from the great distress under which the fishing industry at the present time was labouring. The fishermen themselves all along the coast had held meetings and had called upon their representatives in the House to speak for them, and had brought every pressure they could to bear upon the Government to remedy the present unsatisfactory conditions. So far as the Irish Party was concerned they were determined to assist these men, to the best of their power. They warned the Government that this was a matter they would have to take up very shortly, if they did not take it up now; that it was 1279 a question of extreme urgency and the Irish Members would not let it drop. The fishing population of Ireland had diminished to an extraordinary degree of recent years. In many places with which he was acquainted there were only half the boats that were there in other times; the fishing population were emigrating year by year. Ireland was losing the best of her people, and it seemed to him a most extraordinary thing that while the British Government encouraged the riff-raff of Europe to settle in this country they would not take any step whatever to prevent the emigration that was going on at the present time of the ancient race of the country.
He did not at this moment ask for specific legislation, as that would be out of order, but that the administrative facilities that the Government already possessed should be put into operation. It was neither a difficult nor a very large question to deal with, nor was it insoluble if common sense was brought to bear upon it. There were many places along the coast where a very little judicious expenditure would stop emigration by providing employment for the community, which would return to its old industry and earn its living. They had all heard that under a Unionist Government a new era was dawning for Ireland, and that all sorts of industries were to be established and encouraged by a benevolent Government. To his mind it was far better and much cheaper to preserve those industries which existed than to establish others. The emigration from Ireland could only be stopped by providing employment for the people. The encouragement of the fishing industry, with the consequent revival of the kindred industries, boat building, fishing-gear manufacturing, sail making, and the like would go far to prevent emigration and keep the people in the country.
He had been a great admirer of the work which had been done by the Congested Districts Board, but he thought in this connection that Board had missed a great opportunity. The Congested Districts Board had been in the habit of encouraging, in certain districts of the West, the fishing industry, and had been in the habit of giving 1280 boats and fishing gear to the people of those districts where it was in their opinion desirable that this industry should be encouraged, but those boats and that gear had been generally brought from either Scotland or the Isle of Man. Had they procured those boats and that gear in Ireland it would have gone at any rate some way to establish those trades allied to the fishing industry, and that in itself would have been good policy, as they would have done something for local industries which were now languishing. For years he had commended this suggestion to the Chief Secretary, and he now hoped that in future any boats and gear required would be procured in Ireland. He invited the right hon. Gentleman to go down to Arklow and see a boat which had been recently launched there (a boat built by Arklow shipwrights with Arklow workmen) if he did, he thought he would find that that boat was equally well built and just as cheap as any boat built either in Scotland or the Isle of Man. It was not the habit of Chief Secretaries for Ireland to go among the people, but he thought it would be a good thing if the right hon. Gentleman broke through that tradition and learnt from the people themselves their wants and their wishes, and how they might be best served. The right hon. Member would find many places along the coast where for a very small expenditure he could greatly improve the fishing industry. He would also see some relics of the monumental incapacity of Dublin Castle in the past; for instance, he would see at Arklow, the largest fishing centre in Ireland, with a population of 1,000 fishermen, all expert mariners, a pier so constructed that the fishing fleet was not able very often to get out of the harbour or, being out, was unable to get in. That wonderful pier had been constructed with the money of the ratepayers of Wicklow and Wexford by the Irish Board of Works, and was so constructed that at certain tides and during the prevalence of certain winds it was impossible to get outside the harbour or, if outside, it was impossible to get in again. The whole of, last autumn's fishing was lost owing to the construction of this harbour, and the people of Wicklow and Wexford were now repaying a loan which had been thrust upon them, and from which they 1281 had received no benefit. Not only had they built Arklow Harbour, but many others beside. They had taxed themselves to their utmost capacity, and they could not tax themselves further. He submitted that it was the duty of the so-called Government of the country to protect the industries of the country, and fishing being the largest industry after that of agriculture, it was the duty of the Government to come forward and put straight the mal-administration of the past. It was not fair to ask the local ratepayers to spend more money in the development of the fishing industry having regard to the enormous sums that they had spent in the past, and to the fact that they were not in a position to give more money. Arklow Harbour was a scandal, such as in any other country on the face of the earth would be impossible. They expected the Government to come forward, and take this matter up seriously. The question was a perfectly easy one to deal with. The Government had a remedy in their own hands. All they had to do was to extend the operation of the Marine Works Act to those parts of the Irish coast to which it did not now apply, and if they showed by such action that they were desirous of remedying this evil they would receive the assistance of every section of the community in Ireland.
§ MR. POWER (Waterford, E.)
said he was glad his hon. friend had brought this matter to the attention of the House. It was a matter with which he was honourably identified and no Irishman could have done a better thing for Ireland. This state of things was a commentary upon the government of Ireland. It had always been as sorted, but they denied the assertion, that this Government was only too anxious and willing to do everything it could for Ireland. But, even if the Government were willing, the congestion of business in the House was such that it was impossible for them to bring forward any policy to deal with this matter, having regard to their many other duties. His hon. friend the Member for North Wexford had alluded to the decay of the Irish fisheries. That decay had been lamentable, but he doubted whether it was one whit worse than the decay which 1282 had taken place in other Irish industries Industrial decay was marked wherever they went in Ireland, and the state of things was simply appalling. The fishing industry had suffered enormously, and so far from apologising for bringing forward this case he thought this country owed restitution to Ireland for the way they had put down Irish industries in the past. The Irish fisheries were no exception to this rule. The decay of Irish fisheries, as Mr. Lecky pointed out in his "History of Ireland in the Eighteenth Century," was to be ascribed, in the first-instance, to jealous English legislation. Even Froude, in no measured language, detailed the steps taken to put down the fishing industry in Ireland. Not long ago, in a speech to his constituents at Dover, the late Chief Secretary for Ireland quoted an eloquent passage from the writings of Lord Dufferin in which he wrote of the jealous legislation which had crushed and killed the industries of Ireland. That was the condition of Ireland to-day, and what steps were being taken to improve it? At the present time they heard a good deal about protection, but Ireland did not need protection against the so-called foreigner, but protection from her nearer neighbours, whose jealousy of Ireland's trade had destroyed every Irish industry that promised at one time to be successful.
