§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR (Liverpool, Scotland)
said he had always felt that a Motion for the adjournment of the House was a very serious matter. It was a weapon provided by the wisdom of Parliament for the protection of minorities and for dealing with cases of urgency, and it ought to be used with a great deal of moderation and with a sense of special responsibility. It was in that light that he had asked leave to move this Motion, because he desired to bring 863 before Parliament a matter eminently suited for the use of that great Parliamentary weapon. The question raised very large and important issues it was essentially an Irish question, but at the same time there were involved national and Imperial interests. It related to the use of the forces of the Crown, and above all to the naval forces of the Crown, and he drew a distinction between the naval and military forces, for reasons which appealed more strongly to Englishmen even than to Irishmen, for he did not know there was any question which would more vehemently appeal to the feelings of Englishmen than one alleging the improper use of the naval forces of the Crown. There, was also associated with this question the relationship of the people of England towards the people of Ireland. This might appear a somewhat swelling prelude to the very modest proportions of the particular question he had to ask them to discuss.
His Motion dealt with the case of one man and with the case of an island three miles long and two miles broad. The debt involved was one of £40 only, and the peasant in question was the owner of four cows. That seemed a grotesquely small matter on which to arraign the conduct of the Executive of Ireland. The island of Dursey, of which he dared say the Chief Secretary had heard for the first time that day, which he had never seen, and of which he no doubt knew little or nothing, was the battle-ground of the question he was about to deal with. It was, as he had said, three miles long and two miles broad; it was one of the most isolated spots in the United Kingdom; it was only separated at one point by a quarter of a mile from the mainland, and yet that quarter of a mile was almost as impassable a barrier as between Dursey and Cork as the Atlantic Ocean was between Cork and America. This quarter of a mile was a small sound, and because of its narrowness and the peculiar position of the island generally, it was remarkable for being extremely tempestuous and difficult to cross. As a matter of fact, short, as the distance was, it was enough to make communication between the island and the mainland very infrequent, very perilous, and sometimes impossible. 864 There was no public-house on the island, a fact which gave legitimate satisfaction to the hon. Member for South Tyrone; there was no post office, but there was a postal service once a week there was no minister of any denomination whatsoever, neither priest nor minister of the Established Church; he believed there was no school-house, and not a single policeman or police barrack on the island, except in cases of emergency. When he came to the economical condition of the island, he found himself in the presence of a strange collection of facts. The island consisted largely of rock. There was not a single rood of land cultivated upon it that had not been laboriously won from rocky stone. There were practically no roads on the island, there was not a farmer's cart, and the methods of cultivation were such as would be considered out of date even in Arabia. It was almost like a page of Oriental history. The loads had to be carried on the backs of donkeys or mules, or in baskets on either side of the animal and when the people had to convey their cows to the fairs or markets on the adjoining mainland they did not employ cattle vessels or boats, but the animals had to swim across.
There were twenty - five families on this island, and most of the tenants were non-judicial tenants, just as if the storm of agitation and reform which had swept over the country during the last twenty-five years had never occurred. The tenants had not even gone into the Land Courts to get a reduction of their rents, and, in fact, they were rack-rented tenants at will. The island was part of the estate of a gentleman named White. It would seem that a landlord who inherited such an estate should regard it as his chief duty in life, not to collect rents from the people, but to help to save them from starvation. He would like to know if there were any Englishman who, having an estate of that kind, would venture to ask rent;, much less rack rents, from the tenants. He understood that the landlord of this property had a large house in the county of Cork, some distance away from the island, but that he did not dwell very often there, and was, to all intents and purposes, an absentee landlord—one 865 of that large class of men without nationality and without a sense of duty, who had been the ruin of Ireland to a large extent, and who had been the secret weakness of England in dealing with Irish questions. The tenants were quiet, industrious, but oppressed people. They were called farmers, but they were not farmers in the real sense of the term—they were not even cottiers. They belonged to that hybrid population which, in certain parts of Ireland, had slum houses on slum pieces of land, and whose real method of gaining a livelihood was by working away from home, some of them coining to England every year to cap the harvest, and returning with the money they had earned to pay rack rents for the miserable cabin in which a beneficent law and a beneficent landlord allowed them to live. But these people of Dursey were not even migratory labourers. Their island was too inaccessible for that. What they really lived on was fishing, and if he wanted to appeal to the emotions of that House, and to the feeling of humanity which he believed pervaded it, he would ask them to have some sympathy for this little cluster of islanders who earned every penny with which they purchased tea and bread for the maintenance of their children at the risk of their lives on one of the most tempestuous parts of the coast.
These fishermen were blessed, or rather cursed, with the possession of small patches of land and small cabins which a beneficent landlord, protected by the mighty power of a great Empire, let to them at excessive rents. When the late Chief Secretary for Ireland introduced his Land Bill for the purpose of relieving men of this class their hopes ran very high indeed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, in the course of the debates on that Bill, painted many glowing and eloquent pictures of the new life that would result from the transfer of the soil from the landlord to the occupier, and there was no picture he painted more eloquently and more frequently than the change which would be effected in the slum holdings of Ireland. He said he was anxious to pass the Bill for the benefit of the general tenants of 866 Ireland, for the good of the country, and for the honour and credit of the Empire, but, above all, he was anxious' to pass it in order to bring relief to the submerged tenth of the Irish congested districts. Did anyone suppose that the Nationalist Members would have consented to many of the provisions of the Bill, especially the zone provision, which had so grossly exaggerated and enhanced the price of the landlords' property, had it not been for the glowing pictures which the right hon. Gentleman sincerely presented to them of the relief which would be afforded to the tenants. The people were entitled to believe that this great Act of Parliament, with all the resources of the richest of Empires behind it, was passed specially to deal with such cases, and the result was that when the Act was passed they immediately began to agitate for the purchase of their holdings. Had the Bill been the right kind of Bill they would not have required to agitate, because any man who knew the real facts of the situation in Ireland would have seen the necessity of compelling the landlords to sell their land to the tenants.. Negotiations were commenced for the sale of the holdings on this island, but they broke down because the landlord demanded what he was pleased to call his "net income "from the island. He did not know what "net income "meant in that particular case. But those who-were engaged in trade in arriving at their net incomes always made an allowance for bad debts. This island was a bad debt. What else could it be? There was a lack rent charged for a few miserable patches of land saved from the rock and paid for by the adventurous-skiffs which went out fishing in the most tempestuous part of the Channel. At any rate he would say that the net-income was represented by a very small sum, far less than that demanded by the-landlord.
