§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That a sum, not exceeding £13,950, be 1476 granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1906, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Offices of the Chief Secretary in Dublin and London, and of the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums."
§ *MR. SLOAN (continuing his speech)said he did not see why Nationalists should take exception to the Chief Secretary accepting an invitation to a banquet under the auspices of a Unionist organisation, seeing that Sir Antony MacDonnell had accepted an address from his political friends at Castlebar. The Member for North Antrim referred to a case in Belfast, and lest the House should be misled he would like to supplement what had been said. That man did not take exception to a Roman Catholic clergyman as such. He was somewhat eccentric and denounced the clergy of all denominations: he was fined 40s. for what he did. And in contrast to that he pointed out that at Westport a priest who had kicked a man because he disagreed with what he was doing was dismissed by a majority of the bench, and was presented with a purse of sovereigns and an address by the people of the district as marks of their approval of his action. What an uproar there would have been from the Nationalist Benches if that individual had been a Protestant clergyman. He then referred to the matter of the auxiliary asylum at Youghal, where 350 simples were confined in an unused industrial school without any resident medical superintendent, and he wished to know whether it was the intention of the Irish Government to give the capitation grant. A few days ago an inquest was held with reference to the death of one of the inmates, and the jury distinctly stated that these individuals ought not to be kept in that place, but ought to be in hospital. The Inspector of Lunatics had protested against the arrangement and Sir Antony MacDonnell had done likewise. He asked the Chief Secretary how long was this state of things to be permitted to continue. He protested against the allegations of the Nationalists that the hon. Members for Ulster brought forward nothing but bogus grievances.
§ *MR. SLOANsaid it did not matter to him whether it was against the Carlton Club or anybody else: he would give voice to any grievance he might have. He did not take any mere partisan view of his responsibility as a Member of Parliament. He was born in Belfast and he was not ashamed of being an Irishman, and any measure which promised to better the condition of the people of Ireland—whether Protestants or Roman Catholics—would have his support and he should not be ashamed to give an account of his stewardship to the people who sent him to the House of Commons. He could not think the Nationalists seriously meant to assert that there was a Party in the North of Ireland who desired to crush everybody in order to get an ascendency. He hated ascendency, and he believed the people should be free and unfettered. He believed the present Chief Secretary was doing his best, and although he regretted that coercion should have to be resorted to be was not in a position to dictate to the Administration when special measures should or should not be applied. The real justification for any measures of that kind was the conduct of the people. He was sure that in regard to the effort being made to batter the country, honesty would be observed by those representing Ulster constituencies as well as by those in the South and West.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYurged that the House ought to have something like a statement of the policy of the new Chief Secretary on the initiation of his reign in Ireland. The silence which the right hon. Gentleman had maintained for so long was the more remarkable because he had been accused, or complimented, as the case might be, of being the representative, if not the author, of a new policy in Ireland. The Nationalists in that House were entitled to know what that new policy was. It could not be a new policy for one part of the country, because the Ulster people had declared that they were content with the British Government. It must be, therefore, a new policy with regard to the discontented 1478 portion of the country; and they were entitled in that House to a first statement as regarded that policy, such as was given by the Secretary of State for War or the representative of the Admiralty. For some reason or another it had seemed good to the Conservatives of Ireland to discount the official statement by holding a dinner in Dublin in order to decant the right hon. Gentleman's opinions there. Certainly the result of that decantation, if he might use the word, had been the most extraordinary statement he had ever known an official to make. It was all very well for a gentleman to proclaim his unworthiness and unfitness for a position. When he cried nolo episcopari one generally expected him to lay down the crozier and the mitre. If an Irish Member were inducted into the office of Home Secretary for England, it would be an extraordinary thing for him at a banquet at the Holborn Restaurant to say that he was utterly unfit for the office, that he would not know England on the map, that he did not know one county in England, that he did not know Holborn from the Strand, that he was in ignorance of the situation here, and that his only claim to the position was that he had assumed it at the call of duty to his chief. Let any one fancy a man taking charge of a man-of-war, having been a bricklayer or a carpenter; or taking command of an army, having been a shoemaker or clerk, and boasting of it, and claiming consideration from his opponents on the ground that he was absolutely unfitted for the position. It made one ashamed of being an Irishman to think that an English Minister could boast that his chief claim to the consideration of that country was that he knew absolutely nothing about it.
The right hon. Gentleman denied that Ireland had been neglected by the Parliament of England, because, he said, forty-one statutes had been passed by the Tory Party in this country for Ireland in the last ten or twelve years. How many statutes had bean passed for England and Scotland in that time? They were passed every year by the hundred. The right hon. Gentleman considered that the Government were entitled to boast because they had passed as many statutes for Ireland in ten 1479 years as the humblest Irish Assembly which could be constituted in that country could pass in a single session. The right hon. Gentleman watered the wild Unionism in Dublin with an announcement that did not seem to have been entirely palatable to the noble army of Dukes and others gathered at the festivities. He stated that there were still wanting various reforms and amendments in the law which it was the duty of the united Parliament to make. Why had they not his statement as to what they were? The present Government had not long to run. Was the right hon. Gentleman content to remain in office for whatever lees and dregs might remain and to do nothing but ordinary acts of administration? That would be an ignoble position for a statesman to assume. However interesting these small matters that had been raised on the other side of the House might be, it was almost degrading to hear them being discussed, when Irishman were concerned in so much larger questions. Both sides lost by allowing themselves to be enmeshed in these smaller questions, because Ulstermen needed measures of progress for themselves as much as people in other parts of Ireland did. England had the benefit of Irish troops and Irish seamen; and again he asked where was the value for the money which the Irish people paid?