How were they being treated at the present time? The Board over which Sir Horace Plunkett presided had acted with great liberality towards his constituency. The local authorities in his division had, however, been obliged to borrow money at a high rate of interest, and the time allowed for repayment was only twelve years. The local authorities had found large sums of money, although the local rates stood at 8s. 6d. in the £. It was true that the Agricultural Board had supplemented the efforts of the local authorities, but had it not been for the generosity of the county council nothing would have been got from the Government Department. With regard to the fisheries he thought Ireland had been treated in the most scurvy way by the Admiralty. They passed a Bill prohibiting trawling in Scotland within certain areas, the only result of which was that Ireland suffered in consequence, because those trawlers had now turned 1283 their attention to Irish waters instead of Scotch waters. The Admiralty had refused to grant them a gunboat for the protection of Irish fisheries, although he was informed that the Scotch Fisher Board had two or three gunboats placed at their disposal. He was aware that the waters along the Irish coast were patrolled by vessels belonging to the Department and paid for by them, but Ire land got no direct assistance from the Admiralty, whereas their friends in the North of Scotland were not placed ii that unfortunate position. He thought that was a practical question, and the Chief Secretary might interest himself in that matter. If some gunboats were placed at the disposal of the Department some of the money now spent upon their own boats might be spent in a better way.
The condition of Arklow had been alluded to, and the state of things existing there was an absolute disgrace to this country, and could not obtain in any other country in the world where they had representative institutions and representative government. The practice appeared to be in the House that when Irish Nationalists pronounced in favour of any Motion or measure that was taken as a signal by hon. Members opposite to march into the division lobby against them. Ireland gained nothing by the Navy Votes, and when they asked for any assistance from the Admiralty they turned a deaf ear to their appeals. This was only one of the many ways in which the material interests of Ireland were neglected. He agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wexford that it was better to keep alive the industries they now possessed than start new ones. The fishing industry was one of their oldest industries, and it ought to be fully developed. Failing industries kept a country back and prevented people embarking in fresh enterprises. The fishing industry was one in which they had the material at hand. Accordingly it was incumbent upon Parliament to endeavour to undo, as far as possible, the effects of these evil enactments by providing harbours and encouraging boatbuilding and sail-making in the fishing districts. No greater condemnation of English rule could be found than the dwindling of the population of Ireland, 1284 which, after all, was the standard by which every country judged its prosperity.
§ MR. WILLIAM MOORE (Antrim, N.)
said, as he understood what had been said in the debate by hon. Members opposite, the arguments divided themselves into two heads. In the first place it was held that it was a striking commentary on the administration of Ireland under the Act of Union that the harbours in the South-East of Ireland had been so much neglected by the Government; and secondly, that those harbours had a prior right to be dealt with before any others.
§ *SIR THOMAS ESMONDE
I said this was a question which affected the North as well as the South. I said nothing about prior right.
§ MR. WILLIAM MOORE
accepted the hon. Baronet's explanation, but he had had the advantage during the recess of reading his speeches and letters in support of a movement on behalf of the southeastern ports of Ireland which the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wexford undertook to press forward in the House. He remembered particularly well the advice the hon. Baronet gave in a published letter in which he said that until the fishermen of the South of Ireland took to breaking panes of glass they would never get listened to at Westminster. He understood that the hon. Baronet pledged himself to press that forward with vigour. From the references the hon. Baronet made to ports only situated in the south-east corner of Ireland he assumed he had boon acting up to his pledges. They had heard a great deal about the treatment which the South-East of Ireland had received from the Government. They were told it was a striking commentary on the Act of Union. The hon. Baronet said that they had pressed on the Government, so far without success, the claims of these harbours and ports. It was not fair; of the House that statements should be made which would convey to it that, under the Act of Union, nothing had been lone for that coast. Why, there was £250,000 voted for Irish piers and harbours under the Fisheries Act in 1285 1883, and a Return was published on June 25th, 1898, which showed how that money was spent. In the county of Waterford there was a total of £15,500, in Wexford under that Act £7,785, in Wicklow £20,000, and under another Act in Arklow £40.000. And this wretched little corner of Ireland which was causing all this agitation got about £150,000 under one Act or another inside the last thirty years. Yet the Nationalist Members complained that that was the treatment Ireland received under the Act of Union. He thought it was most creditable treatment. And it was not a straight or right thing that Members from that part of the country should complain that so far they had met with no success and that nothing had been done for them.
§ MR. WILLIAM MOORE
said that most of them were grants, but even if they were loans those particular districts got the advantage of Imperial credit. He wished to tell the House what had been done in those parts of Ireland where they had not been encouraged to break panes of glass in order to call attention to their grievances and where they obeyed the law of the land. There was a district around Belfast comprising a coast line of about 150 miles. The sum of £82,000 had been spent under the last Act, and what had this district got? Portrush, out of £250,000, got £1,340 spent by the Board of Works in 1888. In the following year a tempest arose and the concrete blocks put there by the Board of Works were swept away into the Channel. From that day to this the harbour had been rendered worse than it was before. The difficulties of the harbour had been doubled by the debris placed there by the Board of Works. The Government Department must have found that there was a necessity for this work or they would not have spent £1,300. The constituency represented by the hon. Member for North Wexford in the last ten years had got the surplus of this £250,000.