As he had said, the negotiations, broke down in consequence of the attitude taken up by the landlord. But there were other resources left. The present Prime Minister had often been eulogised very highly for passing the Congested Districts Board Bill, and it was a noteworthy fact that it was the habit of British statesmen to claim credit 867 for the results of agitation which had been carried on by the Nationalist Members for many years. He would like the House to bear in mind the definition of a congested district embodied in the 36th Section of the Land Purchase (Ireland) Act, 1891, and he ventured to suggest that the island of Dursey certainly came within that definition, by reason of the fact that the rateable value fell below 30s. per head of population. The Congested Districts Board at any rate considered that the case was eminently one demanding their attention, and they approached the landlord of the property. Now he founded the statements which he was about to lay before the House upon what had appeared in the Unionist Press—a very risky thing to do perhaps, as was suggested by the hon. Member for South Tyrone. But he thought he was justified in saying it was a prudent and legitimate thing to do in this case. The London Times of April 29th published from their Cork correspondent an account of an interview with Mr. Turner, one of the agents for the estate, and in that interview Mr. Turner stated that it was his intention to remain on the island for a week or ten days, so as to settle with the other tenants. He wanted to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the offer made by the Congested Districts Board for the purchase of the island was so exceedingly low that the landlord could not accept it, and he wished to ask the Chief Secretary, as President of the Congested Districts Board, who, in his short intervals between receiving Orange addresses and other more auspicious occasions, had stated his desire to deal with the problem of congestion in Ireland, what he had to say with regard to the negotiations affecting the island of Dursey. This was the kind of language in which the Chief Secretary addressed the Catholics—Monsignor Hewson and gentlemen, there have been two distinct questions introduced here this evening, one which all must realise who have travelled your country as I have to-day, and that is the isolation of your town from the outer world. That isolation is indeed complete, and must therefore bring in its train serious difficulties to the people who live here. Coming here, as I have today, I can see there are difficulty which might be overcome. The race for life is severer than ever, and in your case it is rendered more 868 so when there is no mode of communication with the outside world save by telegraph. I had the good fortune to be accompanied by Sir Henry Robinson today, who, as no doubt you know, has at heart the welfare of Ireland, being connected as he is with several important Government Departments. He called my attention to your isolation, and suggested modes by which it might be remedied. I will not promise anything definitely, but one thing I will promise, and no doubt promises have been made before, and when they are not fulfilled there is left a bitter impression behind them. I am impressed with the urgency of this case, and promise I shall give it my personal and immediate attention, as I am actuated by a sincere desire to help you out of the difficulties under which you labour.The Congested Districts Board naturally turned to this island, and he wanted to know from the Chief Secretary, the head of that Board, what was the attitude of the Board in regard to the island. He assumed that the right hon. Gentleman would not abandon the policy of his predecessor, at least in regard to this matter. If the Congested Districts Board approached the landlord of the island with the view to purchase it must have been with the sanction, if not on the initiative, of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the price offered must have been a fair one. He defied the most extreme supporter of the landlord Party in the House to say that the Congested Districts Board offered the landlord a single penny less for the land than he was entitled to receive. An HON. MEMBER: What about the State?] The State was a secondary consideration. The safety of the landlord would appeal much more to the late Chief Secretary than the safety of the State. The fact that the Congested Districts Board offered the landlord a fair price placed the Government in a somewhat difficult position. The problem of the congested districts was one that had appealed to all sections of the House. He had heard the hon. Member for North Armagh speak as warmly in favour of dealing with these districts as the late Chief Secretary. The House of Commons and the House of Lords when the Land Act was passed agreed to give credit to the extent of £100,000,000 in order primarily to deal with this problem. When the problem presented itself in the case of this small island the landlord, as appeared to be conclusively proved, refused to accept the fair price which was 869 offered. What did that mean? That meant that against the will and intention of Parliament, against the action of the chief governor of Ireland, for the Chief Secretary was the head of the Congested Districts Board, the landlord stood upon a demand not for a just but for an exorbitant price for his land. The landlord, failing to get the rack rent from the tenants or a fraudulent price from the State, went to the Law Courts and endeavoured to get from them the execution of the letter of the law. Shylock was defeated by Portia, and this landlord was defeated "by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover. He understood that the landlord or his agents applied to the right hon. Gentleman for the help of the forces of the Crown in order to exact the rack rents, and to prevent the estate from toeing sold at the just price which was offered by the Congested Districts Board. He made that statement on the authority of the parish priest of the district. The landlord met with a blank refusal, or at least with something clothed in the eloquent euphemisms of the late Chief Secretary which amounted to a blank refusal, and the tenants were not persecuted either by the soldiers or the police. Then -came the change in the Chief Secretaryship, and the aids to his oppression which the landlord had sought in vain from Dublin Castle under the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover he was successful in obtaining from the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman opposite shook his head. He assured the right hon. Gentleman that he did not wish to press the case one bit too much against him personally. He was sure that if the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of Ireland was as great as his intentions were good he might then be better able than now to do something for the country, but he was the slave of his environment, and especially of the obscurantist landlord faction which had obtained supremacy. "Whatever might be the secret history of the transaction, the fact remained that the force which was not brought against the islanders in the days of the late Chief Secretary had been brought against them under the present occupant of the office.