He maintained that Ireland should insist, every year when the Chief Secretary's salary came up, on a statement from him, just as the House insisted on a statement with regard to the great Indian dependency, or colonies like the Leeward or Windward Islands. Let the right hon. Gentleman give them some information about their country and as to what the British Government was doing with it. When it was squandering their revenues and appointing their officials, what had it got to say for itself, with a mass of seething discontent in the North and the South and the West? The right hon. Gentleman was entitled to claim that he had a representative gathering in Dublin the other night, but what were the facts? The Orange Party in Dublin took a division against giving him a dinner at 1480 all. While the right hon. Gentleman had the support of the great landlords like the Duke of Abercorn and all the worthy gentleman who were well off no matter what Government was in power, there was a democratic Party which drove him from Liverpool at the last general election and compelled him to get a seat lower down in the country. He was obliged by this very Orange section to quit his own constituency on the religious difficulty. He, himself, took no interest in that question; but what happened? When the question of the invitation to the right hon. Gentleman came up before this great council of Orangemen not more than thirty of the entire body were present and fourteen of them voted against giving him any reception whatsoever. The Unionist Members did not speak of these things in the House before the Nationalists. They did not want to let the Philistines rejoice, but meet an Orangeman or a Protestant anywhere in Ireland, unless he had a salary, and he was as bitter and indignant, against the methods of British Government in Ireland as the Nationalists. Therefore he said they were entitled to ask what the British Government were doing with their ten millions of money. He believed that the notion of this river of gold which was for ever flowing from their poor little impoverished country to enrich this great and wealthy land would even yet appeal to Irishmen of all classes. In London they saw millions expended on new buildings for the Navy, for the Army, and other Departments, but when a small expenditure was asked for Dublin Castle the money could not be got. The time would come when Irishmen on both sides in the House of Commons would have to have a sort of Public Accounts Committee, which should trace Irish revenue from its source in Ireland to its place of expenditure here and see what they got in return. They got nothing but broken-down Chief Secretaries.
Those of them who were engaged in the real business of politics, and not in recrimination or idle chatter, were sent there to promote a far higher cause than that raised by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had 1481 now been inducted into his office and he would therefore ask him, had he a policy; what was it; where was it invented; did it differ from the policy of the right hon. Member for Dover; and how was it originated? Did he sit in the Cabinet for four years with the right hon. Member for Dover and approve of his acts? The right hon. Member passed the Land Act and made various speeches on the University question. Did the Chief Secretary approve of those statements, and if he differed from him had his so-called new policy the sanction of the Cabinet? Did he differ from his Lord-Lieutenant, and, if so, were the Irish people to look to the Lord-Lieutenant for a statement of policy, or to one who was, nominally at least, his subordinate officer? They were induced two years ago to support the Purchase Act and especially the bonus of £12,000,000 to the landlords upon the suggestion that they were entering upon something like a new era of conciliation. If the right hon Gentleman had a different policy from that of the Member for Dover, the Irish landlords had been getting the money under false pretences. What business had the landlords of Ireland to press round the right hon. Gentleman and insinuate new policies in his ear which they did not declare when the Bill of 1903 was going through the House of Commons? Great fault was found now with the unfortunate Connaught peasants because it was said that they were greedy of land and wanted to drive the graziers off their farms; but who first gave official encouragement to these poor cotters? The most Socialistic and revolutionary proposals on this subject were to be found in the statutes that the Imperial Parliament had passed; but because these sections of compulsory purchase were directed, not against the landlords, but against the tenants, Socialism and Communism received legislative sanction. The third Section of the Act of 1903 enabled the Congested Districts Board to resume, which meant annex, a holding in order to distribute it amongst the surrounding tenants. But if the Board might seize his little farm, which he held under a judicial tenancy, why were not the branches of the National League, containing gentlemen just as respectable and honourable as the 1482 members of the Board, to pass resolutions on the subject? He would again ask the right hon. Gentleman what his new policy was.
MR. GORDONsaid he wished to reprobate the doctrine contained in the concluding part of the hon. and learned Member's speech. This was not a question which ought to be determined in a debate of this kind. The violence of language used by hon. Gentlemen opposite towards Unionists ought to be an object-lesson as to what they would have to suffer if they had a Parliament in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman argued that because the Legislature had provided a means under the law of dividing up the grass lands of Connaught, and because that was not being carried out as rapidly as the people wished, they were entitled to intimidate the owners of property. That was against not only every principle of law, but of every principle of morality; and he was surprised that a Member of the legal faculty should stand up for such a doctrine. Why should the hon. and learned Member justify outrages and crimes which ought to be suppressed? The hon. and learned Member for Water-ford brushed aside the Return of outrages and said, "Oh, that is nothing." In Munster and Connaught there were all these serious agrarian crimes which brought terror and misery to innocent householders. Were firing into houses and maiming cattle of no account? Was the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible for the preservation of law and order in Ireland to be condemned because he said in public and in the presence of the Press that he intended so far as he could to preserve law and order in Ireland? The suggestion was always made that these outrages were provoked by the police, because one black sheep had been found in the police. It was an unworthy suggestion. There were eleven cases of killing and maiming cattle in the two provinces of Munster and Connaught Were these outrages not to be put down? Did hon. Gentlemen opposite defend these crimes?
§ MR. FLAVIN (Kerry, N.)We have always condemned them and we always shall.
MR. GORDONsaid that he did not think that hon. Members opposite had condemned them. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford had spoken of the number of threatening letters which he had received. He should like to see these letters, and compare them with the threatening letters sent to innocent householders threatening to injure their property and to make family life unbearable. Was the Chief Secretary to be denounced because he said that he would try as well as he could to see that law and order were maintained and that such crimes were put an end to? It was the first duty of every Government to give security to life and property, and to see that the law was obeyed. They were told that everything the Unionist Members for Ireland said must be wrong. But they represented a certain section of the community, just as much as hon. Gentlemen opposite represented their section. The Unionist Members represented the section of the community which had two-thirds of the industries of Ireland, and paid more than half of the revenue collected from the whole population of Ireland. He thought, therefore, that when the House heard statements made by the Nationalist Members of Ireland in reference to the small body that represented the Unionist Party in Ireland it ought to bear in mind that that body, however small, represented practically one-third of the population of Ireland, far more than one-half of the manufacturing industries of the country, and a great deal more than one-half of the actual revenue that was paid by Ireland to the Imperial Exchequer. Therefore, though their numbers were small they had the right to have their opinions and views put before the House just the same as the Members for the South and West of Ireland. Law and order ought to be equally administered in every part of the country and to every man in the country irrespective of class or position. Let every man be treated on fair and equal terms. Let the Chief Secretary administer the law in that spirit and be would earn the praise, not the blame, of all right-minded men.
He was surprised that the hon. Member for South Tyrone could not avoid attacking the meeting at which the Chief Secretary 1484 was welcomed to Ireland. Was it suggested that the Unionists of Ireland were not justified in extending their hospitality to the Chief Secretary? If the Radicals were in power and sent over a Chief Secretary he would probably be entertained by the Radicals in Ireland, but it would not be a very big entertainment.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLDid you ever entertain the late Chief Secretary?