§ MR. WILLIAM MOORE
replied that it might be wasted, but they were getting the money. Ulster could not get that. And in the case he had mentioned he approached the Board of Agriculture time after time, and although the Government had admitted the necessity for these particular works, nothing had been done—simply because they did not go on the lines of the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wexford and advise their constituents to break panes of glass. This was another illustration of the beautiful doctrine lately known as conciliation. He believed it was still known as conciliation, but he had reason to understand that it was not quite so much in force. Last summer, early in the spring, [Laughter]—early in the spring of last year he brought before the Chief Secretary the complaint that the harbour at Portrush was being filled up with sand. It was a very important thing for Portrush, as all that part of the country depended very largely on the tourist traffic. Special tourist boats ran every day to Ardrossan, and they ran weekly to other ports in Scotland, and it meant a very great deal to the farmers, and to the car drivers and hotel keepers. In order to meet the exigencies of the tourist traffic he asked the Chief Secretary whether, to enable those boats to come into the harbour, he could grant them the use of the Government dredger, because the Board of Works had two dredgers. In those days conciliation was in full swing, and the answer he got from the Chief Secretary was that the only Government dredgers were both in Nationalist harbours. Later on there was a development in the other direction which almost proved the case. Besides, the hon. Baronet the Member for West Wexford's glass-pane cracking brigade kept up an agitation in November and December last, and there was a meeting held in Dublin of the people interested in the south-eastern harbours who already had £100,000 in their pockets, and were asking for more. At the meeting they had a letter from the Secretary of the Board of Agriculture, Mr. T. P. Gill, a gentleman who formerly sat on the Nationalist benches, and who certainly had not lost his sympathy with the objects of the Nationalist Members. 1287 There was a gentleman who wrote and complained that Arklow was filled up with sand——exactly what he told the Chief Secretary about the harbour of Portrush. Well, Mr. Gill, on the very first complaint being made, at once made arrangements to have Arklow dredged. Arklow had had £40,000 already. They got the money.
§ MR. WILLIAM MOORE
replied that they got the benefit of the credit of the money. He could quite understand why they wanted to keep Sir Antony Mac-Donnell at Dublin Castle. When they had Mr. Gill in charge of the Department of Agriculture they could understand why Arklow got the dredger, while Port-rush was left to shift for itself. Arklow got the dredger because it was the one town in Ireland in which no Protestant was allowed to preach in the streets. For any man in Arklow to call himself either Unionist or Protestant simply meant that he would be driven out of the town. That was the position of affairs. All he could say was that he and his colleagues intended that there should be fair play in Ireland in these matters, and that not even the influence of Sir Antony MacDonnell or of Mr. Gill should ensure that a district which had already had £100,000 should take priority over that part of the country where all it had had from the Government, most of which had been honestly repaid, could be counted on the fingers of one hand.
§ MR. COGAN (Wicklow, E.)
said that both with regard to street preaching and the question of grants the statements or the hon. Member for North Antrim were inaccurate. Arklow was the only town in the southern province of Ireland where street preaching was permitted every Sunday all the year round. But the question of street preaching was of small importance as compared with the preservation of the people and the protection of their means of livelihood; therefore he would deal with the question of grants. The hon. Member stated that £100,000 had been given to the south-eastern coast. As a matter of fact, £140,000 had been wasted on harbours 1288 in the county of Wicklow alone. At Arklow £35,000 was spent upon a harbour, £23,000 of the money being a loan but the harbour was found to be so absolutely useless that the Wicklow Grand Jury at the Spring Assizes in 1885, almost directly after the completion of the harbour, passed a resolution pointing out that the harbour had been constructed against the express wishes; and views of the people most concerned, and asking for an early inspection in order that the cess-payers might be relieved of a useless expenditure. An inspection was made, and, it being found that the harbour was crumbling away, a further expenditure of £7,000 was sanctioned. After a period of thirteen years the harbour became filled up with sand, and for five years the harbour commissioners endeavoured to dredge the harbour, but they were unable to keep it clear of sand. In 1903 the harbour became permanently filled up, and the fishing fleet were unable to get out, or, if they got out, they were unable to get in again. The harbour commissioners were constantly pressing the Government to do something, and in the early spring of last year a dredger was sent down, but it was unable to clear the sand. Thus a population of 3,000, who were dependent upon fishing, had been rendered helpless, and the local industries had been ractically extinguished through their inability to ship their produce from the harbour. The people of Wicklow then approached the Department of Agriculture, but it was not until long after public bodies and county councils had taken action that the Department promised to do something. The agitation was not set on foot by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Wexford; it had been going on for years. At a meeting attended by delegates from the county councils of Dublin, Wicklow, Wexford, and Waterford, there was passed a strong resolution calling upon the Government to take action in the matter; that resolution was confirmed by the county councils themselves and by every harbour commission and rural council in the four counties. At the end of 1903 the Board of Works sent their chief engineer to survey the harbour, and the detailed report submitted by that 1289 officer fully confirmed the original contention of the people of Wicklow with regard to the position and manner in which the harbour had been constructed. He hoped the Chief Secretary would study that report with a view to the adoption of the recommendations of the chief engineer.