What happened? He ought to say, in fairness to the House, that he was not going to tell a tale of Russia, though, if 870 he were to omit names, the House might be deceived into thinking that he was telling the story of a scene in Warsaw. He would tell the House frankly and without concealment that he was speaking of a portion of the British dominions and that the Government he was arraigning was not the Government of the Czar but the Government of the present Chief Secretary for Ireland. Decrees were issued against the people of the island, and it was found somewhat difficult to carry out the evictions. On a day in April an astonishing spectacle was seen. There were off the coast two ships of the British Navy, conveying over 200 police. At four o'clock in the afternoon the operations began. The police were marched into the town, and they immediately commenced preparations for what apparently was to be a great campaign. They were supplied with tents, meat, potatoes, and cabbage, and several barrels of porter. How the poor shoeless, hungry, thirsty soldiers of Russia, fighting in Manchuria, if they read this account, would envy the men who were to take part in this great invasion of the island of Dursey. The campaign, so successfully organised, proceeded with the same skilful tactics and successful strategy. They effected a landing. It was the first time in history the British Fleet had made a successful landing on the island of Dursey. Other explorers had tried, many admirals had risked their reputations in the great enterprise, but the fact that this was the first time a landing had been made would always mark the present Chief Secretary's administration. Lest the House should be carried away by the idea that the Fleet showed anything like reckless daring, he felt bound at once to make the humiliating confession that they resorted to strategy. There were two landings on the island. Thirty policemen were landed at the place where the inhabitants were not expecting the first attack to be made, and then the British Fleet wen; round to the other landing and put ashore 200 other policemen. The result was that the islanders found themselves between two fires. He would give particulars of what happened according to a Unionist London journal—As the boatloads of police approached they were met by a fusillade of stones and rocks 871 from the human batteries on shore. Then Inspector Armstrong's covering party attacked the islanders from behind.His hon. friends must not be surprised at Inspector Armstrong's covering party attacking the islanders from behind. It was not want of courage—They shoved, buffeted, and jostled the defenders, anxious at first to hurt as few as possible. Very quickly the fight became vicious. The parties fell on one another, and the wildest excitement followed. The men in the boats shouted and blew their whistles, and it seemed as if their comrades would have a bad time before they could land. The men fought the police on shore with their fists, while the women and children kept up a running fire of stones on the men in the boats. The police fought at first with their batons, and laid about them vigorously. Some of them fixed bayonets and used them, while others used the butt ends of their rifles. One man jumped into the sea and swam along the shore to escape the batons of the police. Another attempted to grapple with a policeman, and received a terrific blow from a baton on the temple. After this his assailant lunged about him with his bayonet, and the half-stunned man, in attempting to ward off a thrust with his bare hand, received a terrible gash.If that were a scene in St. Petersburg, if that were "Vladimir Sunday," and not "Long Sunday," how many homilies there would have been in the British Press in regard to Russian tyranny!At last sheer weight of numbers told. The islanders were overcome, and they were allowed to disperse, with aching heads and limbs. Then the rest of the force was landed, and the all-conquering 200, having vanquished the islanders, advanced to evict Daniel Healy.Daniel Healy had nominally a large farm—about forty or fifty acres of land.
The hon. Member paused on account of conversation on the Ministerial side of the House, and, resuming his speech, said he could understand that the hon. Gentleman who was sitting close to the hon. Member who interrupted should be afflicted with unexploded speech.
If the hon. Member for Scotland Division does hot give way the hon. Member is not entitled to interrupt.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETT
I do, Sir. I was accused of interrupting the hon. Member. I had not interrupted him by a single word or sound. Everybody knows this to be a mere farce.
I have not heard the hon. Member interrupting. I do not think the last expression ought to be used.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said he could not congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his strategy. He came now to the case of Daniel Healy. This Daniel Healy had the large fortune of four cows and a farm the extent of which was forty or fifty acres and its valuation £12 per annum. It could be easily understood what splendid land that was! It used to be rented at £13, but a previous agent reduced it to £9 15s. Daniel Healy owed four years rent, or £39 in all, and that was the argument for this great expedition. And what did this great expedition find when they got to Daniel Healy's cabin? They found an old man and an old woman, their daughter and daughter-in-law, a sickly child of three years of age, and a baby in a cradle. Again he would quote from a Unionist Journal—The actual eviction was a pitiful affair, unrelieved by a touch of colour. Healy is an old man living with his wife, his son and daughter-in-law and their two children. The wretched cabin is the only home they have ever known, and they clung to the place with its oozy walls and swimming floor with the inherent devotion of the Celt for his home. The 200 police halted outside the house. The agents of the landlord were the first to enter. Healy approached them and pleaded for a settlement. His proposition was flouted. "The law must take its course," said the agent. "Clear out I everything!" Then the sheriff's men started to remove the furniture. To add to the pathos of I the scene, a steady downpour of rain had set in The young mother gathered her infant from the cradle, while a kindly neighbour took charge of the other child—an ailing mite of three, who had been ill for some time. The melancholy party dragged out of the house crying bitterly, while one by one their few goods were thrown after them and scattered in the rain round about the house. Then the police, having accomplished their work, departed. They left a force of thirty men in charge of the island.Now, if he were able to bring before any audience of Englishmen, 873 whatever their political opinions and prejudices might be, these facts, and described the blue-jackets and the ships of the Navy employed in such work, he thought there would be a cry of surprise and indignation. That was the story of the invasion of the island of Dursey.
What was the defence that the Government had to make? The Chief Secretary adumbrated that defence in his Answer to a Question put to him that day. The right hon. Gentleman said that the ship was placed at the disposal of the sheriff by the Admiralty as they were bound in law to do. Now, he entirely traversed that statement. He would not go into the question of how far the Government of Ireland was governed by law when it suited their purpose to break it. In Ireland there was the same system of juries as in England, but that did not prevent the Attorney - General from packing juries. The other day there was an execution in Cork and the coroner, who represented one of the most ancient institutions in the kingdom, sent for the man who had executed the criminal; but the police refused to execute the warrant. Then there was the case when the hon. Member for Cork was arrested and taken away out of Court before the warrant was even made out. What he insisted on was that the Executive of Ireland, in times past, had always held the right, acting within the law, in disputes between landlord and tenant, to tip the balance in favour of the oppressed tenant as against the landlord. He did not expect the Chief Secretary to be entirely acquainted with these facts, even in spite of the rapidity with which he had learned the methods of Irish government; but he did expect him to be acquainted with some Irish history. He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman had ever heard of Thomas Drummond. He was a Scotchman, and in the days of the tithe war, when all the forces of the Grown were behind the landlords, Thomas Drummond frequently refused to give the assistance of the police to collect the tithes. Drummond often conferred with O'Connell on the subject in those days; but the Ascendency Press in Ireland were very much exercised when Sir Anthony Mac- 874 Donnell went down to confer with an Irish priest for the purpose of restoring peace in a disturbed region. Thomas Drummond, he dared say, was beyond the historical knowledge of the Chief Secretary. He would come to modern times. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, when he was Chief Secretary for Ireland, was face to face with a very bad case, but not so bad as the case of Dursey; and lie was asked by Lord Clanricarde to be firm in the government of Ireland. What did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol do? He wrote to Lord Clanricarde—I stated to Mr. Joyce, as I have to many others, my strong objection to anything like wholesale evictions, and my opinion that where it became necessary to proceed to eviction in order to obtain the rights of property, the proper way was to select a few leading cases in which the tenants were able, but declined, to pay, some person being, of course, present at the eviction with full authority from the landlord to accept a settlement at the last moment, if such should be proposed. I then questioned him as to the ability of your Lordship's tenants to pay their rents. He replied that some could do so, but on pressure from me he admitted that he had advised you to make considerable reductions to others. I requested him to inform your Lordship that if you adhered to that decision against the advice of your own agent, and contrary to the general action of the Irish landlords, the responsibility would be solely yours; that you might find such procedure costly and ineffective, and that in the event of application to the Government for the services of constabulary and military on such occasions, compliance with the request would certainly be retarded by the pressure of other claims and duties, and would most probably be postponed to the utmost extent permitted by the law.He paused for a moment just to say that in the case of Dursey it was evident that what the landlord wanted was not a fair rent or a fair price for the land, but to force on his tenants exorbitant rents. He would now go on to the remarkable evidence of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol, which he advised the present Chief Secretary to keep on his chimneypiece and read daily, as to the principles which should guide the Government in Ireland in deciding when and how far the forces of the Crown should be used in evictions. Speaking of Irish landlords in 1886 the right hon. the Member for West Bristol said—I am quite sure that there is no greater foe to the rights of property than the man who tries harshly to exact his rights and fails to perform his duties.875 Again asked on January 8th, 1887—Do you think a landlord takes a proper interest in his tenants who evicts them for refusing to pay exorbitant rents?His answer—I would not do it myself, and I do not think that a landlord does his duty who would do that. The Government has used all the pressure they could upon landlords within the law.And the right hon. Gentleman expressed satisfaction that County Court Judges had put a stay on evictions in certain eases where the tenants could not pay. Had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Bristol been Chief Secretary, the landlord in this Dursey case would not have been able to use the forces of the Empire to evict the tenant for non-payment of an exorbitant rent. Why did the Chief Secretary not follow his eminent predecessor's example, and delay to the last moment the employment of the forces of the Crown?