MR. GORDONThe hon. Member for South Tyrone had described the gentlemen at the meeting as "old pals" of his. He rounded on his old pals occasionally, and whoever were the hon. Member for South Tyrone's pals now they would find that he would round on them some day. But there were about 200 at that dinner, and they represented the trade, commerce, and industry of Ireland, with a few Peers who were Irishmen living in Ireland. Was it a great charge against the right hon. Gentleman that he went to such an entertainment as that and that he made a speech which was reported in every newspaper in Ireland, and of which the only parts that could be attacked in the House of Commons were those in which he declared his determination to preserve law and order. If there had been anything in his speeches at Belfast and Dublin that could have been laid hold of by the Nationalists they would have set it out in detail in the House of Commons. They had had from the Nationalists a hollow pretence of an attack. It must be made on every Chief Secretary, whether they agreed with him or not. It had been made in the same terms, in the same form, and chiefly by the same speakers often before, and they might expect it to be made so long as a Unionist Government was at the head of affairs. And even when the Opposition came into office they would not escape, because it would be impossible for any man who tried to preserve law and order in Ireland to avoid those attacks.
They had been called the Ascendancy Party. He thought there was very little of the quality of the Ascendancy Party amongst them. They were ordinary, plain, hard-working men who had to make 1485 their living in Ireland, and who were capable of forming an opinion as to what they believed would be to the best interests of Ireland. It was not a question of landlords. The Nationalists were always talking about landlords. Whatever the Nationalists said about them, the men who represented the Unionists of Ireland were trying to voice the views of their constituents, and trying as far as they could to get even-handed justice in Ireland, and to see that law and order were preserved there.
§ MR. DILLONsaid the hon. Member opposite had been giving the Nationalist Party a lecture, and his speech was full of recrimination from beginning to end. He wished to call attention to a new departure, not in policy, but in the procedure, made by the Chief Secretary from the custom which had ruled Ireland in recent years. The present Chief Secretary had imprudently broken a custom according to which the responsible Minister for Ireland avoided Party meetings in that country. It was even more necessary to avoid Party meetings when the Chief Secretary happened to represent a Government which was in sympathy with the minority in Ireland. The post of Chief Secretary for Ireland was not analagous to the position of any other British Minister because there was only one Minister who governed Ireland. Sometimes it was the Lord-Lieutenant and sometimes the Chief Secretary, and he was absolute in all departments of the State in Ireland. It should be remembered that when a coercion Government was in power the British Minister for Ireland governed that country against the opinion of the over whelming majority of the Irish people. That was unfortunate, but it nevertheless threw upon the Chief Secretary an additional burden of responsibility not to identify himself with any Party in Ireland by attending Party meetings. What would be said by the hon. Members of the small Unionist Party opposite if, when a Radical came into power, the Irish Secretary were to inaugurate his tenure of office by attending a mass meeting in the Rotunda under the auspices of the United Irish League. That was just as lawful a body as the 1486 Dublin and Belfast Unionist Associations and it represented the majority of the Irish people; consequently it would be, constitutionally, a much more decent proceeding than what the Chief Secretary did in Belfast. Such a proceeding would have been received with howls [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh, oh!"] Yes, it would have been received with howls, and the first man to howl would be the Solicitor-General for Ireland. It was an imprudent thing for the Irish Secretary to have identified himself in such a prominent way with the Irish Unionist Party. This was the more unfortunate when he went over to reverse the policy of governing Ireland according to Irish ideas. His policy was to govern Ireland against Irish ideas. In the speech he recently made he studiously avoided mentioning Lord Dudley's name, and put up Lord Dunraven as a kind of Aunt Sally to aim his blows at; but the whole of that speech was directed against the Lord-Lieutenant, and poured ridicule and contempt on an address he had delivered by and with the authority of the Cabinet. They did not need to ask the right hon. Gentleman for his policy, because they had got it. His policy was to govern Ireland in accordance with the wishes of the loyalist section of the Irish people. The Chief Secretary's masters were the three gentlemen sitting beside him—the English Solicitor-General and the Irish, law officers. He would be allowed to remain in office so long as he obeyed them, and not an hour longer.
If it were possible he would much prefer that they should confine this debate to the broad general questions affecting the general policy of Ireland, but under the present circumstances it was idle to do that, because by doing it they would be simply beating the air and keeping aloof from the actual position of things in Ireland. They had to utilise such opportunities as were offered to them to expose and criticise the conduct of the Executive Government in Ireland. Three topics on which he desired to address the Committee were the Anderson case, the disastrous interference of the Executive in the administration of the Land Act, and the deliberate conspiracy, encouraged by the Chief Secretary, to manufacture 1487 bogus outrages in order to justify coercion. The Anderson case was an important issue, because it illustrated the methods by which the Orange Party carried on their campaign against justice and common honesty in Ireland, endeavouring when brought to book in the House to burke discussion and to run away. They had endeavoured again and again to get a full statement of the facts in regard to this case, because the Ulster Party had used it in the most unscrupulous and cruel way to hound down a man whose mouth was closed, but when they were brought to book upon it they had run away on every occasion, and they had done all they could to burke discussion and suppress the facts.
§ MR. WILLIAM MOOREsaid the only chance they got was last session, and they took it.
§ MR. DILLONsaid that on the 8th of July last the subject was introduced, and, when the Anderson case was raised, the Whip of the Unionist Party rose and brought up another subject in spite of the repeated protests of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford.
§ MR. WILLIAM MOOREsaid the hon. Member was referring to an attempt made to confine the Anderson case to a discussion between the hours of nine and twelve. The hon. Member apparently did not know the facts.
§ MR. DILLONsaid that what he had stated was absolutely correct.
§ MR. WILLIAM MOORENo, it is not correct.
§ MR. DILLONsaid that later on the case was again brought forward by the leader of the Ulster Party, the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, and a long discussion took place. The hon. and gallant Member moved a reduction of the Chief Secretary's salary, and then it was talked out by a Member of the Party opposite.
§ MR. WILLIAM MOOREThe charge that we had it talked out is absolutely unfounded. An hon. Member got up and talked it out, and he was censured by our Party for doing so.
§ MR. DILLONsaid it was absolutely true that they censured the hon. Member for Belfast, but he had had his say, and he had since explained that it was arranged that an English Member should talk it out.
AN HON. MEMBERDid the hon. Member impute that they made any such arrangement with an English Member. If he did it was absolutely untrue.
§ MR. DILLONsaid the hon. Member for Belfast said at a public meeting that he regretted the censure passed upon him because it was necessary to keep up appearances, but he said everybody knew that arrangements had been made that an English Member should talk it out, and that it was not to be allowed to go to a division. He further stated that the reason he rose to talk it out was that the English Member who should have talked it out was not sufficiently alert in getting up to speak. In the course of that discussion he urged that a full inquiry into the case should be held, and that all the documents should be produced, and what did hon. Members opposite do? Not one of them backed up that demand. The hon. Member for North Antrim had written a letter to him saying that he was strongly opposed to any further inquiry into this case.
