HC Deb 21 February 1906 vol 152 cc410-48

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [21st February] to Main Question [19th February], "That an humble address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—

Most Gracious Sovereign,

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

Which Amendment was— At the end of the Question, to add the words 'But we humbly represent to Your Majesty that large numbers of Your Majesty's loyal subjects in Ireland view with alarm the statement that Your Majesty's Ministers have under consideration proposals to effect changes in the system of Government in Ireland, believing that Your Majesty's present advisers by their past declarations have committed themselves to a policy which will endanger the liberties and property of the loyalist minority, promote discord and civil strife, and impair the integrity of the United Kingdom.'"—(Colonel Saunderson.)

Question again proposed, "That those words be there added." Debate resumed.


, continuing his speech, said he denied that the Nationalist Party was any stronger now than before the dissolution, and asserted that the Irish Unionist Party was in a better position than before the election. He also denied the truth of the assertion that the Irish Unionist Party was bigoted. He had always maintained that the Unionist Party in Ireland was free from bigotry. The Nationalists boasted that they had several Protestants in their Party, and although the Unionist Party had no Roman Catholics among their number, they did their level best at the last election to return a Roman Catholic in the person of Mr. Denis Henry, who was beaten by only nine votes. There were several reasons why they objected to Home. Rule or devolution, which they looked upon as a step towards Home Rule. The words in the King's Speech regarding the subject were vague, and he had no doubt they were purposely vague. But it was nevertheless their duty as defenders of the Union to put upon them the most sinister construction they could. If they turned out to be less sinister than they anticipated so much the better. It was their business to place before the House the fact that some inroads on the Union was going to be attempted by the present Government. They had been twitted for forcing the question of Home Rule to the front during the election, but their position was perfectly logical and clear. Whether it was the intention or not of the Government to bring in legislation which would endanger the Union, it was their duty to show to the English people that they were as determined as ever to oppose any alteration in the Constitution. If they found the Government had no such intention their position was still logical, and he might go further and say that, if that proved to be the case, they might reasonably claim that the stand taken by the Unionis constituencies in Ireland had had a certain effect upon the Libera' Government. H[...]begged new Members not to take for gospel everything they heard put forward in favour of Home Rule, or even put forward against it from the Members on these Benches. Let them if possible examine the question on the spot. If they did so he was certain they would come to the conclusion that no case had been shown for an alteration in the Constitution. For the moment they had to deal not with Home Rule itself, but with an insidious step which if taken would lead to Home Rule. The Prime Minister or some other prominent member of the Government had said that a mistake had been made in the past by introducing a Home Rule Bill, and that what they must do in the future was to bring it in in instalments, the object being of course to hoodwink the electors. It was apparently the intention to bring it in in small instalments so that the English electors would not be able to see the seriousness of it. But having once granted these first steps it would be impossible for them to draw back. New Members must study whether Home Rule in its bald form was necessary or ought to be granted to Ireland. The strongest point they adduced in their opposition to Home Rule was that Home Rule was not needed in Ireland. The conditions under which they lived in the north of Ireland and with which they were satisfied were the same conditions as those under which the people in the south lived, where they professed to be discontented. Wherein did the Nationalists live under a Government which was more oppressive to them than to those in the north. He defied a single Member to show that the liberties they enjoyed were less than or different from the liberties enjoyed in the north. It was fruitless in this question to go back 300 years. It was the facts of the present time they had to face, and these proved that there was no necessity for Home Rule. The fore-fathers of the people in the north of Ireland came over from Scotland and England, and a finer or sturdier body of men was never produced. They went over to the north of Ireland, which was then practically a virgin forest, and faced and overcame the greatest difficulties, for that part of the country was not endowed by nature with the same advantages, from an agricultural point of view, as the south and west. They brought the country to the state of prosperity in which it now was. These Ulster settlers had suffered from natural and unnatural difficulties; the hostilty of the Established Church at that time to every form of dissent was of so relentless a character that the persecution year by year from which those unfortunate people suffered was such as had never been carried on against any other people in Ireland. Yet in face of all the drawbacks which they had to face, the people in the north of Ireland had prospered. They had had their land difficulties brought about by the opening up of other continents and the consequent depression of agriculture; they had had their difficulties brought about by that and other causes, in the same way as Great Britain had had her land difficulties, and hon. Members had only to take these facts into consideration and look for themselves and they would see why, in spite of all these serious drawbacks, the men of the north who were now asking the House not to sanction Home Rule were still determined that the constitution which they had enjoyed for a hundred years should not be altered in any form if they could help it. The fact was, that the men of the south and west had not taken advantage of their opportunities in the same way as had the men in the north. Would any hon. Member say how it came about that in the north there was a comparatively flourishing agricultural industry, a large and flourishing linen industry, a large shipbuilding industry, and numerous other industries giving employment to thousands of hands, spreading money about, and bringing an amount of prosperity with which the people of the north were perfectly well satisfied, if it was not owing to their having taken advantage of their opportunities? Let hon. Members look at their towns. Belfast was one of the most unique examples which the world could produce. Besides Belfast they had a large number of other towns in which hon. Gentlemen would sec signs of increasing prosperity on every side. If new Members would only study the question for themselves they would see that there was no necessity for any scheme of devolution and no reason why the south and west of Ireland should not be content with the liberty they enjoyed in common with the people of Ulster. He did not mean that there was no necessity for further Irish legislation. He was pleased that the labourers' question was to be dealt with by the present Government; but the prosperity of the north of Ireland showed that there could be no reason, apart from the fault of the people themselves, why the rest of Ireland could not flourish under the same Constitution. The hon. Member for South Tyrone marvelled why they raised the question of Home Rule by instalments. But he need not marvel, for last session the Unionists of Ireland lost not a moment in opposing the devolution proposals, with which they believed certain members of the Government in Ireland were connected. The late Chief Secretary resigned because he felt that he could no longer be useful to Ireland. When members of a Government which they themselves supported were supposed to have been connected with such proposals they had felt it their duty to bring the matter before the House, and they would continue to denounce such proposals on every occasion. He objected that any hon. Member should consider the position of the Irish Unionists was in any way altered because of the facts that came out last session. They were in the same position as before, and the position of the Unionist Party as a whole on Home Rule was precisely the same as ever.