There was an English point of view. This invasion of the island of Dursey would cost a considerable amount of money. To inforce a debt of about £39 not less than £700 had been expended. Who was going to pay this? Would it not eventually be the taxpayers of England? He would like to know who sanctioned the employment of the ships of the nation for this purpose. Were they to understand that the landlords and police of Ireland were so omnipotent that they were able to employ the ships of the State without consulting the Admiralty? People here were constantly complaining of what was called the want of loyalty in Ireland, and the feeling which Irishmen had towards England. They said that it was somewhat unnatural and irrational. He would like to know what would be the feeling of an Englishman if he were put in the place of the poor Dursey islander? What did that man know of the liberties and rights of the English nation? All he knew was the bayonets and butt-ends of rifles, and the guns and gunboats sent to drive him out of his home because he did not pay a rent which he could not pay. What loyalty could they expect from such men treated as they were? He would despise an Irishman who was loyal to a nation responsible for such iniquity. This was the kind of proceeding with which the 876 present Chief Secretary had inaugurated his rule in Ireland. He charged him, and the class and the policy he represented, not only with gross injustice to these poor people, but with widening and deepening the chasm of misunderstanding and hostility between the people of Ireland and England.
§ CAPTAIN DONELAN (Cork, E.)
said the duty devolved on him to second the Motion which had just been proposed by the hon. Member with his usual power and graphic ability. He ventured to think that the plain and unvarnished facts showed that this Dursey eviction was one of the most shameful ever brought to the notice of the House. He could not believe this expedition was undertaken merely for the purpose of collecting those rents or evicting those tenants. Some other motive was at the bottom of it. It could not be a coincidence that it took place so soon after the visit of the Chief Secretary to Lord Londonderry. He would like to know whether this plot was hatched at Mount Stewart, and he would also like to know, what Lord Ardilaun, who, he believed, was one of the trustees of the estate, had to say to it. In his judgment he considered that the whole of this transaction was a deliberate attempt to drive the people to desperation and to provoke retaliation. The whole island, if given rent free, could not provide for the subsistence of one family. If rent was to be paid at all it must be drawn from the sea. Under such circumstances an eviction was a scandal. But, as his bon. friend had lucidly explained, the most serious part of this matter was the part the Royal Navy played in it. He had some small acquaintance with the Navy and he ventured to say that when this debate was read by the officers and seamen of the Royal Navy it would cause very indignant reflections which were calculated to affect the Navy very seriously. He believed that the officers and men in the Navy would consider j that their employment in such a transaction was an insult to their flag. This launch belonged to the Royal Navy He had reason to remember how very deeply the employment of certain regiments in connection with evictions in Ireland was resented by the officers and 877 men of those regiments, and he fancied I that the employment of the military was j discontinued owing to the fact that the War Office knew of that resentment.. He had reason to think that the same resentment was felt by the naval officers and i men in this case. He asked the Chief Secretary to give them the actual cost of this expedition and also to state whether he would withdraw the gunboat from that service. He feared that if the right hon. Gentleman continued his present course he would find his career in the Irish Office quite as rough and stormy as was the sea around Dursey Island.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
§ MR. T. L. CORBETT
congratulated the mover and seconder of the Resolution upon the smart Parliamentary manoeuvre by which they had avoided a discussion upon a question which might have been gravely compromising to their friends. They all knew what this Motion really meant, but if they had not known it before, they would have become acquainted with it after listening to the speeches of the mover and seconder, and especially after the usual vigorous, vocal and gymnastic display of the mover.; Not one single fact or argument had; been advanced to prove either the necessity or urgency of this Resolution. He felt inclined to repeat an inadmissible phrase and to say that the whole thing was a mere farce. The one object of moving this Resolution was to burke a discussion upon the Resolution dealing with monastic and conventual institutions.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETT
suggested that his hon. friends should allow him to move the adjournment of the House and give him a chance of bringing it on.
§ MR. JOSEPH DEVLIN (Kilkenny, N.)
asked whether the hon. Member was in order in discussing a Motion not before the House and in challenging him in regard to it.
said the hon. Gentle man had brought the challenge upon himself by intervening in the speech of the hon. Member for North Down.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETT
said the object of the Resolution was simply to blame the Government for having used sufficient force to protect the police in the execution of their duty, and to protect them from being wounded and possibly killed. The Government had only used sufficient force to carry out tie law. He could quite understand the simulated indignation of hon. Members opposite because they had become accustomed during the past few months to the operations of the Land League. The new Chief Secretary was evidently determined to do his duty and would earn the gratitude—the lasting gratitude—of all those who did not live upon Irish discontent. If the right hon. Gentleman wished to govern Ireland well he must be served by loyal and trustworthy men and he must remember that those who were serving him were 500 miles away from London. It was too late to hope for the other Resolution to be discussed that evening, and he would content himself by repeating that the object of the manoeuvre was perfectly obvious to the House and would be on the morrow perfectly obvious to the country. He doubted whether such a smart manoeuvre was worthy either of hon. Gentlemen opposite or of the Church to which they belonged.