§ MR. WILLIAM MOOREWill the hon. Member read my letter?
§ MR. DILLONNo.
§ MR. WILLIAM MOOREI said that, as regards the Constable Anderson case, I thought three inquiries and a debate in this House were quite sufficient without inflicting another upon us. I said that if the Under-Secretary believed what the hon. Member had stated, that he had not been adequately defended, it was open to him to resign and defend himself.
§ MR. DILLONsaid there was a most remarkable anxiety amongst hon. Members opposite that the facts of this case should not be made public. ["Oh, oh!"] A more cruel, baseless, and abominable calumny was never uttered against a public servant or a clergyman than that brought against Sir Antony MacDonnell and the priest concerned in connection with the Constable Anderson case. The whole thing was a lying invention, and, although hon. Members from Ulster continued to describe it as "the Anderson crime and abomination," the true facts were still withheld, and hon. Gentlemen opposite made no effort to have them elicited. He wished to remind the Chief Secretary of what occurred in the House of Lords. On July 12th Lord Cadogan made an application in the House of Lords that all the Papers in connection with the Anderson case should be laid on the Table. If that had not been a proper thing to do Lord Cadogan would not have done it. Lord Ashbourne said he would inquire into the matter and see whether Papers could be laid. Lord Spencer, another ex-Lord-Lieutenant, also urged that Papers should be produced, and when asked what Papers, replied—
I can only speak from experience in these matters. There was a time when matters of this sort entirely came before me when I was Lord-Lieutenant, and in my idea there must be minutes relating to the Court of inquiry and minutes which would show how the primary and final decisions were arrived at.Those were the minutes which should be produced. Not a single reason had been given for their non-production, and yet for months a great servant of the Crown had been allowed to be most shamefully assailed, and down to that hour Sir Antony MacDonnell had not been honestly defended in the House. If he was to blame in this matter he was not fit to hold his position, but he ought to have ordinary justice. The commonest criminal would not be allowed to be so treated. If Sir Antony MacDonnell had sinned let him suffer, but if he had not sinned, let his reputation be completely cleared.
§ MR. WILLIAM MOOREDoes he say, or do you, that he has not been properly defended?
§ MR. DILLONI say so on my own responsibility. That is a cowardly observation to make.
§ MR. DILLONIt was used to me two or three times recently, but you did not call my assailant to order.
§ MR. DILLONregretted the Deputy-Chairman had not taken the same view the other day. In any case, he did not call the hon. Member a coward; he said the observation was cowardly. Although he withdrew the expression, he thought it was perfectly in order. All he would say was that it was improper and mean for the hon. Member to get up and ask whether Sir Antony MacDonnell said he was not properly defended. Did not the hon. Member know enough of public life to be aware that Sir Antony MacDonnell's lips were sealed in this matter, and he was absolutely defenceless. That in itself was a reason why his superiors should treat him with greater generosity and loyalty. Even the Solicitor-General had hounded on the Orange gang against him, and denounced his own colleague and a subordinate of his own Government in a way never—
§ THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir EDWARD CARSON, Dublin University)said he had never denounced his own colleague. What he said was that his colleague had disavowed a certain scheme, and that if a subordinate was connected with a scheme which his superior had disavowed he was guilty of misconduct towards the Government.
§ MR. DILLONsaid the right hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that from the surrounding circumstances of that speech he had laid himself open to 1491 the imputation of having used private information obtained as a member of the Government.
§ SIR EDWARD CARSONsaid he had no private information. It was alleged that an official at the Castle was connected with the bringing forward of this devolution scheme, and all he said was that, if so, it was misconduct.
§ MR. DILLONBefore you made that statement did you ask Lord Dudley or the Irish Secretary as to what the circumstances were?
§ SIR EDWARD CARSONCertainly not.
§ MR. DILLONsaid he would pass from the Anderson case, as he thought he had said enough to convince any fair-minded man that Sir Antony MacDonnell had been treated in a very scurvy manner. The importance of lie case lay in the fact that it was an illustration of the means and methods y which Government was carried on in Ireland.
The next point he desired o raise was the interference by the Executive Government with the operations of the Estates Commissioners. In this connection he would make a direct charge of gross breach of faith against the Government. The Report of the Estates Commissioners stated—
All proceedings under this section have since been regulated by the Act of Parliament, provisional rules, and the instructions received from time to time from His Excellency the Lord-Lieutenant.A most distinct pledge was given during the discussions on the Bill that all regulations issued by the Lord-Lieutenant should be communicated to the House.
§ MR. ATKINSONFuture regulations.
§ MR. DILLONsaid he was referring to the discussions during the passage of the Bill. It was generally understood that that expression included all communications 1492 from the Executive Government having a binding or directing effect on the operations of the Commissioners. But what had been done? It was evident from the Report issued by the Commissioners that they had been controlled, and in some instances controlled against their opinion, by instructions issued by the Executive Government, and though the Act had been in operation for a year and a-half the country was still in ignorance of the nature of these instructions. The Government had taken refuge in the extraordinary plea that these instructions were not regulations under Sub-section 8, but confidential communications from one department to another. That was a subterfuge which would enable them completely to evade their pledge and to give the public no information whatever about these instructions. It was the grossest breach of faith he had ever known in the House of Commons.
§ MR. WALTER LONGI have stated quite distinctly what is my position in the matter. I can only deal with the future. I have stated quite explicitly that I am responsible for the regulations, which will be issued. The regulations which are now in draft and will be issued as soon as I am able to lay them on the Table, are all the regulations which will be issued to the Estates Commissioners, and I have stated that if it should be necessary to add to or alter them, so far as I am responsible, those alterations or additions shall also be placed upon the Table.
§ MR. DILLONsaid that if that were so, why should there be all this concealment with regard to the instructions already given and in operation. Where was the difference? If the sub-section was admitted to apply to all regulations given in the future, had it not the same efficacy with regard to instructions given in the past? Why should there, be all this mystery? The House was driven to the conclusion that there was something in those instructions of which the Government was ashamed and which they did not dare publish to the world. [Mr. WALTER LONG: No.] Then why 1493 not publish them and so end the whole controversy? Never had so absurd a position been taken up by a Government. The Commissioners stated that, under the instructions to inspectors, provisional agreements between landlords and tenants were indicated as one of the means by which the price which the tenants would be willing to pay could be ascertained, but that subsequently they were regarded as conclusive evidence of the tenants' willingness to buy at the price. Why were they taken as conclusive evidence? Thousands of such agreements were signed under duress of threats to proceed for arrears of rent, and they were signed by tenants in the confident belief that when inquired into by the inspector they would be broken. The original instructions laid it down that such agreements were to be considered only as one element in determining what the tenants were willing to pay, but now under some compelling force they were to be taken as final evidence, and the inspectors were not allowed to inquire whether there had been duress exercised or not.