I should like to call the attention of the House to the Amendment we are now discussing, which has been largely lost sight of in the debate. The Amendment represents that large numbers of His Majesty's subjects view with alarm the statement that His Majesty's Ministers have under consideration proposals to effect changes in the system of government in Ireland. I think, Mr. Speaker, that that is a statement which every one who has listened to the debate will say is absolutely untrue. I cannot believe there is anybody in Ireland who views with alarm the statement that proposals are under consideration for effecting changes in the system of government in that country. I believe that every one considers that changes are needed in the system of government in Ireland. But there is another part of the statement in the Amendment with which I entirely disagree—namely, the statement that large numbers of His Majesty's subjects, distrusting the King's present Ministers, view the statement in the Speech with alarm. Those who live in this state of panic are a very small number, and I believe they are a diminishing number. It is a number which dwindles steadily every year, and when I compare the state of opinion now with what it was in 1886, I am surprised at the magnitude and profundity of the change. The arguments used in support of this Amendment to-night ought to have shown that there was no need for change in the government of Ireland; but nobody has denied the need for change, not even the right hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved the Amendment. He made a lively and humorous speech of which I hope he will permit me to say that I have always liked that speech. It is a good many years since I first heard it, and I think I really liked it to-night better than ever, because the right hon. Gentleman was so good - natured as to give me nothing to answer. He did not advance any arguments. He began by saying that he was very much surprised when he saw the King's Speech that there were no Home Rule proposals in it, and then proceeded to say that after all he supposed there must be Home Rule in it. The latter part of his speech contradicted absolutely the first part. In fact, he fired his pistol in the air. The seconder of the Amendment added very little. He said that the last thing the people of this country thought of during the General Election was Home Rule; but it was very stupid of them if they did not think of it, and they must have paid very little heed to the leaders of the Opposition, for statements were made from every Tory platform, and were repeated by all the newspapers on the Tory side, that Home Rule was the main and supreme issue before the country. The hon. Member complained that we did not tell him what changes His Majesty's Ministers were considering, that they were hidden behind a curtain. But that did not prevent him from making many lunges with his sword at that curtain in the hope of hitting somebody behind it. He argued that it must be Home Rule which we were contemplating, because nothing else could be expected from His Majesty's present Ministers. The gracious Speech from the Throne contains nothing that was not stated over and over again by the Prime Minister and by every prominent Member of the Liberal Party during the last election, and those statements were endorsed after they had been repeatedly made by the enormous majority which we see returned to this House of Commons. Two other speeches require a word perhaps from me. One is the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Maidstone. While disagreeing with the views, he expressed, I think we on this side of the House recognise the talent and grace with which it was composed and delivered, and we gladly welcome the noble Lord to our debates, and hope he will take a frequent part in them. The speech of the hon. Member for South Antrim contained really nothing that seems to call for special comment, because it was chiefly devoted to the praises of Ulster. I am the last man to deny the justice of the praises he bestowed on the energy and industry of the people of Ulster, and I can assure him that the Government will never propose anything which in their opinion will injure the prosperity of Ulster. Nevertheless, the Members who have spoken in support of the Amendment have agreed in condemning by anticipation whatever proposals the Government may make. What are we then to suppose? Apparently, since they condemn all changes, they hold that the present system of government in Ireland is all that it ought to be; that it is a satisfactory situation, when we find the administration carried on at a cost much greater in proportion to the population and wealth of the island than is the administration of England and Scotland; and that the number of boards is so unusually large. I suppose also that those hon. Gentlemen must think that education in Ireland, primary intermediate, and University, is in a satisfactory state, and that there is no pauperism in Ireland beyond what might naturally be expected from the size of the population. And what has become of those complaints of the neglect of various public works and various matters of that kind, which I think I have often heard from the right hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh? Speaking with great diffidence, as I have only just come to know something of Ireland, I believe there is a very great deal to be done in Ireland both to cheapen and to improve, the administration of the country. Apparently, however, changes may be sometimes accepted from a Tory Government, but never from a Liberal Government; so Ireland finds herself in this dilemma, that when a Tory Government is in power no considerable reform can be enacted because a section of the Ulster Members claim the power to veto any beneficent work taken up by the Government, while on the other hand, when the Liberals are in power nothing can be done to improve the Administration in Ireland because it might lead up to Home Rule. Thus the result comes to be that nothing at all is to be done for Ireland by either party. The name of Home Rule has no terrors for me. I was a Home Ruler before 1886, and I have never departed in the smallest particular from any of the principles for which we of the Liberal party fought when Mr. Gladstone led us in 1886 and 1893. Therefore I approach this subject in the firm belief, which I think is shared by the great majority of the House, that changes, and indeed important changes, are needed in the government of Ireland. I have been asked what changes it is proposed to make. His Majesty's Speech says that plans are under consideration; and while we are considering the nature and scope of the plans that ought to be adopted, ought we to be asked to state the precise point at which we have arrived before we have completed our consideration? The House is not even in the First Reading of a Bill, and I decline to have the freedom and deliberation which we require for exploring and studying this great subject interfered with by replying to the somewhat unreasonable demand that is now addressed to us. Let me, however, return to the suggestion that changes in the method of governing Ireland are not needed. Let me quote what was said by Lord Lansdowne in the House of Lords a year ago. He said that any one who had studied the question was aware that there was room for considerable improvement in that old-fashioned and complicated organisation. The late Prime Minister also spoke of the need for changes in Ireland. And what is the record of the Tory Government during the last sixteen years upon this subject? Older Members will remember that the late Lord Salisbury once made a speech in which he declared that to give local government to Ireland was more dangerous than Home Rule. A very few years afterwards the Tory Party passed a Local Government Bill; and, by the confession of one Member on the other side who spoke on this subject to-night, that Local Government Act has worked very well. And how about the Land. Bill of 1903? I suppose the failure of Mr. Gladstone's scheme, in 1886 was as much due to the objections entertained w that Bill as to the objections to the Home Rule Bill. Certainly that was stated by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and others. In 1903 a Land Bill involving more than 110 trillions of British credit was passed by Conservative Government. Contemporaneously with that the then Viceroy (Lord Dudley) and the right hon. Member for Dover inaugurated a new policy, and the then Viceroy actually said that in his view Ireland ought to so governed in accordance, not with English, but with Irish, ideas. The right hon. Member for Dover appointed as Under-Secretary a most distinguished ex-Indian Civil servant with the very object and purpose of helping him to effect changes in the Government of Ireland. It is clear that the Viceroy, at all events, was cognisant of and approved what Sir A. MacDonnell was doing. The Member for Dover retired, but the Vice[...]oy remained. Can any one deny that the action of His Majesty's late Government, in allowing the Viceroy to continue to represent them in Ireland—knowing what had been done, and after the sympathy and encouragement which the Viceroy most properly and reasonably and candidly had given to the scheme of the Irish Reform Association—constituted in itself an admission by the late Government that large changes are needed in the Government of Ireland? We know what changes have taken place in Ireland itself. The rise of the Irish Reform Association is a most significant fact. You have men who belong to the Conservative Party, who have always supported it by their votes, landlords themselves, men of local influence and weight, who have joined in this movement for improving the government of Ireland; and you have a further significant fact in the adhesion of a former Under-Secretary, Sir West Ridge-way, to that policy, reminding us of the influence produced upon the mind of a former Under-Secretary by his experience in Ireland, because it was what he saw in Dublin Castle that made Sir R. Hamilton a Home Ruler. These signs of a change of opinion in Ireland are not confined to the south and the west; they are visible in Ulster also. We have had the most significant fact of the return of the hon. Member for North Antrim to this House—a constituency which, as far as I can recollect, has ever since 188[...] been consistently on the Tory side. In fact, I am not going too far when I say that everybody in Ireland admits that changes are needed in the Irish Government. [Cries of "No."]