§ MK. MOONEY (Dublin County, S.)
said the last speech had nothing to do with the Motion before the House, but was the speech of an hon. Gentleman who had been disappointed by not having the opportunity of making a speech on a subject which he had taken considerable trouble to make his own. He congratulated the House on the presence of the Chief Secretary, who was absent when the subjects of Irish Universities and the shortcomings of his Department were discussed. They wanted to find out the plans of the Government for the future government of Ireland without attending the annual dinner of the members of the North Down Staghounds, where ho understood the Chief Secretary had laid down his policy for the governing of the 879 country. They also wanted to know by what authority and by whose orders the naval and military forces of the Crown were employed upon this eviction in Dursey Island. The right hon. Gentleman was the head of something like forty Boards in Ireland, and was President of every one of them, but there was no such position in Ireland as the Commander of the Naval Forces, and.they wanted to know who put this naval force into motion in this instance. Was it done by the Chief Secretary alone, or by that right hon. Gentleman in conjunction with the Admiralty, and, if so, what branch of the Irish Office was responsible? Perhaps they would be told by the right hon. Gentleman, on the advice of the Attorney-General, that the police were sheriff's officers once the decree had been issued.
§ THE ATTORNEY - GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. ATKINSON,) Londonderry, N.
He will not state anything s o unfounded or ridiculous.
§ MR. MOONEY
said that might be, but if he did it would not be the first unfounded and ridiculous statement of law which they would have heard from the Attorney-General, and as long as he continued in his present office they were sure to hear a good many more which could properly be described in the elegant language of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He repeated that they were entitled to know by whose authority the police and naval force were sent to Dursey Island. It looked suspicious when the Chief Secretary went over to Ireland, wandered about the country for a fortnight, and then lectured Irishmen on the social and economic condition of the country. Also that immediately after his visit to Lord Londonderry the marauding expedition was sent. Were the Irish landlords to employ these forces to collect rents which had been declared to be unjustifiable, and which ought not to be paid by the people?
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)
said he knew a great deal more of the eviction question twenty years ago than he did now. He had been through these? eviction campaigns, and after having seen thousands of tenants evicted they 880 had passed a great measure through the' House, part of the policy of which was to restore to their homes and holdings the very people who years ago were evicted at an enormous cost to the country and an enormous sorrow to themselves. The Estates Commissioners where now charged with the duty of undoing the mischief that was then done. These men were being restored to their holdings, and the Estates Commissioners were absolutely giving them grants of public money to equip the holdings that were wrecked and ruined by the evictors. Surely the people of England took credit for being a practical people, but it was not practical politics to put men out at great cost and suffering and then ten, fifteen, or twenty years afterwards pass an Act of Parliament to restore them and set them up in business again. Every one who had followed the Land question in the South of Ireland knew this particular estate and knew who was behind the scenes making settlement impossible. The Chief Secretary was President of the Congested Districts Board, and the policy of that Board was to buy up estates of this kind and try to make it possible for the poor people to live upon the land which they cultivated. Would the Chief Secretary tell the House whether the Congested Districts Board had intervened in this case and if their offers had been rejected by the landlord? Did they offer a price for this estate? Estate! What farce talking about an estate.It reminded him of the Question put by an Ulster Member recently about an outrage in Galway where seventeen yards of wall had been thrown down in order to allow cattle to stray. Of course English Members believed that was a mason-built wall; instead of which it was a wall of loose stones about a couple of feet high, and if one stepped over it about half of it would tumble down. So when they talked about this Dursey Island as an estate many Members would imagine it was an estate such as they owned in England, whereas no English Member would take it as a present. The Chief Secretary ought to be able to tell the House whether the Congested Districts Board made an offer for this estate and whether it was refused. Now, forsooth, the forces of the Crown, the police, and the Navy of England were being 881 used for the purpose of enforcing the claim which the Chief Secretary knew perfectly well the Congested Districts Board believed to be unfair.
These islands had been troublesome in the past. The story of Clare Island was well known. There was a time when the forces of the Crown could not land on Clare Island to execute a decree. The Congested Districts Board, however, bought out the landlord, and peace and happiness had reigned in that island since that day. The landlord in that case was a reasonable man. He was not a bankrupt landlord backed by Lord Ardilaun. That was the secret of the whole business. Let there be no mistake about that. The Chief Secretary would say, no doubt, that he was bound to give the forces of the Crown to execute a degree of the Courts, and he did not challenge that. But after the Act of 1903 he thought they had advanced somewhat, because of the conciliation proposed in that Act. If it could not rescue Dursey Island from this man's power and tyranny, what was the Act worth? These were the people the right hon. Member for Dover intended to protect. And if in the part of the country from whence he came the question of the evicted tenants did not count for much, he would tell the House that the Ulster farmers were quite as keen to get these questions settled as were the farmers in the South and West. And the Member for North Down would find that the farmers in his constituency would consider this -evening far more profitably spent in discussing this question of Dursey Island -than if they had listened to the Member for North Down on the subject of conventual and monastic institutions.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
said he should require to hear the hon. Member before he answered the Question. The Chief Secretary was commencing his career in Ire- 882 land. Did he think the game worth the candle to put these poor tenants out and then put them back again? Did he think the landlord was right in refusing the offer of the Congested Districts Board? The Chief Secretary must surely see the force of those Questions.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALTER LONG,) Bristol, S.