Then there was the question of the reinstatement of evicted tenants, the provisions in regard to which had been a dismal failure. The Commissioners stated—
Considerable correspondence passed with the Treasury which resulted in the issue of directions.Who authorised the issue of those directions?
§ MR. ATKINSONI know no more about them than the hon. Member himself. I never heard of any such instructions.
§ MR. DILLONsaid the mystery deepened. Where in the name of Heaven did they come from? Who had authority to issue them? Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggest that the Commissioners made a false statement in their Report?
§ MR. ATKINSONI have had matters attributed to me of which I know nothing 1494 whatever, and with which I am in no way concerned. I never saw the instructions or gave any opinion upon them. I know nothing whatever about them.
§ MR. DILLONsaid the Committee had been informed that the Attorney-General always gave his legal advice to the Castle when asked to do so, and he assumed—
§ MR. ATKINSONYou have no right to assume it, because it is not true. I said I gave advice when I was asked for it, but that does not justify the hon. Member in assuming that I was asked for and gave advice in this matter.
§ MR. DILLONasked whether it would not be better to publish the whole of the instructions and thus clear up the entire business. There was evidently some ugly mystery, and the Attorney-General appeared to be particularly anxious to wash his hands of all responsibility. The instructions must have come from somebody. The Treasury had no right to issue directions. Whence did they come? Directions had been issued which had paralysed the operations of the Land Act in one of its most important departments; nobody was responsible, and nobody knew whence they came, but they had done their work, with the result that the promises held out by the Member for Dover had been completely nullified. No wonder the people were exasperated and disappointed.
Another respect in which the of the Act had been paralysed was with regard to congestion. When the Act was introduced they were told that its primary object was to rescue the unhappy population of the West of Ireland from their hideous condition; now by some malign influence that portion of the Act had also been rendered a nullity, and while the Duke of Leinster added £4,000 or £5,000 a year to his income, and other relations of Ministers also got their twenty-five years purchase at the expense of the English taxpayer, these unhappy peasants of the West ware left in the misery from which this Act was specially passed to rescue them. 1495 It was a disgrace and a scandal, and the Committee ought to use every means in its power to draw aside the curtain which cloaked the operations which had destroyed the efficacy of the Act as a remedial and assuaging measure.
Then there were the alleged outrages in the West of Ireland, and the conspiracy for the manufacture of bogus outrages, a shameful conspiracy got up by Lord Ashtown and others, and shamelessly carried on in the House by a handful of Irishmen who ought to be ashamed of their conduct in seeking to blacken their country in the eyes of the world. Being an opponent of dynamite, he was shocked when the London Press, including The Times, were rather inclined to justify the gentlemen who threw bombs in St. Petersburg and Warsaw. He was not there to advocate the rule of Rus ia, but under that rule, whatever might be said of it, Warsaw had doubled in population and quadrupled in wealth, and both Finland and Poland had increased in wealth and population, while under English rule Ireland had dwindled away in both those respects. Who, then, would condemn the peasants of Galway if they went out with bands of music and pulled down stone walls?
He would refer for a moment to a remarkable Return issued by the Chief Secretary yesterday showing the number and nature of the outrages and other offences of an indictable character reported by the police in each county of Ireland from December 1st, 1904, to April 19th, 1905. There were eight cases of murder in the whole of Ireland, of which two were in Ulster; four of homicide and manslaughter, of which three were in Ulster; six of firing at the person, of which three were in Ulster. With regard to the offence of procuring or attempting to procure abortion, this heading was absolutely blank for the whole of Ireland. Could they show such a record in this respect in England? 1496 This was the country which they were going to place under a Crimes Act because a stone wall had been pulled down. The same Return showed that there had been 115 cases of burglary and house-breaking in Ireland, sixty-one of which were in Ulster; seventy-four cases of robbery, and thirty-four of them in Ulster; coining and uttering base coin, seven cases, and four of them in Ulster. In regard to disgraceful crimes, Ulster stood, he would not say at the top of the list, but in a worse position than the whole of the other three provinces combined. And it was the representatives of this province who had the audacity and insolence to comedown to the House and, night after night, ask questions about the throwing down of a stone wall in Galway. If this kind of thing continued they would search the English papers, and in the case of every atrocity that was committed they would ask the British Government what they were going to do, and they would make this House ashamed of England. They would not allow the House of Commons to be used as a place for advertising bogus outrages in Ireland.
The Chief Secretary, by the Answers he had given in that House, had encouraged this proceeding. Did anyone imagine that every member of the Irish Constabulary did not take his hint from the Chief Secretary, who was a more absolute ruler in Ireland than was the Tsar in Russia, who ruled Ireland with as great and unchecked a power as the Suit in ruled Turkey, and, when he saw that outrages were wanted, produced them? Those men had for years gone round Ireland receiving rewards and promotion for their zeal, and it was very remarkable that wherever they were sent outrages cropped up, and it turned out that they had been committed by the police themselves, and innocent people were arrested for those crimes. Some of the cases had been found out, but how many were there which had never been found out? It 1497 was his deliberate conviction that this kind of thing was still going on in Ireland. What had happened in the House that night? When the Orange crowd opposite had been brought to book, what was the catalogue of crimes they had to produce? Simply a wall which had been knocked down in Galway, and that was their whole case. Was that an awful record against a population goaded to madness by the broken pledges of the Government, who had promised that the grass lands would be bought up and divided amongst them. He was astonished at the patience of the peasantry. For his part, he said that, unless the Government made up their minds to amend the Land Act where it required amendment and to withdraw the evil influences which were now mysteriously exercised, it was impossible that human nature could be patient, against the treatment to which the Irish people had been subjected. Agitation would arise, and it was little short of a crime for any man to go over from this country and say that he had but one remedy—force. He begged to renew the Amendment.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Item A be reduced by £100, in respect of the Salary of the Chief Secretary."£(Mr. Dillon.)