MR. T. L. CORBETT (Down, N.)

May I point out that the Ulster Unionist Party have gained two seats and lost one.


With all these facts before us, with the record of the late Government, with all this evidence of change, it would be impossible for us not to address ourselves to the problem of what can be done to improve the government of Ireland. I do not really I see how it is possible for Members of the late Government to vote for this Amendment. Their own conduct stares them in the face. They were parties to measures for improving the Government of Ireland, and this Amendment in effect says that no change in the Government of Ireland ought to be made. Still less am I able to understand how the right hon. Member for West Birmingham can vote for it. Reference has been made to a well-known book called "The Radical Programme," containing views approved by him, published in 1885. But in 1886, after the defeat of Mr. Gladstone's Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said he "had always been a Home Ruler." The other night the right hon. Gentleman said he and his Party would always give strenuous opposition to self-government for Ireland. Just in the same way he formerly said "I have always been a Home Ruler." "Always" is a word which comes easily to his lips. If hon. Members will refer to the "Life of Gladstone" by my right hon. friend the Member for Montrose, they will find on page 367 of Vol. III. an extremely interesting account of the views which the right hon. Member for West Birmingham entertained in 1887 after the Home Rule Bill of 1886 had been I defeated, and in an interview which the right hon. Gentleman had in 1898 with Mr. Barry O'Brien (described in his very interesting "Life of Parnell," Vol. II., p. 134) he expressed himself as having; been in favour of a national council in Dublin, with perhaps another council in Belfast, and he described his own projects for giving to a central council the administrative work of all the boards then existing in Dublin, and, further, suggested that this board might, besides, deal with such subjects as land, education, etc. Now the right hon. Gentleman, in referring to those relatively youthful opinions of his—and in this case second thoughts are perhaps worse thoughts—said that he would not say exactly the same thing now. But surely most people will come to the conclusion that what it was safe to give in 1885, or 1886, or 1887, might be far more safely given now. How great has been the change in the condition of the country! Between 1880 and 1885 the number of reported outrages per annum had frequently exceeded 4,000. The number of reported outrages per annum has, during the last few years, been sometimes below and usually little above 200. Other difficulties in the way of an extension of self-government upon which people dwelt in those days have also been removed. Local Government has been established and is working well, a Land Purchase Bill has been passed, the land is passing into the hands of the tenants, there is far less boycotting, there is very little intimidation—wherever you look the condition of the country as regards peace and tranquillity has notably improved; and that which was safe in the view of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham in 1887 must surely be far safer and easier now. Accordingly, His Majesty's Government have every possible reason for making an effort in the direction of improving the system of government in Ireland and in associating the people with it. Many reasons have been advanced at different times for moving in that direction. Those who can recall that memorable day when Mr. Gladstone, in a House crowded as it was never crowded before, brought in his Home Rule Bill in 1886, will remember that the point on which he chiefly dwelt as making self-government necessary was its tendency to promote and secure social order. He said that until you give the people confidence in the Government and give them some measure of responsibility for it you will not place upon a firm and permanent basis social order in Ireland. I am happy to think that although that Bill failed to pass, its results have not been lost, and social order is far better preserved now, just because the people have come to know that they have much sympathy and friendship from the people of Great Britain. Another reason advanced for giving the management of their local affairs to the Irish people was that devolution would relieve the Imperial Parliament of functions which were beginning to overburden it. That argument is still a very weighty and important one, as the new Members of this House, when they see how much its work exceeds its means for despatching that work, will come to realise. But there is a third argument, which was not then so familiar to most of us, but which has forced itself upon my mind every day that I have had to do with the administration of the government of Ireland, and it is this, that there are many reforms in Irish administration which urgently need to be effected but which cannot be properly effected unless you enlist, on their behalf, the opinion and sentiment of the people of Ireland. I am not sure that this is not as important an argument as the others. For instance, there is an immense deal to be done for Irish education. Its condition is half a century behind that of education in England and Scotland. But I see little prospect of effecting the needed reforms unless you can carry the opinion of the Irish people with you. The way to carry the opinion of the Irish people with you is, if possible, to give them some direct voice in considering, some direct part in carrying out, these reforms. And in carrying out these reforms by administration you must associate the people with the work of governing themselves if you are to make these reforms palatable and acceptable to them. You must give them a sense of responsiblity for the laws by which they are to be governed. You must give them opportunities of dealing with practical questions in a practical spirit. You must enable them to come together from different, parts of Ireland as citizens of the same country, not necessarily divided by Party lines or conducting their discussions in a Party spirit, but endeavouring to work together as patriotic Irishmen for the good of their common country. That is, perhaps, what is most needed in Ireland at present—to give the people of all sections and of both faiths an opportunity of coming together and working together. It is because I believe that it would check and give the greatest possible discouragement to the policy of conciliation and to that development of self-government which Ireland needs that I ask the House to reject this Amendment. I do not believe that the sentiments of the vast majority of Irishmen approve of this Amendment. If the apprehensions which the Amendment sets forth are still cherished, they are cherished by a small and dwindling minority. They are the sentiments of a small section which is steeped in old-fashioned prejudices, unworthy of enlightened minds, and, unfortunately, has formed the habit of appealing to and inflaming racial and religious animosities—animosities which would die out of themselves if they were allowed to do so. If those who here profess to speak for that small section will allow me to say so without offence, I am heartily sorry that they should still cherish sentiments which keep them apart from the main body of their fellow countrymen. But though this is still their attitude, there is a spirit of conciliation at this moment growing and spreading in Ireland. There is a general wish to let bygones be bygones. In Ulster, as elsewhere, there is a disposition to regard with new eyes and in a candid temper the differences which have kept Irishmen apart, and to find a solution for the difficulties with which Ireland is confronted. The hon. Member for Water-ford said, in the eloquent speech which he delivered two nights ago, that this new Parliament had a great opportunity. Yes, Sir, it has a great opportunity before it. This is not merely because the people of England and Scotland, when every possible effort was made to frighten and deter them, have, at the recent general election, declared in favour of a policy of conciliation and of the extension of self-government, and have delivered their authority to the House of Commons to carry out that policy. That is one reason. But this opportunity has also another aspect. When Ireland is tranquil, when the people are disposed to accept in a friendly spirit what comes to them from Great Britain, when so great a change has come over the spirit of both Ireland and Great Britain since 1886, surely that is the moment at which measures looking further towards self-government can properly be introduced. It used to be said, and it was said, I am afraid with fatal effect, in 1886, that while Ireland was so disturbed and crime was so rife, how can you give the people the right to control their own affairs? That argument, at any rate, has been now removed. This is a moment of tranquility, of peace, and of comparatively well settled order. Seize that precious opportunity, seize it while you can. There is also another reason. When the majority which supports His Majesty's Government is so large as it is now, no charge of mere Party motives in proposing concessions to the wishes of Ireland can be brought against us. Such a charge would be unjust. What we said and tried to do in 1886 was done honestly, done from conviction, done because we had learned from experience how much was needed in other to improve the relations of the two islands. But were we to be now neglectful of what we have continually declared and avowed during the last nineteen years, we should justly expose ourselves to the charge of having advocated these principles from Party motives. The fact that there is in this House, fresh from its contact with the nation, so large a majority pledged to support the policy outlined in the Speech from the Throne is a strong reason why we should advance steadily and fearlessly, knowing that no charges such as were brought before can now be brought against our action. But I do not call what we hope to do by the name of "a concession to Ireland." I do not say it ought to be done for the sake merely of meeting the demands made by Ireland, although it is surely a most impressive fact that the majority of Members from Ireland who ask for an extension of self-government has continued to be the same; for twenty years, and that, whereas nearly all of us in England and Scotland have had to fight for our seats, a great deal more than half the Irish Nationalist Members [NATIONALIST cries of "seventy" and "eighty"] have come back to Parliament unopposed. A demand like that, preferred with such a weight of popular opinion, is a demand which no constitutional Government can disregard. No, Sir, the reforms which ought to be granted must be granted not solely because Ireland asks for them and needs them. They will be for the advantage of Great Britain no less than for the advantage of Ireland. Ireland has been the principal source of weakness to Great Britain ever since 1782, and she ought to be a part of the strength of the United Kingdom. That Ireland should be peaceful, that Ireland should be a contented member of the United Kingdom, that the prosperity of Ireland should be part of the prosperity of the United Kingdom, that the youth of Ireland, whose intelligence and energy make them valuable and successful colonists wherever they go over the face of the earth, should be induced to stay at home in Ireland and devote their energies to the progress of their own country, to which the Irish people are attached as no people whose annals history records have ever been more attached—these are the aims to which not only Irish patriots, but every British Party and every British Government may well devote its efforts, and in devoting its efforts to those aims, I hope that it will earn and will deserve the blessing promised to the peacemakers.

MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)

The House has just listened to a speech which was unquestionably eloquent and which has naturally commanded its earnest attention. But I venture to say that as an answer to the requests made by those who are naturally anxious to know what the intentions of the Government are, it has not only failed to satisfy their natural curiosity, but has erred in another direction. The right hon. Gentleman began by telling us what, I may say, those of us who had followed this controversy were already aware of, namely, that he had been for many years—from the commencement of this question—an earnest advocate of Home Rule. Then he delivered a speech in which he commenced by declining, as he was entitled to decline, to divulge the proposals of the Government, because they were not yet completely prepared. Afterwards, however, he went on to make a speech which one would naturally have expected to be followed up by a declaration that those proposals tended towards Home Rule itself. There was not one of his arguments which was not used by the great leader of the Liberal Party who, standing at that box, proposed two schemes in favour of Home Rule, not being afraid to give to those arguments their legitimate and logical conclusion. He was not content to stop short as the right hon. Gentleman has done to-night and take refuge in schemes for the amendment of the Education Department in Ireland, of the Board of Public Works, and of others of the various Boards which with some exaggeration, if also with some truth, have been described as being too numerous and not altogether as useful as they might be. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that it is necessary to effect some reforms in Ireland; and I should be the last to deny, if the paragraph in the Speech from the Throne referring to these particular questions stood by itself, that there was great justification for them, and I should for myself have said that I did not believe it would be necessary to move an Amendment to the Address in consequence of the insertion of this particular paragraph. But my right hon. and gallant friend and those who have supported him in this debate were bound, when considering that paragraph, to have regard not only to its contents, but to the circumstances which followed and the circumstances which preceded its production. They have reminded the House of what the right hon. Gentleman has so candidly and frankly told them; they knew that the Prime Minister had at Stirling made definite declarations in regard to his own opinions in reference to Home Rule; they knew that other leading members of the Administration, including the Chief Secretary himself, had been advocates since 1885 of these reforms in Irish Government. Are they therefore to be blamed as the right hon. Gentleman sought to blame them in the commencement of his speech, because they have asked to be told what this paragraph means? Does it mean that the reforms which he said he would not indicate to us because they were not prepared are reforms only in local administration, in education—


I did not say that.


So I understood him.


I did not use any words of limitation.


We get our information by degrees. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has any right to complain of the Amendment having been moved, or to blame us for pressing, as we have endeavoured to do, our interrogations. What are the words of the Speech? They are that His Majesty's Ministers have under consideration, plans, etc. The right hon. Gentleman, referring to those plans, says: "How can I tell what they are before I have considered the matter," but he went on to say that in education, in public works, and in other matters there was room for great improvement. Yes, undoubtedly there is room for great economics. Reforms can be made and economy can be effected without in the slightest degree trenching upon what we regard as the foundation of the Union. [An HON. MEMBER: Why did you do it?] I will answer that directly. We are entitled, I think, at this stage of the proceedings to know whether the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues mean, as his speech seems to indicate, to adopt the policy of the Prime Minister—the policy of Home Rule by instalments, or whether they mean to deal with the question as it was dealt with by Mr. Gladstone after speeches identical in character with the speech we have just heard from the Chief Secretary. We are bound, as I have said, to regard this paragraph, not only from the point of view of its exact contents, but in connection with the circumstances in which it was produced, and we are justified from that point of view in some, at all events, of the suspicions we entertain. I confess I have great admiration for the ingenuity of the framer of the paragraph; because we have seen in the debate which has taken place that the paragraph has been so skilfully worded that it has commanded the support of those who have declared themselves, unlike the Chief Secretary and the Prime Minister, as being altogether opposed to Home Rule and those who have been consistently in favour of Home Rule for more than twenty years. It is this peculiar vagueness which makes it necessary that we should know more about it. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the action of the Unionist Party in regard to reform. The Prime Minister, indeed, reminded us the other night that in his opinion the conduct of our own Party in giving Ireland a measure of local government justified some further measures in that direction. How it can be maintained that the establishment of local government in Ireland justifies measures which lead to extended self-government, passes my comprehension. The Irish Local Government Act was founded on the basis of the English and Scottish Acts, and if the Irish Act is to be taken as a foundation for a claim for Home Rule, what is to be said on behalf of England and Scotland, and the rest of the United Kingdom? [Cheers and counter cheers.] If I am right in assuming from the cheers of hon. Members opposite that a programme of Home Rule all round is to be the policy of the new Government, at all events they are not lessening, but rather adding to, the length of their programme and to the number of difficulties with which they will have to deal. We are bound also to have some regard to the administration of the Irish Government as an indication of the line which that Government propose to take. I do not propose to dwell upon the fact that they have divested themselves of their powers under the Crimes Act, or altered the regulations for the Estates Commissioners. I only refer to these two matters to show that the Government have indicated their desire to do what we all desire to do if we can do so with safety and propriety—namely, to govern the country without the aid of extra laws, and to govern it in conformity with the wishes, or at all events with the support, of the people of the country. But let me remind the right hon. Gentleman that he is not the first Minister who has made this experiment with equal honesty and an equally earnest desire to serve Ireland-Probably no Minister ever went to Ireland with a more generous desire to serve that country than did the late Mr. Forster. [NATIONALIST cries of "Oh!"] Mr. Forster began by showing his strong desire to govern Ireland on humane and generous principles, but difficulties overcame him and made the task for him impossible. I personally will certainly never say or do anything which I can avoid calculated to add in any degree to the difficulties which the right hon. Gentleman has to face. On the contrary, although I believe that the right hon. Gentleman may yet find that he has perhaps with undue haste deprived the Executive of powers which he requires, I need hardly say—and I am sure I can say it with general acceptance—that I desire as heartily as any man in the House that the right hon. Gentleman may find his efforts crowned with success and that he will not need the extra powers which he has abandoned. My right hon. and gallant friend, however, was bound to have regard to these general circumstances when he put on the Paper the Amendment which is now under consideration. Those Members who desire to put the case for the Union in the forefront are entitled to ask what are the objects which the Government has in view. The hon. Member for South Tyrone and others have said that, although the late general election was taken upon other questions, we on this side of the House brought the maintenance of the Union to the front, and that that question was one upon which the election was fought I do not believe that anybody out of Ireland who went through the late general election will confirm that as an accurate representation of the facts. [Cries of "Oh!" and "What did you say at Bristol?"] What I said at Bristol does not settle the question at all. [An HON. MEMBER: Bristol settled you.] It was what was said elsewhere.