The representatives of the south-eastern counties were anxious that the Marine Works Act should be extended to all the maritime counties of Ireland. They had no selfish views in the matter, their desire being that the Government should do its duty to all counties. The fishing industry, which was of supreme importance to the people of Ireland, had been totally neglected in the past, as would be made abundantly clear by a comparison between the treatment given to English and Scotch fisheries and that meted out to Ireland. The Department of Agriculture were anxious to do all they could, but their means were very limited. Here was a case in which public money had been expended in such a way that the expenditure would be absolutely worthless unless some further works were carried out, and he submitted that there was no commercial concern in the country that would hesitate to undertake a small additional expenditure to make previous large expenditure remunerative. It was one of the first duties of the Government to look after the people, and they ought now to come to the rescue. The Board of Works was a monument of bad works; everything they had done in the matter of harbours and piers had been a failure. On the harbour at Wicklow £67,000 was spent; the whole of the money was a loan, and had had to be repaid with ¼ per cent. interest, with the result that Wicklow and the guaranteeing baronies had been charged with £3,300 a year. That harbour and the town itself were now threatened with complete destruction. Then, again, at Greystones some £20,000 had been absolutely thrown into the sea. When the harbour was supposed to have been completed it was examined by the county surveyor, but it was in so ruinous a condition that he refused to certify for it, and the Grand Jury declined to take it over. On these three 1290 harbours £140,000 had been wasted, and he asked the Government, in the name of common sense, to take steps to put the harbours in a proper condition, so that that large expenditure should not be altogether thrown away. Such a state of things would not be tolerated in a Scotch or English harbour for a single week, but because the Irish were a patient people this kind of thing went on year after year without anything being done. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take the matter in hand, and have steps taken to improve the condition of affairs of which they complained.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.)
said the people of the North of Ireland felt that they had been neglected under recent sinister influences while the South and West of Ireland had been unduly favoured, but his intervention was to point out that even where money had been spent on a northern constituency it had not been very wisely applied. The pier at Portavogie had been greatly damaged, if not absolutely swept away by a recent gale. The point he wished to emphasise was that that pier was constructed against all local opinion and local knowledge, and on a plan against which the county council of Down, other local influences, and he in Parliament, had over and over again protested. He wished to make an appeal on behalf of Bangor, because no fishing boats could go there at low tide. The county council had given its approval in regard to some improvements there, and he trusted that the new Chief Secretary would do something to help on these local claims which, although they might appear small matters to bring before the House of Commons, were yet of vita importance to the localities concerned He hoped that in the future Ireland would receive fair treatment all round in these matters.
§ MR. CHARLES DEVLIN (Galway)
said his object in rising was to call attention to certain matters which he had brought before the notice of the Chief Secretary last year. The hon. Member or North Antrim had informed the Nationalist Party that they were a window-breaking brigade.
§ MR. CHARLES DEVLIN,
continuing, said the hon. Member had also said that they were insolent and had many other sins. Those were somewhat hard epithets to use against them, but when they remembered who it was that used them they were inclined to let them pass unnoticed. The charge which Nationalist Members made was that their constituencies were being neglected in regard to public works, and upon this point the hon. Member for North Down said that they were right.
§ MR. CHARLES DEVLIN
said the hon. Member for North Down said that the grants given to certain harbours were wasted, and that was precisely the charge which Nationalist Members made.
§ MR T. L. CORBETT
said he entirely agreed with every word which the hon. Member for North Antrim had said. What he said was that some of the money which had been spent by the Government on the harbours in the North of Ireland had not been wisely spent.
§ MR. CHARLES DEVLIN
said the hon. Member for North Antrim had been giving them a lesson on loyalty. There was one man to whom the hon. Member ought to have been loyal, and where was he now? If there ever was a man to whom the hon. Member opposite ought to have been loyal it was the late Chief Secretary for Ireland. This was the Gentleman who was preaching loyalty to the Irish Members. The Unionists of Ireland were only loyal when they got everything. His constituency of Galway had not had one penny from the Government in the way of assistance of any kind for the last three years.
§ MR. WILLIAM MOORE
said the hon. Member was evidently in error about his own constituency. If he would look at 1292 the Return from which he had quoted he would see that since the year 1883 Galway had received from the Government £30,000.
§ MR. CHARLES DEVLIN
said he was speaking of the poor country around the city of Galway, a constituency which he knew well. Not one penny had been spent by the Government in his constituency for the last three years, although they had had the honour of a visit from a Government inspector. The lighting of the harbour was complained of, and the harbour board undertook to correct it, but immediately an order was given by the Local Government Board telling them that they must not change the lighting of the harbour. Afterwards the Local Government Board sent an inspector to visit the harbour, and he came upon a glorious day when things were calm. He came in the morning and went away in the afternoon, after examining the lights when they were not lit. That was all they did for his constituency in three years. They had been told that they must rely upon their own resources. Here was a poor section of the country right around the city, where the Land Act had done nothing for the people, and where it had not been put into operation. A woollen factory was started there by a few people, and it had turned out goods acknowledged to be the finest in the three kingdoms. The people themselves had also established a brush factory, but the very things which the Government could have done to assist the people there were just the things which had not been done. In the face of these facts he would not say that the remarks of the hon. Member for North Antrim were insolent, and he would not say what they were. He thought he had made out his case that it was necessary that a dredger should be sent to the harbour of Galway as soon as possible. He had received Answers upon this question from the Attorney-General and from the late Chief Secretary, but he should continue to press this matter session after session in the hope that in the near future they would have someone sitting on the Treasury Bench representing the Government who would listen to their representations, and would not give them so many unfulfilled promises.
§ MR. CLANCY (Dublin County, N.)
said this was really too serious a subject to be treated in the way in which it had been treated by the hon. Member for North Antrim. He assured hon. Members opposite that the Pope had nothing to do with their actions upon these questions, for he knew nothing about dredgers either on the east or the west coast of Ireland, and he doubted if he even knew where North Antrim was on the map. Therefore he begged hon. Members opposite to be serious in this matter, when they were dealing with questions which materially affected the welfare of Ireland. For his own part he had no objection to anything being done for any part of Ireland which urgently required the attention of the Government. He rejoiced when he heard of anything being done to a harbour in Down or Antrim, just as much as he did when anything was being done to the harbours on the west coast of Ireland. He had no objection to any harbour being improved. The hon. Member for North Antrim had quoted certain figures, but he had been informed that the greater part of the sum he had mentioned was granted in the shape of loans, which, of course, had to be repaid. Their great grievance was that these moneys had been entirely wasted, and had been spent against the wishes of the localities concerned, and entirely without any local control. He put it to the Chief Secretary whether it was not an outrage for the poor people to have to pay back these loans out of the rates when the money had been misspent on works which were absolutely useless. The boast of Irish Unionists was that this Parliament could do everything for Ireland that an Irish Parliament could do.