§ MR. WALTER LONGsaid he had listened to the criticisms made by the hon. and learned Member for Louth with some astonishment because he understood that there was a desire on the part of hon. Members on both sides of the House that he should not intervene in the debate before dinner. He took the view that it was right for him to hear what could be said in criticism from as many quarters as possible before he rose to reply. The hon. Gentleman 1498 the Leader of the Nationalist Party had taken him severely to task because, as the hon. Gentleman said, he had begun his career as Chief Secretary by confessing his entire inability to deal with the responsibilities of the office and his total ignorance of Ireland and Irish difficulties. The hon. Gentleman had not quite accurately expressed the opinions he uttered.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDI quoted your own words.
§ MR. WALTER LONGYes; but the deduction the hon. Gentleman drew from them was not quite fair. He did not know that it was very blameworthy to be a little modest as to one's personal ability. He did not say that he feared the responsibility or that he was not prepared to do the work to the best of his ability. All he did on coming new to one of the most important offices in the Government of the country was, naturally, to express the misgivings he had. He did not say he did not know anything of Ireland or her difficulties, and he thought it was not quite fair to translate what he had said into a confession of incompetence. Hon. Gentlemen had sought to show that in that speech he had also tried to throw discredit on the views of the Lord-Lieutenant when he dealt with the statement that the policy of the Irish Government had been, in 1902, to govern Ireland according to Irish ideas. He was not dealing in that speech with the declaration itself, or the question whether or not that ought to be the policy of the Irish Government. His point was that there was no precedent in the case of any Government, where there was a deliberate change of policy, where a new departure was to be adopted, 1499 for the announcement of that new departure being made by anybody but the responsible Minister. He asked what that phrase meant, and he found nothing in Lord Dunraven's pamphlet that gave him any information on the point. The debate had been mostly maintained from the other side of the House; and yet he was no wiser than at the beginning as to meaning of the phrase, "government according to Irish ideas."
§ MR. DILLONWhy did the Cabinet instruct Lord Dudley to use that phrase in Ireland?
§ MR. WALTER LONGHe never did anything of the kind, so far as I know.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDIn the words which I quoted, Lord Dudley said that he spoke for the Government, and he said that he personally agreed with that view.
§ MR. WALTER LONGsaid that Lord Dudley never mentioned the Cabinet. But even if Lord Dudley said that he spoke on behalf of the Government as a whole, it was still permissible to ask Lord Dudley or anyone else what the expression meant.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDIn 1902, Lord Dudley used these words—
The opinion of the Government was, and it was also his opinion, that the only way to govern Ireland properly was to govern it in accordance with Irish ideas.
§ MR. WALTER LONGsaid that the point was not whether Lord Dudley was authorised to speak on behalf of the Government or not. Before the Government were condemned by Lord Dunraven 1500 and hon. Gentlemen opposite as not being prepared to govern Ireland according to Irish ideas, they had a right to demand a clear explanation of the phrase. What the hon. Member for Waterford and his friends meant was perfectly well known. They had never altered their opinion, and they had been absolutely consistent during the twenty-five years they had been in the House. They had never altered their demand and the House knew what it was. If that was governing Ireland according to Irish ideas, then he must say it was a policy to which the Party to which he belonged must be unalterably opposed. Then it was asked, "Is your policy a changed one? Is conciliation a thing of the past?" He had never held that the so-called policy of conciliation was one that stood by itself, and was the opposite and antithesis of a policy of strong government. The two policies must go hand in hand if the prosperity of the country was to be secured. Reference had been made to his use of the stupid phrase "the chain'' which connected the Irish Government with Ireland, and the hon. Member appeared to think that it referred to the chain that bound Ireland to the United Kingdom. It had never entered into his head to put any such construction on the use of that phrase. He used it in connection with the famous scheme of devolution. He pointed out that he thought devolution was not likely to command much support, and in connection with Irish Government the chain he meant was the various branches of the Irish Government under the Minister responsible for that Government, and that the links in that chain required strengthening. It never occurred to him, that the use of the word "chain" could 1501 be interpreted as implying anything unpleasant or offensive to Ireland. Fault had been found with him also because he had poured scorn on the devolution scheme.
§ MR. JOHN REDMONDI did not say a word about the devolution scheme.
§ MR. DILLONWhat we said was that you poured scorn on the observations of the Lord -Lieutenant that Ireland should be governed in future according to Irish ideas.
§ MR. WALTER LONGsaid he thought that the devolution scheme was mentioned, but now he understood that it had not even a friend to-day and was regarded as decently interred.
§ MR. SWIFT MACNEILLWhat about Wyndham?
§ MR. WALTER LONGsaid the mover of the Motion had made two accusations against the Government. The first was in connection with the administration of the Land Act. But since he had gone to the Irish Office he had devoted by far the largest share of his time to doing all be could to secure that the Land Act should be successfully and rapidly worked. [NATIONALIST cries of "Oh, oh!"] The hon. Member for East Mayo and others appeared to have some difficulty in believing that statement.
§ MR. DILLONI do not disbelieve the right hon. Gentleman's statement, but I am afraid our ideas of what would be a successful working of the Act are very different.
§ MR. WALTER LONGsaid he should have thought that no matter how much 1502 they might differ politically their interpretation of the meaning of the word "success" did not need to be different. When he said "successfully" he meant that the Act of 1903 should be carried out to achieve the purpose for which it was passed, namely, that as rapidly as possible the land should be transferred from the present owners to those who were now occupying it; that there should as far as possible be a restoration of the evicted tenants, and an alteration in the economic holdings wherever that was possible. Hon. Members said that the operations of the Act had been delayed by the action of the Executive Government, and that there had been a non-application of the regulations issued by his predecessor. He knew of no mystery in this matter; he had nothing to conceal, and there was no reason why these operations should not be made public. He had to the best of his ability endeavoured to obtain all the information he could upon this question. When the Act came into operation and a certain amount of control was given to the Executive Government there were, he was informed, innumerable communications between the Executive Government and the Estates Commissioners, but he found no record of them; they appeared to have been of a verbal character He was dealing now with regulations controlling the operations of the Estates Commissioners. So far as he knew no regulations of that kind were ever issued by his predecessor. It might be that the right hon. Gentleman was to blame for not issuing them; it might be that it would have been better to have issued them earlier. But the Act was new, the work thrown on him and the Estates Commissioners was laborious, and he thought they should be forbearing in any 1503 criticism passed on this branch of the question.
§ MR. DILLONasked what was meant in the Report of the Commissioners by the reference to instructions from time to time from the Lord-Lieutenant. Were they to believe that there was no record of these instructions?