My statement was founded on the election address of the late Prime Minister.


I maintain that throughout the whole election in England and, I believe, in Scotland, when the question of the Union was raised it was stated, as the hon. Member for Waterford stated in his speech the other night, that we were raising a bogey which had no existence. We were told that Home Rule was a bogey in the sense that there was no intention on the part of the Liberal Government to introduce Home Rule. And when you say that this question was raised, and that we have no right to declare that a mandate was not given for Home Rule, our answer is that Member after Member—it would be quite easy to ascertain how many—in their haste and desire to be returned to Parliament—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"]—I imagine that they were anxious to be returned to Parliament—[An HON. MEMBER on the MINISTERIAL Bench. "What about yourself?"]—almost without exception they declared that if returned to Parliament they would not vote for a Home Rule Bill. [MINISTERIAL cries of "No, no!"] We have heard to-night from the Labour Members that they did not make that declaration, but I appeal to the House whether it is not the case that in a great majority of instances it was asserted that the election was being fought not on Home Rule but on Free Trade. That statement was made by candidate after candidate and by some who declared that they stood as Unionists with Liberal principles. It is not fair, therefore, to come here and tell us that you have received a mandate to deal with the Home Rule question. I would have been prepared to regard the paragraph in the Speech from the Throne as perfectly harmless. I see in these words no indication of Home Rule, but only the suggestion of reforms for which there is a great deal to be said. If these words meant what is called devolution, then I confess that my view of them would be very different. As I understand it there are two lands of reform. There is the form indicated by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who has in view the lessening of the number of boards and the centralising of control. Whether that would meet with the acceptance of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway I am not prepared to say; but if it were carried out in its entirety it would be the application to Ireland of a system which had been developed in India, and would have the effect of centralising more than is now the case all authority in Dublin Castle. That system has always been condemned and criticised by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway; and therefore it must naturally arouse suspicion amongst Unionists when we find proposals of this kind are received with so much enthusiasm by Gentlemen below the gangway, and when those who have been returned to Parliament as Home Rulers receive these proposals with open arms, believing that they are steps in the direction in which they want to go. We on this side of the House are prepared to support reforms which would have the effect of securing economy and better administration, if these could not be held to be steps in the direction of Home Rule. We have asked to-night for some information which would enable us to judge how far this is the case; but I confess that we have received very little. We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman a speech which, if anything, means that the policy he announced would lead up to Home Rule. Are we not entitled to know whether that is the real intention of His Majesty's Ministers or not? If it is not, if the Government have imposed upon themselves a self-denying ordinance in that respect—that they do not intend to proceed to Home Rule, but that their proposition is so to reform the government of Ireland as to stop short of Home Rule, why, I ask, should not the House have some opportunity of examining the right hon. Gentleman's proposals and considering what bearing they would have on the government of Ireland? [An HON. MEMBER on the MINISTERIAL Bench: So you will.] It is quite evident from the debate to-night that there are differences of opinion as to what may or may not lead up to Home Rule. There are no differences of opinion in the Unionist Party as to what Home Rule is. As defined by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford, it means a separate executive, responsible to a separate Parliament. We know that that is the object which the hon. and learned Gentleman has in view, but is that the object of the Government? Below that there are reforms which may be wise and beneficial, but which will not in any way affect this great and Imperial question. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to take us into his confidence, although not necessarily at this stage. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement that his schemes are not yet matured, and that until they are matured he cannot lay them before the House; but I ask him whether he does not think it fair that the House should be made aware of them before they are finally adopted. We make no apology for having raised this question on the Address. It is very difficult to know what the words to which the Amendment calls attention mean, and we Unionists are only anxious that their meaning should be made clear. If it be true, as some of us fear, that the Government have taken some steps in the direction of Home Rule, it will be the duty of Unionists resolutely to oppose them. It is quite true that hon. Gentlemen opposite have returned in increased numbers, and that many of the old supporters of the Union are no longer amongst us. But the fight for the Union will have to be sustained by a small band. We Unionists are prepared to help the right hon. Gentleman in a genuine reform of Irish government and better administration, though not in the direction of Home Rule. If, however, when we know more than the right hon. Gentleman has told us tonight, we find that his proposals tend in the direction of Home Rule, then he may rely upon it that we shall offer the most strenuous and vigorous opposition to what will not be for the real improvement of the government of Ireland, but which will weaken the foundations on which the Union rests.