ventured to say that among all hon. Gentlemen, whether from Irish or other constituencies, who h-id from time to time addressed that House on the question of Irish land, there was no one who had spoken oftener or with greater energy than the hon. Member for South Tyrone. Yet it was a strange proof of the difficulty of the situation in which the House found itself that that hon. Gentleman had failed altogether to realise what was the actual question under consideration, and what he (Mr. Long) had to meet a; the present time. The hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the House had not confined themselves to the actual question at issue, which was a very simple one. It was whether or not the supply of the police and the vessel which carried them over from the mainland to the island, by the Government was a proper proceeding or not. That was the question to be decided that night, but in all the speeches that had been delivered that question had been brushed aside, in a desire which no one could wonder at, to discuss the general land question and the general land policy. As the hon. Member for South Tyrone had said, it was all very well to discuss these technical questions as to whether the action of the Government was legal or illegal. What was the object of passing the Act of 1903? It would be out of order for him to debate the policy and the administration of the Act of 1903; that had nothing whatever to do with the subject before the House. It might be desirable to employ the Act of 1903 to put back the evicted tenants, but that was not the question. It might be the fast that they had evicted tenants before and had now to face the difficulty of their replacement, but that was not the question. The 883 question was a very simple one. The mover of the Motion cited precedents and referred to the action taken by Mr. Drummond in regard to tithe collection, and his right hon. friend the Member for West Bristol in regard to the Clanricarde case, and the debate had proceeded as if the work of the police consisted in the collection of rent. That was a mistake. The action of the police was to support the sheriff in carrying out the order of the Court. In the discharge of his duty the sheriff was entitled to call upon all citizens to support him, and he was entitled to call upon the forces of the Crown and the police to help him. The passing of the Act of 1903, did not alter the law in the slightest degree, nor did it alter the fact that when a landlord had obtained a decree, and it passed into the hands of the sheriff, that official was entitled to call for as much support as he might require to enforce it, and there was no discretion in the Executive Government whether or not that support shou'd be given. Therefore, to discuss this matter as pari passu with the administration of the Act of 1903, or as a part of the land policy of Ireland was, first of all, to seek to obliterate the real issue, and, in the second place, to drag the administration of the Land Act into a discussion which was more likely to prejudice than to advance its success.
The hon. Member's account of the invasion of the is'and of Dursey was in part painful and in part amusing. As to visiting the island, probably the hon. Member and he were in the same position, but, if the hon. Member really believed that he had never heard of the island before, why was he indicting him for the action he had taken in connection with it? It was perfectly true that the Congested Dis 884 tricts Board made an offer for this inland which was not accepted by the landlord; but that fact did not alter the law which prevailed as much in England as in Ireland. Having, listened to these debates for twenty years in that House, he had often asked: himself why such a story as that told by the hon. Member should move listeners, to it much more than a similar story, which might be told any day, of evictions attended with equal misery and suffering in the East End of London and in the poorer districts of other cities. There were in those districts of England the same abject poverty and misery and the same bitterness of feeling at being turned out of home. H3 did not blame the hon. Member for introducing that aspect of the question, but it had nothing to do with the subject before the House. The law which had been called into operation in Ireland acted with the same force in England. The same right pertained to-the sheriff, an the same duty devolved on the Executive Government. In this matter the Government had no discretion. On more than one occasion the law had been clearly laid down. The right hon Gentleman the Member for Montrose, when he was Chief Secretary, thought that he had a discretion to say in what way the power of the Executive should be exercised, and he sought to establish that position. The case was taken to the Courts, and it was decided that no such discretion belonged to the Executive;but that it was bound to afford to the sheriff such support as he required for the performance of his duty. It was useless, therefore, to go back to older precedents. The action of the right hon. Member for West Bristol was taken in regard to a totally different situation. His right hon. friend then declared that he did not believe in 885 wholesale evictions, and attempted to advise the landlords as to what their policy should be. ["Did you in this case?"] No, because he had not had the opportunity, and whether if he had had the opportunity he would have done so was another matter. The application for assistance was made to him after the decree of the Court had been granted; and he had no right or power to make any suggestion.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said he was advised that he had no right to delay; but if he could have delayed giving assistance, would it have been an honest operation? And what purpose would it have served
§ MR. WALTER LONG
pointed out that even supposing he had inquired, and found that the rents were exorbitant and that the action of the landlord was cruel, that would not alter the law or the sheriff's obligation to carry it out. The duty of the Executive was clear, and there was no object to be gained by postponing it. He had no power to refuse the requisition of the sheriff, and, if he did, he would be liable to indictment for failure to do his duty.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELL
asked what was the difference between the action of the right hon. Gentleman and that of the right hon. Member for West Bristol.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said that, in the case of the Clanricarde Estate, the sheriff had made no demand for the assistance of the posse comitatus The landlords had indicated to the Executive their intention to adopt a particular policy and the Minister was entitled in that case to point oat] the difficulties which might follow from that course. But in the present casa there had been no application from the landlord. The usual insinuations had been made and Lord Ardilaun's name had be-n mentioned. There had been no backstairs influence used. The matter had followed the ordinary straightforward course' The sheriff made the demand for the force he required to carry out his duty and the Government had no power or right to refuse that demand. There was really nothing more to be said. The hon. Gentleman gave his own account, a graphic and somewhat coloured account, of the way in which the landing was effected and the work was done. He said that the police fixed bayonets and clubbed their rifle3 in order to deal with the islanders.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said that was not his statement. He quoted it from a London Unionist newspaper.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said he did not intend in the smallest degree to misrepresent the hon. Gentleman. He quite understood that he was quoting from a London newspaper. Well, the report which he himself received from the 887 police.—[Ironical NATIONALIST cheers.] They were at least as likely to know the facts as the London newspaper. The hon. Member had stated there was no post office or telegraph and that it was impossible except under most difficult circumstances to get from the mainland to the island. He thought, therefore, the police report was as likely to be accurate as that of the hon. Member.
§ MR. T. P. O'CONNOR
said he had made no report. He quoted from a Unionist organ which was not likely to err on the side of friendliness to the tenants.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said that of course he could not complain if the hon. Member thought it right to resort to Unionist organs for accurate information. He had no desire to conceal the fact that his report was from the police. He had had a short experience of the Irish police force, but it had been long enough to convince him that it did its best in all circumstances, some of them circumstances of difficulty, to do its duty, and that the officers made accurate and reliable reports of the work they carried out. The newspaper report stated that the police fixed bayonets and clubbed rifles. The information given to him, and he stood by it, was that they did nothing of the kind. They effected their landing very much as the hon. Gentleman had described, and they appeared to deserve the credit for tactics and strategy which the hon. Gentleman gave them. Surely no fault ought to be found with them because they had an officer of great ability who disposed his forces so as to effect a landing with the minimum of 888 personal violence. if it were true, as he believed it to be, that bayonets were not fixed and rifles were not clubbed, then it was clear that the work was done in a manner which reflected credit on the police.