§ MR. WALTER LONGsaid so far as he knew the instructions were verbal, and, though given in the name of the Lord-Lieutenant, the Chief Secretary was the Minister responsible for them. The hon. Gentleman knew perfectly well that where the Chief Secretary was a member of the Cabinet he was responsible, although instructions were given in the name of the Lord-Lieutenant. It would be idle for him, and indeed it would appear to be an evasion, to throw upon the Lord-Lieutenant responsibility which properly belonged to his predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover. When he first came into office and found no regulations had been issued, he at once proceeded to have regulations drawn up; and he had undertaken that they should be laid on the Table of the House, together with any alterations or amendments that might be made in them. To that he adhered, and beyond that he did not think it was possible for any fair minded man to ask him to go.
Severe attacks had been made by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, the hon. Member for South Tyrone, and the hon. Member for East Mayo in reference to Section 5 and non-judicial tenants. Here, again, he was dealing with what had taken place before he took office as Chief Secretary; but, as he understood the 1504 position, communications passed between the Commissioners and the Executive Government, and the latter, after taking legal advice, expressed their view on their own responsibility. Obviously they were always entitled to fortify themselves by referring to their legal advisers or any other member of the Executive, but it was altogether contrary to practice and precedent to call upon a Minister to say upon whose authority he had given his opinion. The Minister was himself responsible. It was his duty to obtain the best and most reliable information he could get. Was it convenient or practicable to go behind the Minister and challenge him for the authority for the opinion he gave? In this particular case a view was expressed; but so far as he could ascertain there had always been a steadfast refusal on the part of the Executive Government to express a definite opinion as to the legal construction of the section, on the ground that Parliament had provided that such questions should be decided by the Judicial Commissioner, whose decision determined any such question, and any opinion not in accordance with it was set aside.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLasked why the Executive did not instruct the Estates Commissioners to refer that question to the Judicial Commissioner when first they came to the conclusion that the decision was not sound.
§ MR. WALTER LONGsaid the hon. Gentleman had overlooked one detail. Under the Act the Executive had no power to order the Estates Commissioners or even to advise them to refer the general question. It only enabled them 1505 to advise reference when, the question arose in a particular case, and it was when it arose in a particular case in this instance that they advised reference to the Judicial Commissioner. In fact, the Judicial Commissioner had definitely declined to deal with these questions when raised generally and in the abstract. Therefore the hon. Gentleman would see that there had been no improper action on the part of the Executive and no avoidable delay. In regard to these two charges which had been brought against the Executive he hoped he had shown that they were not guilty.
He now came to a charge which the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford made against him, and which he confessed he heard made with astonishment. He had sat in the House for many years, and he had often listened with admiration to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He had watched his public action as leader of a Party in the House, with a growing conviction of his ability and power to lead. The hon. Member not only charged him with the old charge, which they had heard so often made before, of manufacturing bogus crime, but treated it as a sudden act on his part. [A. HON. MEMBER: No, not a charge against you.] Then if this charge was not against him, where was the change of policy? If it was not made against him, and if he was merely continuing the acts of his immediate predecessors, what was all this bother about? But this really was an old charge. The charge of which he complained, and which he thought unworthy of the hon. and learned Gentleman, was that he adopted a policy which had for its ultimate object the introduction of coercion, and that he had taken this 1506 course in order to secure the turning out of Dublin Castle of Sir Antony MacDonnell. That was a charge which no man ought to bring forward in the House of Commons against another unless ho had abundant proof. It was absolutely false and without foundation. He did take exception to a charge that he had lent himself to a policy so cowardly and contemptible as that indicated by the hon. and learned Gentleman—namely, that he, who had power to dismiss any permanent official under him to-morrow if he thought fit, chose the indirect way of slowly forging a policy of coercion, not because he thought it necessary for the protection of life and property or in the interest of Ireland and the United Kingdom, but in order to get rid of a permanent official whom he could not get rid of in any other way. If that charge was true, what became of all the speeches they had listened to the other day from hon. Gentlemen opposite? One hon. Gentleman told them exultingly that he did not mind a change of Irish Secretary because he knew that as long as Sir Antony MacDonnell was at the Castle there would be no change of policy, that to use a common phrase, the Undersecretary would be top dog. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had said also that the Government could not part with Sir Antony MacDonnell because there was a correspondence which might be disclosed which would damage the Government, or that for some other reason they were afraid to part with him. But if that were true, what was the origin of the charge tonight? Was there ever so clumsy a policy ascribed to man as had been ascribed to him? In the first place it was suggested that here was a man whom he 1507 dared not part with, and then that he had got up the troublesome machinery of forging crime so as ultimately to adopt a policy of coercion in order to get rid of him. The charge was one quite unworthy of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and one he ought not to have made unless he had the strongest proof in its support. He absolutely repudiated the charge, for which there was not a shadow of foundation.
He rejoiced with the hon. and learned Gentleman that the condition of the greater part of Ireland showed material improvement, which he hoped would be maintained. As to the parts of Galway, Mayo, and Roscommon which had been referred to, in those particular districts there had been trouble for many years; twenty years ago it was probably the most disturbed part of Ireland, where crime was most prevalent. It was true that there was not now the overt crime there that there used to be, but there had been lately a very large amount, not of overt crime, but of action which was not only deplorable, but which if allowed to continue must undermine the whole foundations of society. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of receiving threatening letters; many of them had received such letters; but there was no comparison between the receipt of threatening letters by Members of that House and by isolated tenant farmers in the West of Ireland, especially when in the latter case there were also resolutions published in the newspapers passed by representatives of local associations all tending in one direction, all pointing out how certain desires could be gratified if such and such 1508 measures were adopted. With regard to the prohibition of meetings in the West of Ireland, he believed that in the great majority of cases these meetings had little or no effect. While meetings had been from time to time, as he held, rightly prohibited, the great majority of meetings had been held without any interference. But to compare a meeting held in the neighbourhood of some small farmer occupying a grazing farm in the West of Ireland, with one of our Hyde Park demonstrations to denounce the millionaires of Park Lane, was not a true comparison. Was it likely that the same effect would be produced in the case of the millionaires as in the case of the small farmers.
He was charged with having embarked on a policy of coercion. What evidence was there for the charge that the Government were seeking to adopt a policy of coercion? There was no foundation whatever for that charge. But he lay under that charge, if it meant that so long as he was responsible for the Government of Ireland, he would do his best to protect the life and property of those who needed protection. It was not a charge against the people of Ireland to make that statement. On the contrary, it was an admission of the state of things which existed in a part of Ireland, and an assertion that the existence of that condition of things ought not to be permitted. He believed it would be found that in the last twenty-five years, while they had had to confront enormous difficulties, and Ireland had had much to suffer, she had made steady progress, and she was making progress now.