said he wished to congratulate the Unionists of Ulster on their new Leader, who was a man eminently gifted to inspire his Party in the hour of defeat. The Unionists of Ireland had tonight raised a clear issue, from the decision of which he hoped and trusted they would not run away. Judging by some of the observations of the right hon. Member for South Dublin, he was disposed to think that the late Chief Secretary indicated a desire to make a strategic movement to the rear. It was interesting to note that before the polling took place at the general election every platform in the country rang with appeals to save the Union. Why, a whole sheet of the The Times was devoted to such an appeal on the eve of the election, and so great, so important, was this issue considered, that the appeal was made in large and capital letters to the manhood of England to rally to the support of the Unionist Party. What were the great issues put before the country by The Times? The first was to save the Union; but after the Manchester election the country heard no more about that appeal. He hoped that the late Chief Secretary's strategic movement to the rear would not be followed by an ignominious flight from the Amendment. He was proud and rejoiced that the first vote of this new Parliament would be given on the Irish Question, and that England, and indeed the whole world, would learn to-morrow what the new House of Commons thought of the claim of Ireland for self-government. He felt as one who had emerged from the atmosphere of an hospital in which he had been too long confined into the open day. Those who sat in the last Parliament must remember that day by day they had seen this great assembly degraded to impotence and treated with contempt until discussion ceased to be of interest to serious men. Debates were a weariness to the spirit; it was like listening to discussion on shadows. He was glad to believe that the decadence of the House of Commons in the public esteem, apparent under the last Government, had been arrested, and that once again they had in the House men who were in earnest and meant business. If he read the signs of the times aright, he believed that the interest in the proceedings of the House would not decrease, but would increase as the session went on. What was the real issue raised by the Amendment? What were the words in the King's Speech mainly challenged by the Amendment? They were told in that Speech that the present Government were considerin[...] means for associating the Irish people with the conduct of their own affairs. He and his friends accepted those words as a broad declaration of principle; they were satisfied with them from the point of view that the Irish people were to be associated in the conduct of their own affairs. They were quite prepared to give the Government reasonable time to work out the details of the manner in which that principle was to be carried out. After the disappointments of the last twenty-five years Irish Members might naturally be a little suspicious of the promises of Governments; but the speech delivered to-night by the right hon. the Chief Secretary for Ireland was a great speech, and an honest speech. The tone of sincerity was apparent in it from beginning to end. He might be pardoned for saying that he thought the Chief Secretary had acquired inspiration from the air of his native land, for after all, although the right hon. Gentleman was of Scottish descent, he was born in Ireland, and, in going back to the land which gave him birth, he had gained inspiration and the power to move the House of Commons as he had never been able to move it before. After all the excellent advice the Irish Members had received from the Unionists and from The Times to press the Government in regard to their Irish proposals, he would say to the Government, that so long as they adhered to the spirit of the speech of the right hon. the Chief Secretary they would find in the Irish party—old and tried politicians—practical men, reasonable men, men not difficult to deal with, men with whom it was easy to carry on a transaction so long as they were con- vinced that those with whom they were dealing were honest and in earnest. After twenty years of resolute government and of struggle it would be a strange thing if they were to quarrel with a Government which had an overwhelming majority and was thoroughly sympathetic with the demands of the Irish Party. They would not be guilty of any such childish conduct. They would allow the Government time to develop their plans, and when their plans were developed the Irish Members would give them frank and careful consideration. While the Irish Party claimed to exercise the liberty of criticising the Government plans when they were produced, and also of criticising the administration of Ireland during the interval which must elapse between now and the introduction of the Government scheme, they would do so in no spirit of hostility and with no desire to embarrass, because they believed that this Government were honestly desirous of giving to the Irish people full and free control over purely Irish affairs. If he were disposed to criticise the King's Speech he could have done so in some particulars. There was no mention of an amending Land Act. The present position was an eminent danger both to the future solvency of the Irish people and to the Imperial Exchequer. There was no reference in the Speech to Irish education, although he recognised that the Chief Secretary had referred to the appalling injury which had been inflicted on the Irish people by the neglect of education in all its branches in that country. The lesson which he wished to drive home to the minds of the friendly audience which he saw opposite was that they had a Chief Secretary, new to his task, but profoundly impressed with the ruinous condition of Irish education. The Chief Secretary had admitted that he thought it would be almost impossible to tackle this task, and he questioned whether the right hon. Gentleman was not right, for he thought that it was not possible for this House to reorganise Irish education. Therefore, he believed it was the duty of this House to give the Irish people the power of doing it themselves, and to lay upon them the responsibility of looking after their own affairs. He urged the Government to bring in a Bill as soon as possible to amend the Land Act, that being a matter of vital interest to the Irish people; but, pending that legislation, he wished to impress on the Chief Secretary the necessity of overhauling the whole administration of the existing Act. Already a good deal had been done in that direction by the new instructions given to the Estates Commissioners. The Government ought not to lose an hour in remedying the atrocious condition of things under which the population of Roscommon, Galway, and Mayo were crowded on to the poorest land, unfit for human occupation, while the extensive and rich grasslands were swept clean of population and given up to cattle. If compulsion were necessary to effect a remedy, then the Government should introduce a Bill to confer compulsory powers upon the Congested Districts Board to obtain these grasslands at a reasonable valuation in order to relieve this urgent and most intense distress. The Government were pledged to rule Ireland according to Irish ideas, but, in his opinion, it was absolutely impossible with their present machinery to carry out that policy. There was no proper constitutional machinery by which the Executive could be informed of Irish ideas in a proper way; but, in making the attempt to redeem their pledge, he hoped the Government would seek to ascertain Irish ideas through the proper channels. He rejoiced to observe that the Government had put in the forefront of the King's Speech the question of the Irish labourers, and, in dealing with it, he would urge the Chief Secretary to be bold. He need not anticipate any opposition. The question was a non-contentious one so far as the Irish Members were concerned, and, if the right hon. Gentleman dealt with it in a generous and bold way he would do much to popularise his own Government in Ireland and to reconcile the Irish people to patience in waiting for his larger proposals. Then they had a pledge that the Government would submit on a future occasion proposals to associate the people of Ireland with the Government of their own country. It would be an act of folly if the Irish Party tried to force the hand of the Government without giving time for those proposals to mature. They would reserve their right to criticise those proposals, but they would give the Government fair time to complete them. They took up this attitude all the more firmly because they were deeply convinced that when it came to the test of practice and debate it would be found that there was no way of associating the Irish people in the control of their own affairs except by an elected body and some form of executive responsible to that body. They were glad on this occasion to be able to go into the Lobby in association with the new Party, and he was pleased that the first vote registered by the present Parliament would be upon an Irish question.


The hon. Member for East Mayo expressed at the commencement of his remarks a fear least we should run away from the Amendment which has been proposed on this side of the House. He need have no fear of the kind. We shall certainly go into the lobby, and he is quite right in anticipating that we shall have what for some time to come may be described as the usual majority against us. We merely wish to register our opinion, to make our position clear [...] the House and to the country, and we care not one brass farthing what is the exact amount of the majority against us. We are a hundred, more or less. We represent something considerably more than 2,000,000 of votes. How long it will be before the views which have given our political opponents so enormous a majority in this House are changed I do not know. Meanwhile, we shall continue to represent a force and influence in this country which is altogether disproportionate to our force and influence in this House. The object of this Amendment is clear. We do not expect in a new House, come in, no doubt, with already convinced opinions, to make many converts. It is intended merely to register and to make clear the issues which divide us; and we find now, as we shall find, I am convinced, very frequently during the course of the next few weeks and months, that the issues as they appear in this House after the election are very different from the issues as they appeared before and during the election. The hon. Member who has just sat down commenced by saying that the striking feature of our position in the election was that from every platform there went forth an appeal against this doctrine of Home Rule, against the possibility of once more bringing separation of the United Kingdom to the front. I do not think that is exactly accurate. But I am content to accept it as, at all events, the opinion of the hon. Member, who went on to say that it was the first issue at the election which has just taken place.


I did not say that. What I said was that I had in my possession a copy of The Times published on the eve of the Manchester election, in which it was stated that in their opinion it was the first issue.