§ MR. CLANCY
said that North, South, East, or West, there was not a part of the coast of Ireland which, if there had been an Irish Parliament for the last hundred years, would not have been the scene of a flourishing industry. Now they could not go to any of these small fishing places without seeing all around signs of decay. It was impossible for the people of Ireland to believe that this was not the result of neglect on the part of those who had assumed the responsibility for the government of Ireland against the will of the people. He did not want to dwell so much upon questions affecting his own constituency, although in Dublin they had many grievances of this kind. It was a great mistake to suppose that poverty existed only in the West of Ireland. He did not begrudge a single penny which had been devoted to the West of Ireland during the last twenty years, and he had voted for every penny which had been granted for that purpose. All that had been granted and a good deal more was wanted in order to put that part of the country into a satisfactory state. There were, however, all over Ireland, in what were called rich counties on the east coast, places which a native Legislature would assist by national grants which were now left to ruin and decay, because the present Government were more concerned with South Africa and afiairs in the Far East than with Ireland. The Chief Secretary had been invited to go round Wexford and see for himself, but he had not so much faith in this practice. Everything was known, and what was wanted was expenditure out of Imperial funds for the general purposes of the country. The demand for the expenditure of public money in Ireland was justified not only by the condition 1295 of the country, but also by the scandalous over-taxation of which Ireland had been the victim for the last hundred years. The present Chief Secretary had commenced by being conciliatory, but that policy seemed to have had a bad effect upon the hon. Member for North Antrim. He hoped the new Chief Secretary would have a little courage, and beware of the fate of his predecessor.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG, Bristol, S.)
I do not think the House will be surprised if I say, after listening to the debate which has now gone on for two hours, that I rise to speak on behalf of the Irish Government in some little confusion of mind. In the first place, I have received a great deal of advice, and that advice has been of a somewhat conflicting character. At the same time, coming the study of as the I do fresh administration of Ireland from the point of view of a person who is for the first time responsible for that government it has been not a little surprising to me to find that there is so widespread an impression that nothing has been done for Ireland, and that no advantages have been conferred upon Ireland by the work that has been done. We have had to-night many local cases referred to. It is obviously impossible for me to go into all of them. I am going to be impartial in my examination of the cases presented, and take two cases presented from different sides of the House. The Arklow Harbour and the Bann drainage are two very good illustrations of the difficulties in which the Irish Government find themselves. An attack has been made upon the Irish Board of Works with regard to the Arklow Harbour. I can only judge the 1296 Irish Board of Works by the information at my disposal, which naturally is official information. With regard to the Arklow Harbour I find that a great deal of money has been spent upon it. It has been sought to draw a distinction between the money found by the State in the form of loans and the money found by grants. I find in the case of the harbour the expenses defrayed by loans amounting to £23,500 and by free grants coming to £18,500, so that after all there is not a very great margin between the amount advanced by loan and the amount given in free grants. It has been said that the Board of Works muddled what was done there. My information is that the plans for the works which are now in existence were favourably reported on by two independent engineers whose Report was presented to Parliament; and that during the time the plans were under inspection a great many people in the localities approved them, and that they were also approved by two eminent practical engineers. If, therefore, it is true that the Board of Works failed in doing its duty, it took every precaution it was possible to adopt, and it does not appear to me that the charge of failure rests upon them. It was almost impossible to avoid some of the difficulties, which were local difficulties and which in the circumstances seemed to be scarcely preventable. The Board of Works have still got the condition of Arklow Harbour under consideration. I am informed that before I took office the Irish Government were considering whether out of the Irish Development Grant a sum of money could not be employed for the extension of the pier and the groyne. But, after all, I have shown that a considerable amount of money has been spent on Arklow 1297 Harbour. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER "Wasted."] It is all very well to say that the money has been wasted, be every precaution was adopted that could be adopted.
§ MR. JOHN REDMOND
It was spent on plans which were disapproved of at the time by all the local opinion most likely to know.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
I have already stated that the plans were approved by a number of people in the locality and that every precaution was taken that could possibly be adopted in order to secure that the work should be properly done. If it is suggested that there has been want of care or energy on the part of those concerned in carrying out that work I am here to defend them, for it is my business to do so. If hon. Gentlemen were in my place they would defend men who were unable to defend themselves. I have also to say that as long as I am responsible for the government of Ireland I shall do my best to make myself acquainted with the facts on the spot. I shall not take the advice of the hon. Gentleman who spoke last when he said that personal visits are not necessary. I shall endeavour to ascertain the facts in regard to the past, and what it is possible to do in the future to secure better results.