It had been said that the Government were lending themselves to the collection of exorbitant rents and to the maintenance of the landlords. He confessed that he had never been very much dismayed or troubled by charges of that kind. The Government had given abundant proof of their desire to settle by fair and just means the land difficulty in Ireland, and he would warn hon. Gentlemen opposite ["Oh,"] that they would not help the successful working of the Act of 1903, from which they and the House had hoped so much, by attacks such as those which they had made that night. The Act was passed with a certain and definite object, and under a definite belief on the part of the British Parliament. The Irish Executive were doing their best to give effect to the wishes of Parliament. ["To destroy it."] To drag in a difficulty of this kind which had nothing to do with the administration of the Act was not calculated to help its administration, or to help the Government to face the difficulties which they had to face and overcome if they were to solve the land question in Ireland. He submitted that no case had been made out for the condemnation it was sought to pass on the action of the Government, and that it had not been established that they had a discretion, that they had any right whatever, to refuse the assistance demanded of them. The Government had acted in this matter constitutionally and with propriety, and on those grounds he asked the House to reject the Motion.
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)
said he deeply I sympathised with the hon. Member for North Down in the disappointment he had experienced, but probably nine-tenths of the Irish people would regard the question under discussion as of more importance than the subject of the Motion the hon. Member had intended to bring forward. As a private Member, however, he held that it was a grievance and a hardship that the right of moving the adjournment should interfere with the opportunities of private Members, and if any proposal were made to remedy that grievance he would be the first to support it. When the rule was under discussion he warned the House of the danger of such an occurrence as had happened that night, but the hon. Member and his friends gave him no support.
said that was another reason for being glad that his hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division j had brought this matter forward, and when next he stood up in defence of the rights of private Members he should count on the support of the hon. Member for North Down.
For the first time he had had the pleasure of listening to the new Chief Secretary on Irish affairs. The warning the right hon. Gentleman had just uttered took him back to the days of Mr. Forster and the Land Bill of 1881. The Irish Party were warned then that if they did not behave themselves and did not give up agitation they would not get any of the benefits that this House was 890 longing to bestow upon them. They had been constantly listening to such warnings during the last quarter of a century constantly disregarding them, and constantly reaping the reward of that course. He was not one of those who had expected much from the Act of 1903, but although he belonged to the class described in the "beatitude "—blessed are they who expect little, for they shall not be disappointed—yet he had been disappointed, because they had obtained much less than even he had expected. The Chief Secretary had declared that the Executive Government were engaged in endeavouring to extract from the Land Act of 1903 all the benefit they could for the people of Ireland. [Mr. WALTER LONG: Hear, hear!] And with the sublime audacity of an Irish Secretary the right hon. Gentleman cheered that statement. The Irish Executive were engaged to-day in strangling the Act, and that statement would be proved when the Report of the Commissioners was issued. Whatever benefits the Act of 1903 had conferred—experience had shown them to be deplorably short of the hopes held out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover—had been destroyed by the constant and maleficent interference of the Irish Executive. The hands of the Commissioners had been tied, and the present discussion and controversy were largely the direct result of the conduct of the Executive in destroying by their rules and regulations the effect of the Act of 1903. The Chief Secretary had passed over the Questions addressed to him by the hon. Member for the Scotland Division, and had concentrated his reply on the old formula that the, Executive had absolutely no discretion but to supply the sheriff with what- 891 ever military force he might ask for. If the sheriff had demanded a battleship would the Government have supplied him with it? Did the right hon. Gentleman contend that if the sheriff had demanded a regiment or two regiments of soldiers the Executive had no discretion in the matter, and would have to supply such a demand? When the right hon. Member for West Bristol remonstrated with Lord Clanricarde he told his lordship that, in the event of any application being made for the services of the constabulary or the military, compliance would be retarded by the pressure of other claims and duties and their employment would be postponed to the utmost extent.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
pointed out that he had also referred to the precedent of the right hon. Member for Montrose Burghs, in which case it was made clear that such action on the part of the Chief Secretary which the hon. Member had just referred to was illegal and could not be maintained.
§ MR. DILLON
claimed that he had proved that the right hon. Gentleman's contention was wrong as far as those words were concerned, because the right hon. Member for West Bristol distinctly stated that if the police were applied for their employment would be delayed.
MR, WALTER LONG
said his point was that the right hon. Member for Montrose Burghs tried to do the same thing, and it was found that he had not the legal authority to do it.
§ MR. DILLON
recalled the time when Sir Redvers Buller was sent over to 892 Ireland to take command in Kerry when that part of Ireland was unfortunately more disturbed than it was at the present time, and said that he adopted the same course. When he (the hon. Member) was committed for trial in December, 1887, they summoned Sir Eedvers Buller as a witness, and he gave evidence to the effect that he was so shocked at the conduct of the landlords of Kerry that he required a statement from the agent as to the amount of rent and arrears they required.
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said the hon. Member was ignoring the point he had made that whatever the view taken by Sir Redvers Buller or other Chief Secretaries might be, when it was sought to take the course adopted by the right hon. Member for West Bristol it was laid down by the Courts as illegal.
§ MR. DILLON
said that did not alter the fact that two great officials representing the Government who were sent over to Ireland at a time of great disturbance did lay down that policy and practised it, and they were coerced into taking that extreme course by the misconduct of the Irish landlords. The right hon. Gentleman had passed over some of the main features of this extraordinary case. Was it contended that the Irish Executive were bound, without inquiry into the circumstances of the case, to give a sheriff any force which he in his discretion demanded?
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said he had laid down the law, and he defied the hon. Gentleman to dispute it. Where a sheriff was called upon to execute a decree of the Court, and in order to 'execute it required a posse comitatus, he 893 was entitled: to have it, whether it was police or soldiers.
§ MR. DILLON
said that was the point. "Who was responsible for sending a force of 200 police to carry out the eviction of one tenant on the island? Was any attempt made to carry out the operation peaceably? Did the Chief Secretary address any remonstrance to the landlord, pointing out that he was contravening the policy of Parliament and acting in a manner likely to raise a disturbance without sufficient reason? "What was the cost of the expedition? Probably it would cost £300 or £400 to recover the holding, upon which the debt was £29. How long was the expedition to remain on the island, and what was it doing now?
§ MR. WALTER LONG
said a small force remained on the island for the protection of life and property. The police assisted the sheriff in the execution of his duty, and the property was now in the possession of the representative of the person to whom it belonged. A certain number of police remained on the island to see that no injury occurred to life and property there.
§ the decree of the Court. The retention of the police was in the discretion of the Government, and at the cost of £2,000 a year the police were kept there to secure to the landlord possession of a farm worth £9 a year. Such was the absurdity of the system of Irish government.