I do not deny it at all. The Times is entitled to its own opinion and to place its own estimate on the importance of the different issues raised. It can stand upon its own independent merits and conclusions. But the hon. Member went much further than that. He distinctly told the House that a principal issue—I will not insist, if he objects, on the words "a first issue"—of the election through which we have just gone was the question of Home Rule—[MINISTERIAL cries of "No"]—raised, as he says, not by the Party opposite, but by the Party which is represented on this side of the House. I only ask you to remember that when we come to discuss other questions that divide us, when you tell us you sit there in the enormous majority you enjoy because you are free-traders, you will permit us to reining you that you sit there in your enormous majority, in the opinion of the hon. Member for East Mayo, because you are Home Rulers. I should not myself be inclined to press either conclusion. You sit there, no doubt, because of your virtues and our depravity; but, after all, there is only this table between us, and it may not be so long as you think before we again exchange positions. But, meanwhile, I want to call attention to the fact that, whatever was said m this side with regard to the question now under discussion, it was to the effect that the Government that was appealing to the support of the electors was a Home Rule and Little England Government. It is proved to-night that you are a Home Rule Government, and it will, I have no doubt, be proved shortly that you are a Little England Government. No wonder that the hon. Member for East Mayo is exulting. What does he say? He says— At last we have a Government which [...] in earnest and means business, and we have listened to a 'brave' speech from the Chief Secretary. What business? ["Not protection."] We are not discussing protection, or South Africa; when the hon. Member says the Government means business, he means Home Rule. Well, I agree with him. During my own canvass, if I may speak of so insignificant a matter, I denounced the Government as a Home Rule Government; but I thought it would have been an insult to the intelligence of my constituents to proceed with the old arguments against Home Rule, and did not do so during the election. But no doubt our general assertion was that support to the Government meant support to Home Rule. We agree, then, with the hon. Member for East Mayo; but still, what a funny kind of business it is! If they really mean business, why do they not bring in a Home Rule Bill? Why do they not do that? Oh, we all know why! because a number of Members on their side found it necessary during the election to pledge themselves to oppose a Home Rule Bill. What is at the bottom of this pledge it is not for me to say. I cannot look into the motives of men. It may be that hon. Gentlemen were sincere in their objections to Home Rule, or it may be that they thought Home Rule was unpopular, and they would prefer that their cherished Government should introduce Home Rule by instalments, or present it in some insidious form in which all its evil qualities would not be clearly displayed. Well, that is the position, and when the hon. Member for East Mayo congratulates and praises the Chief Secretary for his brave speech, I am reminded of the boa constrictor who—what shall I say—salves his prey before he devours it. [An HON. MEMBER: The way you did with Balfour.] This is a new House of Commons. There are—I am delighted to know it—a great number of gentlemen here who are engaged in political work for the first time, and who have not had the lengthy, I might almost say the tedious, experience that we old stagers have had to endure. But amongst our experiences has been a long experience of the Irish Members. And we know what their "eloquence" means; and we know that their praise is perhaps a little more dangerous than their blame; Therefore, I am rather disposed to compassionate the Chief Secretary when he is so loudly praised by the hon. Member for East Mayo. I expect that before very long we may see the other side of the picture. But in the meantime the hon. Member for East Mayo rightly said, in my opinon— The House of Commons has come back, in overwhelming majority, sympathetic with our view. And yet, when we ventured humbly to suggest during the election that this question of Home Rule was not quite so dead as was supposed, and that we might have a Parliament returned to carry out the policy which "the predominant partner" has in the past emphatically condemned, we were told that this was a mere bogey of our own creation, and that we were drawing a red herring across the path in order to conceal private iniquities of our own. I do not think the

Prime Minister can seriously contend that anything of that sort was fairly said, or can now, at any rate, be for a moment admitted. No, you will beat us with your big majority; and, as I have said, we shall accept our defeat with perfect good humour and absolute satisfaction. But you will have convinced the people of this country, if they had any doubt of it before, that whatever they may be, you—the overwhelming majority, you, the powerful Government of this country—are a Home Rule Government.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes, 88; Noes, 406. (Division List No. 1).