The Bann drainage has not been referred to directly, but I think it was referred to indirectly in this way. Reference was made to many works which were under the consideration of the Irish Government and with regard to which there are difficulties. I am not responsible for that. Up to the present, of course, I have not had to take any 1298 active steps in connection with the matter. The difficulty in regard to the Bann drainage has, I find, been that a great deal of money has been spent under the direction of the Government and that the results are alleged to be not satisfactory. We are asked to spend more money on that and other works. Coming fresh to the study of Irish administration I find an attack made upon us that we have not spent enough money, and that the money already spent has not been properly spent. I think I shall be able to show that the money has been well spent, and that some excellent results have been obtained. Reference has been made to the policy of my Department and to permanent officials in the Department. I hope the House will believe that I did not accept the office I now hold with a light heart. I did not accept it without grave misgivings as to my own power to do justice to a position of such great importance and responsibility, and, therefore, what I say now I hope the House will believe is not due to any feeling of over self-confidence or presumption, but I do ask my hon. friends on my own side and hon. Gentlemen opposite to accept the view of the situation as it presents itself to me, and must present itself to anybody who has experience of the administration of the country. That view is that whatever the policy of the Irish Government may be, whether it is one approved or disapproved, the blame, at all events in the future, if blame there is, should be placed on the shoulders of one person—the Minister who is for the time being responsible. However competent permanent officials may be, they cannot share the responsibility for administration which attaches to be Minister alone. So long as I hold 1299 my position I shall consider it a duty and privilege to defend those officials who cannot speak for themselves, and I am willing to bear the blame for any failure in administration.
Let me say a word as to the facts in regard to the question raised in the Motion. The hon. Baronet who moved the Motion said that nothing had been done for the Irish fisheries, that the Government of Ireland had failed to find the necessary money, that there had been no development, and that the fisheries had been going backward. Is it really the case that they have been going backward? I say, as I have said before more than once, that I am bound to a very large extent to take, as a Minister always is compelled to take, a view which is of an official character, but it does not follow from that that it is unreliable or that a public official is inaccurate. If you take the figures of the Report of the Congested District Board for 1904 you will find the following particulars: In 1896, Aran spring mackerel half-boxes sold, fresh, were 6,350, and the total amount paid to fishermen, £1,627. In 1903 the half-boxes sold were 13,787; and the total amount paid, £3,813. The Cleggan fishery results in 1896 showed the half-boxes sold were 3,698; and the amount paid £753. In 1903 the figures were—half-boxes sold, 8,375; and the amount paid, £3,189. The Clifden fishery results in 1897 showed that the number of half-boxes sold, fresh, was 255, and the amount paid to fishermen £58. In 1903 the number of half-boxes sold, fresh, were 809; and the amount paid to fishermen £1,090. These figures show that there has been a steady increase in those branches of the fishing industry. The total quantity of fish marketed fresh in the several 1300 spring mackerel fisheries in 1903 was 13,787 half-boxes—an amount larger than has been marketed in any previous year, and the total value, £3,813, is higher than in any previous season. Under the scheme of the Congested Districts Board very excellent work was also done by the people on shore. They earned in handling fish alone between £300 and £400. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: Why not extend the operations then?] Well, I think we are doing our best to extend the operations steadily, and I venture to say that this Report shows some very good results. For the Blacksod mackerel fishery the Board chartered a small steamer as in previous years for the conveyance of fish to the railway at Tonragee, Achill Sound, charging 1s. a box for the carriage of the fish, and 2d. for returned empties. During the week ended 28th May, 1903, the fishing at Downing's Bay, Donegal, was light but the quality of the fish was good the prices varying from 63s. to 72s. per cran. If you go through the records of the Department you will find the same story told—a story of steady increase, and there has been a sustained and intelligent effort by the Department to make the fishing industry more prosperous.
Another branch of the work under the Congested Districts Board is what is known as the share system and on the Donegal coast fifty-nine boats were at work; the total earnings were £30,409; the amount which the Board retained as their share for the sinking fund and the cost of management was £11,141, whilst £19,268 was paid away to the crews of the boats as their share of the earnings. This does not look as if there had been complete 1301 failure. Then, in addition to the very considerable expenditure on the construction of piers and other works assistance to a very large amount has been granted by loans for the protection of fishing grounds, for boats, for fishing gear, and for the establishing of fish-curing and icing stations. Two lines of railway have been constructed in Donegal, one eighteen and a-half miles and the other forty-nine and a-half miles long. These lines were chiefly constructed in the interests of the fishing industry and the expenditure on them, out of funds provided by the Treasury, was something like £401,000. Taking the whole amount spent on Irish piers and harbours since 1850, we find that County Down had out of Imperial sources £24,770, and out of Irish sources £24,617; Donegal had £33,783 and £37,718 respectively; Mayo, £17,554 and —33,592; Sligo, £7,215 and £13,488; Cork, £18,891 and —39,269; and Clare, £9,438 and £23,709. Those are only some of the figures. The distinction which has been drawn between free grants and loans is very curiously marked, because the free grants, out of a total of £532,768, amounted to £440,472, and the loans only to £92,296. I do not think, therefore, that the charge against the Government has been sustained that money has not been found out of the free grants for piers and harbours.
§ MR. CLANCY
The right hon. Gentleman should know that most of these grants were out of Irish grants. The whole of the sea fisheries fund was taken out of the Irish Church surplus.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
What I have done is to give the expenditure on fishery 1302 piers and harbours alone. I have divided it into two heads—money from Imperial sources and money from Irish sources. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: It is not Imperial money at all.]
§ MR. WALTER LONG
Of the money derived under these two heads the amount from Imperial sources is £200,000, and there is in addition £332,159 which is derived from Irish sources, and that includes the sum which comes out of the Irish Church surplus. I do not imagine that money which is drawn from the Irish Church fund would be described as coming from an Imperial source. I am quite certain that the figures which I have given, amounting together to over £500,000, are divided between Imperial and Irish sources. In addition to that there is the sum of £100,000 available under the Marine Works Act of 1902. That Act, which was passed by the late Chief Secretary, was one of the results of a tour made by the right hon. Gentleman. Of this sum £86,800 has been already allocated towards works either in actual course of construction or works respecting which negotiations are at the present time in progress. This fact disproves the statement that nothing has been done. Further, both the Department of Agriculture and the Congested Districts Board lave advanced loans freely in all suitable cases for the supply of boats, nets, and gear, and they are equipped with ample funds for the purpose. The Congested Districts Board have also provided boats on the share system by which the cost of the boats is paid for out of the earnings of the fisheries.