§ MR. DILLON
said the hon. Member opposite was using the absurd argument that if a landlord wanted possession of a piece of land worth ninepence it would be the duty of the State to spend £2,000 getting possession of it. That was a reduction ad absurdum in connection with Irish government. If the right hon. Gentleman had conveyed a warning to the landlord that in carrying out these operations he would go as far as the law compelled him and not an inch further the eviction would not have taken place. The refusal of the landlord to accept the offer of the Congested Districts Board to buy the island was a proof that the people there could not live and pay their way, and therefore of the unreasonableness of the landlord, of whose conduct there had not been one word of reprobation in the Chief Secretary's speech.
§ Question put.
§ Tae House divided:—Ayes, 74; Noes, 134. (Division List No. 148.)895
|Abraham, William (Cork N.E.)||Bolton, Thomas Dolling||caldwell, James|
|Abraham, William (Rhondda)||Brigg, John||Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Bright, Allan Heywood||Causton, Richard Knight|
|Ambrose, Robert||Burke, E. Haviland||Cheetham, John Frederick|
|Black, Alexander, William||Burt, Thomas,||Delany, William|
|Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)||Lundon, w.||Seely, Maj. J. E. B. (Isle of Wight)|
|Dillon, John||Lyell, Charles Henry||Shackleton, David James|
|Doogan, P. C.||MacNeill, John Gordon Swift||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Elibank, Master of||M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Eve, Harry Trelawney||Mansfield, Horace Rendall||Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R (Northant|
|Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)||Mooney, John J.||Stevenson, Francis S.|
|Fuller, J. M. F.||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)||Sullivan, Donal|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)||Thomas, David Alfred (Merlhyr|
|Grant, Corrie||O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)||Tomkinson, James|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir E. (Berwick||0'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W||Ure, Alexander|
|Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||White, George (Norfolk)|
|Higham, John Sharp||O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Hutchinson, Dr.Charles Fredk.||O'Malley, William||Whiteley, George (York, W.R.|
|Johnson, John||Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)||Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)|
|Jones, Leif (Appleby)||Price, Robert John||Wilson, John (Falkirk)|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th|
|Kearley, Hudson E.||Roe, Sir Thomas||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Captain Donelan and Mr. Patrick O'Brien.|
|Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)||Russell, T. W.|
|Levy, Maurice||Schwann, Charles E.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Gordon, Maj. Evans (T'rH'mlets||Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Gray, Ernest (West Ham)||Parkes, Ebenezer|
|Arkwright, John Stanhope||Gretton, John||Peel, Hn. Wm. Robert Wellesley|
|Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O.||Gurdon, Sir W Brampton||Percy, Earl|
|Arrol, Sir William||Guthrie, Walter Murray||Pilkington, Colonel Richard|
|Atkinson, Rt Hon. John||Hall, Edward Marshall||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.||Hambro, Charles Eric||Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward|
|Baird, John George Alexander||Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry||Purvis, Robert|
|Balcarres, Lord||Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley)||Randies, John S.|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r||Heath, Sir James(Staflords. N W||Raseh, Sir Frederic Carne|
|Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch.||Henderson, SirA.(Stafford, W.)||Reid, James (Greenock)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.||Ridley, S. Forde|
|Banner, John S. Harmood-||Hickman, Sir Alfred||Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)|
|Bartley, Sir George C. T.||Hope, J.F.(Sheffield,Brightside)||Rothschild.Hon. Lionel Walter|
|Bathurst.Hon. Allen Benjamin||Hoult, Joseph||Round, Rt. Hon. James|
|Bentinek, Lord Henry C.||Hozier, Hon. James Henry Cecil||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hunt, Rowland||Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford|
|Bigwood, James||Hutton, John (Yorks. N.R.)||Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert|
|Bingham, Lord||Jeffreys, Rt. Hon. Arthur Fred.||Sharpe, William Edward T.|
|Blundell, Colonel Henry||Kennaway, Rt.Hn.Sir John H.||Skewes-Cox, Thomas|
|Bond, Edward||Kenyon-Slaney, Rt.Hn.Col. W.||Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)|
|Boscawen, Arthur Griffith||Keswick, William||Spear, John Ward|
|Brassey, Albert||Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)||Stanley, Rt.Hon.Lord (Lanes.)|
|Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John||Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool)||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Bull, William James||Lawson, Hn.H.L.W-(Mile End)||Talbot,Rt. Hn JG (Oxf'dUniv.|
|Butcher, John George||Lawson, John Grant (Yorks.NR||Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.||Lee, ArthurH(Hants.,Fareham||Tuff, Charles|
|Cavendish,V.C.W.(Derbyshire)||Lees, Sir Elliott (Birkenhead)||Tuke, Sir John Batty|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)||Long, Rt.Hn.Walter(Bristol,S.)||Tumour, Viscount|
|Chamberlain,RtHn.J.A (Wore.||Lucas, Col. Francis (Lowestoft)||Walker, Col. William Hall.|
|Channing, Francis Allston||Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth||Walrond.Rt.Hn.Sir William H.|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos.H.A.E.||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred||Webb, Colonel William George|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)||Macdona, John Cumming||Welby, Lt.-Col.A CE(Taunton)|
|Oossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile||Majendie, James A. H.||Wentworth, Bruce C. Vernon g|
|Dalrymple, Sir Charles||Marks, Harry Hananel||Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd|
|Davenport, William Bromley||Martin, Richard Biddulph||Whiteley, H. (Ashton und.Lyne|
|Dickson, Charles Scott||Maxwell, RtHnSirH.E.lV^igt'n||Whitmore, Charles Algernon|
|Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-||Maxwell, W.J-H.(Dumfriesshire||Willoughby de Eresby, Lord|
|Doxford, Sir William Theodore||Melville, Beresford Valentine||Wilson-Todd, Sir W.H.(Yorks.)|
|Fergusson,RtHnSir.J.(Man'cr.||Mildmay, Francis Bingham||Wodehouse, RtHn E. R.(Bath)|
|Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.||Montague, G. (Huntingdon)||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B.Stuart|
|Finlay, SirR.B.(Inv'rn'ssB'ghs)||Montagu.Hon. J.Scott (Hants.)||Wyndham-Quin, Coi. W. H|
|Flannery, Sir Fortescue||Morgan,David J.(Walthamstow|
|Forster, Henry William||Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.|
|Galloway, William Johnson||Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)|
|Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin&Nairn)||O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens|
§ Adjourned at five minutes after Twelve o'clock.