§ MR. FLAVINIt is towards America.
§ MR. WALTER LONGsaid that, at all events, it was the duty and privilege of the Government to do all they could to develop Ireland's internal resources and to strengthen her industries. They were bound also to do that which appeared to excite so much contempt and scorn among hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that was to see that every man was free to work within the law according to his will and desire. The Government believed that that policy was essential to the happiness, not only of Ireland, but of the rest of the United
§ Kingdom, and it was that policy that he should do his best to further.
§ MR. DILLONsaid on March 6th last the hon. Member for Waterford asked whether there were any instructions contained in the correspondence, and the Attorney-General for Ireland replied—
No regulations have been made; but instructions and orders are contained in the correspondence, which is confidential and cannot be laid.
§ Question put.
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes, 98 Noes, 145. (Division List No 181.)
1511| AYES. | ||
| Allen, Charles P. | Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) |
| Ambrose, Robert | Harrington, Timothy | O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.) |
| Austin, Sir John | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Dowd, John |
| Barry, E. (Cork, S.) | Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H. | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N |
| Blake, Edward | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Malley, William |
| Boland, John | Higham, John Sharp | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Bolton, Thomas Dolling | Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk | Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden) |
| Brigg, John | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Power, Patrick Jospeh |
| Bright, Allan Heywood | Jones, Leif (Appleby) | Rea, Russell |
| Burke, E. Haviland | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire | Reddy, M. |
| Caldwell, James | Joyce, Michael | Redmond, John E. (Waterford |
| Campbell, John (Armagh, S.) | Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W. | Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Kilbride, Denis | Roche, John |
| Cawley, Frederick | Lamont, Norman | Roe, Sir Thomas |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.) | Russell, T.W. |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall) | Schwann, Charles E. |
| Crean, Eugene | Layland-Barratt, Francis | Shackleton, David James |
| Cremer, William Randal | Leigh, Sir Joseph | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) |
| Delany, William | Lundon, W. | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway | MacNeill, John Gordon Swift | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Dillon, John | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Slack, John Bamford |
| Doogan, P. C. | M'Fadden, Edward | Stanhope, Hon. Philip James |
| Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark) | M'Hugh, Patrick A. | Sullivan, Donal |
| Emmott, Alfred | M'Kean, John | Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe) |
| Eve, Harry Trelawney | M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North) | Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr |
| Ffrench, Peter | Mooney, John J. | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Field, William | Moss, Samuel | Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Murphy, John | White, George (Norfolk) |
| Flynn, James Chistopher | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Woodhouse, Sir JT(Huddersf'd |
| Gilhooly, James | Nolan, Col. John P. (Galway, N.) | Young, Samuel |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South) | |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.) | Captain Donelan and Mr. |
| Hammond, John | O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.) | Patrick O'Brien. |
| NOES. | ||
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Allsopp, Hon. George | Arrol, Sir William |
| Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel | Anson, Sir William Reynell | Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John |
| Allhusen, Augustus Henry Eden | Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. Hugh O. | Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy |
| Bailey, James (Walworth) | Flower, Sir Ernest | Pierpoint, Robert |
| Bain, Colonel James Robert | Forster, Henry William | Platt-Higgins, Frederick |
| Balcarres, Lord | Foster, Philip S. (Warwick, SW. | Plummer, Sir Walter R. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (Manc'r. | Gardner, Ernest | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Balfour, RtHnGerald W. (Leeds | Gordon, Hn J. E. (Elgin & Nairn) | Pretyman, Ernest George |
| Balfour, Kenneth R. (Christch. | Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) | Purvis, Robert |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gore, Hon. S.F. Ormsby | Pym, C. Guy |
| Beach, Rt. Hn. Sir Michael Hicks | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Randles, John S. |
| Bhownaggree, Sir M. M. | Greene, SirE W(B'rySEdm'nds | Rasch, Sir Frederic Carne |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.) | Reid, James (Greenock) |
| Bingham, Lord | Gretton, John | Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield) |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Groves, James Grimble | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
| Boscawen, Arthur Griffith | Hamilton, Marq. of (L'nd'nderry | Robinson, Brooke |
| Bousfield, William Robert | Helder, Augustus | Rolleston, Sir John F. L. |
| Brassey, Albert | Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.) | Round, Rt. Hon. James |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T. | Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool) |
| Brymer, William Ernest | Hickman, Sir Alfred | Sackville, Col. S. G. Stopford |
| Bull, William James | Hogg, Lindsay | Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander |
| Butcher, John George | Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside | Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles |
| Campbell, J. H. M. (Dublin Univ. | Hoult, Joseph | Seton-Karr, Sir Henry |
| Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. | Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H. | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbyshire | Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W. | Skewes-Cox, Thomas |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Keswick, William | Stanley, Edward Jas. (Somerset) |
| Chamberlain, Rt Hn. J. A. (Worc. | Knowles, Sir Lees | Stanley, Rt. Hn. Lord (Lancs.) |
| Chapman, Edward | Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. | Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow) | Stroyan, John |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse | Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) | Lawson, John Grant(Yorks N.R. | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) | Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage | Tollemache, Henry James |
| Dalkeith, Earl of | Leveson-Gower, Frederick N.S. | Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M. |
| Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter(Bristol, S) | Tuff, Charles |
| Davenport, William Bromley | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred | Tuke, Sir John Batty |
| Denny, Colonel | Macdona, John Cumming | Walker, Col. William Hall |
| Dickson, Charles Scott | Melville, Beresford Valentine | Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H. |
| Dimsdale, Rt. Hon. Sir Joseph C. | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.) |
| Doughty, Sir George | Milvain, Thomas | Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers | Montagu, G. (Huntingdon) | Whiteley, H. (Ashton und. Lyne |
| Doxford, Sir William Theodore | Montagu, Hn. J. Scott(Hants.) | Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset) |
| Dyke, Rt. Hn. Sir William Hart | Morgan, David J(Walthamstow | Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath) |
| Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton | Morpeth, Viscount | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Faber, George Denison (York) | Morrell, George Herbert | Wylie, Alexander |
| Fellowes, RtHnAilwyn Edward | Mount, William Arthur | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J(Manc'r. | Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C. | |
| Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst | Murray, Chas. J. (Coventry) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir |
| Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. | O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens | Alexander Acland-Hood and |
| Finlay, Sir R. B(Inv'rn'ssB'ghs) | Parkes, Ebenezer | Viscount Valentia. |
| Fisher, William Hayes | Percy, Earl |
§ Original Question again proposed
§ And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.