1303 That is a brief account of what the Irish Government have done, and are doing at the present time, with regard to the development of the fisheries. It would have been more encouraging if one could have heard some small recognition of the work done. It is said that more money is wanted, and it is urged as a grievance against us that the people are expected to pay interest on the loans which have been made, and also to repay the loans. All I can say is that in many of the cases which have been mentioned to-night the harbours have been constructed out of public funds, while in other parts of the kingdom the cost of similar work has had to come out of the local rates. I say it is not encouraging to hear the statements which have been made to-night. I do not say it as a reproach, but I would point out that difficulty is created in that way. After all, this money can only be got if the taxpayers of this country are willing to provide it, and if they find it alleged that whatever is provided is devoted to useless purposes, so that the money is wasted, there is no good in coming to the Irish Government and asking them to press the Treasury for more funds. I think there should have been a franker and fairer recognition of the work the Irish Government has done in regard to fishery piers and harbours. If there has been failure to spend the money efficiently and to get the best results, we will endeavour to profit by experience and to avoid mistakes in future. It
§ cannot be alleged that this country has not been generous in providing money, and I believe the facts and figures I have quoted show that that money has not been wasted as hon. Gentlemen from Ireland have contended. It has to a large extent been spent to the advantage of the country, and particularly in the localities in which the works have been carried out.
§ MR. DUFFY (Galway, S.)
said he would not follow the right hon. Gentleman in what he had said regarding the money spent during the last fifty years in improving certain harbours. He rose for the purpose of calling attention to the little harbour of Kinvarra on the west coast in which his constituents took a deep interest. He had in the course of the past three or four years brought this matter under the notice of the late Chief Secretary and urged that something should be done to improve the harbour, which was in a disgraceful condition. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would take steps to carry out the improvements which were necessary in order that the trade in that particular district might be properly dealt with.
And it being half-past Eleven of the clock, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 16th March, put that Question.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 217; Noes, 172. (Division List No. 89.)1307
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Balfour, Rt Hn. Gerald W. (Leeds||Bignold, Sir Arthur|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Bill, Charles|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Banbury, Sir Frederick (George||Bingham, Lord|
|Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John||Banner, John S. Harmood-||Blundell, Colonel Henry|
|Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy||Bartley, Sir George C. T.||Bond, Edward|
|Bain, Colonel James Robert||Beach, Rt. Hon. Sir M. Hicks||Bowles, Lt.-Col. H. F. (Middlesex|
|Balcarres, Lord||Bentinck, Lord Henry C.||Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r)||Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.||Bull, William James|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.||Purvis Robert|
|Butcher, John George||Hermon-Hodge, Sir R. T.||Pym, C. Guy|
|Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ.||Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside)||Randles, John S.|
|Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.||Hoult, Joseph||Rankin, Sir James|
|Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire||Howard, J. (Kent, Faversham)||Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hozier, Hon. J. H. Cecil||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Hudson, George Bickersteth||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A (Wore.||Hunt, Rowland||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Chapman, Edward||Jameson, Major J. Eustace||Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine|
|Clive, Captain Percy A||Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. A. Fred||Renwick, George|
|Coates, Edward Feetham||Jessel, Captain Herbert Merton||Ridley, S. Forde|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Kennaway, Rt Hon. Sir John H.||Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)|
|Collings, Rt Hon. Jesse||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W.||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole||Keswick, William||Robinson, Brooke|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||King, Sir Henry Seymour||Rolleston, Sir John F. L.|
|Craig, C. Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Knowles, Sir Lees||Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye|
|Cross, Herb. Shepherd (Bolton)||Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.||Rothschild, Hon. L. Walter|
|Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Laurie, Lieut.-General||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Cubitt, Hon. Henry||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Royds, Clement Molyneux|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Lawrence, Sir J. (Monm'th)||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Davenport, William Bromley||Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End)||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stop ford|
|Davies, Sir H. D. (Chatham||Lawson, J. G. (Yorks. N. R.)||Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Lee, A. H. (Hants., Fareham)||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C.||Lees, Sir E. (Birkenhead)||Seely, C. Hilton (Lincoln)|
|Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph||Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Dorington, Rt. Hon. Sir J. B.||Leveson-Gower, F. N. S.||Sinclair, Louis (Romford)|
|Doughty, Sir George||Llewellyn, Evan Henry||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Long, Col. C. W. (Evesham)||Smith, A. H. (Hertford, East)|
|Dyke, Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. Hart||Long, Rt. Hn. W. (Bristol, S.)||Smith, H. C. (North'mb. Tyn'side|
|Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton||Lonsdale, John Brownlee||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Faber, Edmund B. (Hants, W||Lucas, R. J. (Portsmouth)||Spear, John Ward|
|Fardell, Sir T. George||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lancs.)|
|Fellowes, Hon. A. Edward||Macdona, John Cumming||Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart|
|Fergusson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. (Man'r||Maconochie, A. W.||Stroyan, John|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||M'Calmont, Colonel James||Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley|
|Finlay, Sir R. B. (Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)||M'Iver, Sir L. (Edinburgh W.)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chicester)|
|Fisher, William Hayes||Majendie, James A. H.||Talbot, Rt Hn. JG. (Oxf'd Univ.)|
|Fison, Frederick William||Manners, Lord Cecil||Thornton, Percy M.|
|Fitzroy, Hon. K. Algernnon||Marks, Harry Hananel||Tomlinson, Sir Win. Edw. M.|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Tuff, Charles|
|Flower, Sir Ernest||Massey-Mainwaring, Hn. W. F.||Turnour, Viscount|
|Forster, Henry William||Maxwell, Rt. HnSir HE. (Wigt'n||Vincent, Col. Sir CEH(Sheffield)|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Maxwell, W J. H (Dumfriesshire)||Walker, Col. William Hall|
|Gardner, Ernest||Montagu, Hn. J. Scott (Hants.)||Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir Wm. H.|
|Garfit, William||Moon, Edward Robert Pacy||Warde, Colonel C. E.|
|Gordon, Hn J. E. (ElginandNairn||Moore, William||Welby, Lt.-Col. A.C.E(Taunton)|
|Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH'mlets)||Morgan, D. J. (Walthamstow)||Welby, Sir C. G. E. (Notts.)|
|Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-||Morpeth, Viscount||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Gorst. Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon||Morrell, George Herbert||Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne|
|Graham, Henry Robert||Morrison, James Archibald||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Mount, William Arthur||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Greene, H. D. (Shrewsbury||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||Wilson, A. Stanlcy (York, E. R.)|
|Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)||Wilson, John (Glasgow)|
|Gretton, John||Nicholson, William Graham||Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm|
|Hall, Edward Marshall||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart|
|Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.||Pease, H. Pike (Darlington)||Wrightson, Sir Thomas|
|Hambro, Charles Eric||Peel, Hn. Wm. R. Wellesley||Wyndham-Quin, Col. W. H.|
|Hamilton, Marq. Of (L'nd'nderry||Percy, Earl||Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong|
|Hare, Thomas Leigh||Pierpoint, Robert||Younger, William|
|Harris, F. Leverton (Tynem'th)||Platt-Higgins, Frederick|
|Hay, Hon. Claude George||Plummer, Sir Walter R.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir|
|Heath, Sir J. (Staffords. N. W.)||Powell, Sir Francis Sharp||Alexander Acland-Hood and|
|Heaton, John Henniker||Pretyman, Ernest George||Viscount Valentia.|
|Helder, Augustus||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N. E.)||Allen, Charles P.||Barry, E. (Cork, S.)|
|Abraham, Wm. (Rhondda)||Ashton, Thomas Gair||Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Asquith, Rt Hn. H Henry||Bell, Richard|
|Benn, John Williams||Helme, Norval Watson||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Boland, John||Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)|
|Bolton, Thomas Dolling||Henderson, A. (Durham)||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Brigg, John||Higham, John Sharpe||Priestley, Arthur|
|Bright, Allan Heywood||Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.||Reddy, M.|
|Broadhurst, Henry||Holland, Sir William Henry||Redmond, J. E. (Waterford)|
|Brunner, Sir John Tomlinson||Horniman, Frederick John||Richards, T. (W. Monm'th)|
|Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.||Rickett, J. Compton|
|Burke, E. Haviland||Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)||Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)|
|Burns, John||Joicey, Sir James||Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)|
|Caldwell, James||Jones. D. B. (Swansea)||Robson, William Snowdon|
|Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)||Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Roche, John|
|Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.||Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)||Rose, Charles Day|
|Carvill, Patrick Geo. Hamilton||Jordan, Jeremiah||Runciman, Walter|
|Causton, Richard Knight||Kearley, Hudson E.||Russell, T. W.|
|Cawley, Frederick||Kennedy, V. P. (Cavan, W.)||Samuel, H L. (Cleveland)|
|Cheetham, John Frederick||Kilbride, Denis||Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)|
|Churchill, Winston Spencer||Kitson, Sir James||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Labouchere, Henry||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)|
|Cogan, Denis J.||Langley, Batty||Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)||Sheehy, David|
|Craig, R. Hunter (Lanark)||Lawson, Sir W. (Cornwall)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Cremer, William Randal||Layland-Barratt, Francis||Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)|
|Crooks, William||Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)||Slack, John Bamford|
|Cullinan, J.||Levy, Maurice||Smith, Samuel (Flint)|
|Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)||Lewis, John Herbert||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Delany, William||Lough, Thomas||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Devlin, C. Ramsay (Galway)||Lundon, W.||Spencer, Rt Hn. C. R. (Northants|
|Doogan, P. C.||Lyell, Charles Henry||Stanhope, Hon. Philip James|
|Douglas, C. M. (Lanark)||Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.||Sullivan, Donal|
|Duffy, William J.||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Tennant, Harold John|
|Dunn, Sir William||M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)||Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.|
|Elibank, Master of||M'Crae, George||Thomas, D. A. (Merthyr)|
|Ellice, Capt E C (S. Andrw' Bghs)||M'Kean, John||Tomkinson, James|
|Ellis, John Edward (Notts)||M'Kenna, Reginald||Toulmin, George|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||M'Laren, Sir C. Benjamin||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Mooney, John J.||Ure, Alexander|
|Fenwick, Charles||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Waldron, Laurence Ambrose|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||Morley, Rt Hon. John (Montrose||Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)|
|Findlay, A. (Lanark, N. E.)||Moss, Samuel||Wason, E. (Clackmannan)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Moulton, John Fletcher||Wason, J. C. (Okney)|
|Flynn, James Christopher||Murphy, John||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Whiteley, George (York, W. R.)|
|Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Norman, Henry||Whittaker, Thomas Palmer|
|Gilhooly, James||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John||O'Brien, K. (Tipperary Mid)||Wills, A. W. (N. Dorset)|
|Goddard, Daniel Ford||O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)||Young, Samuel|
|Griffith, Ellis, J.||O'Connor, J. (Wicklow, W.)||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Hammond, John||O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir|
|Harcourt, Lewis||O'Dowd, John||Thomas Esmonde and Mr.|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||Patrick O'Brien.|
|Harmsworth, R. Leicester||O'Malley, William|
|Hayden, John Patrick||O'Mara, James|
Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.