Anson, Sir William Reynell Douglas, Kt. Hon. A. Akers- Meysey-Thompson,Major E. C
Anstruther-Gray, Major Du Cros, Harvey Mildmay, Francis Bingham
Awkwright, John Stanhope Duncan,Robert(Lanark,Govan Morpeth, Viscount
Arnold-Forster, RtHnHughO. Fell, Arthur Nield, Herbert
Baring, Hn. Guy (Winchester) Fetherstonehaugh, Godfrey O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry,N.) Finch, Rt. Hon. George H. Percy, Earl
Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Fletcher, J. S. Rawlinson, John Frederick P.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Forster, Henry William Remnant, James Farquharson
Bowles, G. Stewart Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) Roberts,S.(Sheffield,Eccleshall
Bridgeman, W. Clive Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.) Ropner, Colonel Sir Robert
Bull, Sir William James Gordon,Maj. Evans-(T'rH'lets) Rutherford, John (Lancashire)
Burdett-Coutts, W. Hambro, Charles Eric Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool
Butcher, Samuel Henry Hamilton, Marquess of Saunderson,Rt. Hn.Col. Edw. J.
Carlile, E. Hildred Hardy,Laurence(Kent,Ashf'rd Sloan, Thomas Henry
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H. Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. Smith, Abel H. (Hertford E.)
Castlereagh, Viscount Hay, Hon. Claude George Starkey, John R.
Cave, George Heaton, John Henniker Thomson, W.M. (LanarkN.W.
Cavendish, Kt. Hn. VictorC.W. Helmsley, Viscount Thornton, Percy, M.
Cecil,LordJ.Joicey-(Stamford) Hervey,FWF.(Bury S.Edm'ds Tuke, Sir John Batty
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Chamberlain. Rt. Hn.J.(Birm. Hill, Henry Stavely (Staff'sh.) Williamson, G.H. (Worcester)
Clarke, RtHnSirE.(CityLond. Houston, Robert Paterson Willoughby de Eresby, Lord
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H.A.E. Hunt, Rowland Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.
Corbett, A. Cameron(Glasgow) Kennaway, Rt.Hn.Sir JohnH. Wortley, Rt. Hon.CB. Stuart-
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Kenyon-Slaney.Rt. Hn.C[...]l. W. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Courthope, G. Loyd Lane-Fox, G. R. Younger, G. (Ayr Burghs)
Craig, Charles, C. (Antrim, S.) Lee,ArthurH.(Hants,Fareham
Craig, Capt. James (Down E.) Liddell, Henry TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Craik, Sir Henry Lockwood[...]Rt. Hn. Lt. Col. A. R. Sir Alexander Acland-Hood
Cross, Alexander Long,Rt. Hn. Walter(Dublin,S. and Viscount Valentia.
Doughty, Sir George Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Abraham, William(Cork,N.E. Agnew, George William Allen, A.Acland(Christchurch
Acland, Francis Dyke Alden, Percy Allen, Charles P. (Gloucester)
Ambrose, Robert Cremer, William Randal Hardie, JKeir(MerthyrTydvil
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton Crombie, John William Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)
Asquith,Rt.HnHerbert Henry Crooks, William Harmsworth, Cecil B.(Worc'r)
Astbury, John Meir Crosfield, A. H. Harmsworth, RL(Caithn'ss-sh
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury.E. Crossley, William J. Harrington, Timothy
Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Cullinan, J. Hart-Davis, T.
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight Dalmeny, Lord Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)
Barker, John Davies,David(MontgomeryCo. Haworth, Arthur A.
Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Davies,M. Vaughan-(Cardigan Helme, Norval Watson
Barnard, E. B. Davies, Timothy (Fulham) Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Barnes, G. N. Davies, W. Howell (Bristol,S.) Henry, Charles Solomon
Barry. E. (Cork, S.) Delany, William Herbert, Col. Ivor (Mon., S.)
Beale, W. P. DevlinCharlesRamsay(Galw'y Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Beauchamp, E. Devlin, Joseph (Belfast, West) Higham, John Sharp
Beaumont,Hubert( Eastbourne Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh,S.) Hobart, Sir Robert
Beaumont, W.C.B. (Hexham) Dewar, John A.(Inverness-sh. Hobhouse, Charles E. H.
Beck, A. G. Dickinson, WH. (St. PancrasN. Hodge, John
Bellairs, Carlyon Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. Hogan, Michael
Belloc, Hiliare Josepli PeterR. Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles Holden, E. Hopkinson
Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets,SGeo, Dillon, John Holland, Sir William Henry
Bennett, E. N. Dobson, Thomas W. Hooper, A. G.
Berridge, T. H. D. Dodd, Denis H. S. Hope,W.Bateman(Somers't,N.
Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford Donelan, Captain A. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Billson, Alfred Duckworth, James Hudson, Walter
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Duffy, William J. Hutton, Alfred Eddison
Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordshire Duncan, C(Barrow-in-Furness Hyde, Clarendon
Blake, Edward Duncan, J. H. (York, Otley) Idris, T. H. W.
Boland, John Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) Illingworth, Percy H.
Bottomley, Horatio Dunne, Major E. M. (Walsall) Isaacs, Rufus Daniel
Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey) Edwards, Clement (Denbigh) Jackson, R. S.
Brace, William Edwards, Frank (Radnor) Jardine, Sir J.
Branch, James Elibank, Master of Jenkins, J.
Brigg, John Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Bright, J. A. Erskine, David C. Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)
Broadhurst, Henry Essex, R. W. Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Brodie, H. C. Evans, Samuel T. Jones, William(Carnarvonshire
Brooke, Stopford Eve, Harry Trelawney Jordan, Jeremiah
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs.,Leigh Everett, R. Lacey Jowett, F. W.
Bryce,Rt.Hn,James(Aberdeen Faber, G. H. (Boston) Joyce, Michael
Backmaster, Stanley O. Farrell, James Patrick Kearley, Hudson E.
Burke, E. Haviland- Fenwick, Charles Kekewich, Sir George
Burns, Right Hon. John Ferens, T. R. Kelley, George D.
Burnyeat, J. D. W. Ffrench, Peter Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Burt., Rt. Hon. Thomas Field, William Kilbride, Dennis
Buxton,Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles Fiennes, Hn. Eustace Kincaid-Smith, Captain
Byles, William Pollard Findlay, Alexander King, Alfred John (Knutsford)
Cairns, Thomas Flavin, Michael Joseph Kitson, Sir James
Caldwell, James Flynn, James Christopher Laidlaw, Robert
Cameron, Robert Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter Lamb, Edmund B. (Leominster
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H. Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Fullerton, Hugh Lambert, George
Causton, Rt. Hn. R. Knight Gibb, James (Harrow) Layland-Barratt, Francis
Cawley, Frederick Gilhooly, James Lea, HughCecil(St. Pancras,E.
Cheetham, John Frederick Gill, A. H. Leese,SirJosephF. (Accrington
Cherry, R. R. Ginnell, L. Lehmann, R. C.
Churchill, Winston Spencer Gladstone, RtHnHerbertJohn Lever, W. H. (Cheshire,Wirral)
Clancy, John Joseph Glendinning, R. G. Levy, Maurice
Clarke, C. Goddard(Peckham) Glover, Thomas Lewis, John Herbert
Cleland, J. W. Goddard Daniel Ford Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David
Clough, W. Gooch, George Peabody Lough, Thomas
Clynes, J. Grant, Corrie Lundon, W.
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) Lupton, Arnold
Cogan, Denis J. Greenwood, Haman (York) Lyell, Charles Henry
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Condon, Thomas Joseph Griffith, Ellis J. Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs
Cooper, G. J. Grove, Archibald Mackarness, Frederic C.
Corbett,CH(Sussex,E.Grinst'd Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Maclean, Donald
Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. Gulland, John W. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Cory, Clifford John Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Macpherson J. T.
Cowan, W. H. Hall, Frederick MacVeagh,Jeremiah(Down,S.
Cox, Harold Halpin, J. McArthur William
Crean, Eugene Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis McCrae, George
McKean, John Pearce, William (Limehouse) Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
McKenna, Reginald Philipps, Col.Ivor (S'thampton Strachey, Sir Edward
McKillop, W. Pickersgill, Edward Hare Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
McLaren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Pirie, Duncan V. Stuart, James (Sunderland)
McMicking, Major G. Pollard, Dr. Sullivan, Donal
Maddison, Frederick Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh,Central) Summerbell, T.
Mallett, Charles E. Price,Robert John(Norfolk,E.) Sutherland, J. E.
Manfield, Harry (Northants) Priestley, Arthur (Grantham) Taylor, John W. (Durham)
Mansfield,H. Rendall(Lincoln) Priestley. W.E.B.(Bradford,E.) Taylor, Theodore C.(Radcliffe)
Marks,G.Croydon(Launceston Radford, G. H. Tennant, E. P. (Salisbury)
Marnham, F. J. Rainy, A. Rolland Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan,E.)
Massie, J. Raphael, Herbert H. Thomas, David Alfred(Methyr
Masterman, C. F. G. Rea, Russell (Gloucester) Thompson, J. W.H.(Som'rs't,E.
Meehan, Patrick A. Rea, Walter Russell(Searboro') Thorne, William
Menzies, Walter Redmond, John E.(Waterford) Tomkinson, James
Micklem, Nathaniel Redmond, William (Clare) Torrance, A. M.
Molteno, Percy Alfred Rendall, Athelstan Toulmin, George
Mond, A. Renton, Major Leslie Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Money, L. G. Chiozza- Richards,T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n Verney, F. W.
Montagu, E. S. Rickett, J. Compton Vivian, Henry
Montgomery, H. H. Ridsdale, E. A. Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)
Mooney, J. J. Robartes,HnTCAgar(Bodmin Walsh, Stephen
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) Roberts, C. H. (Lincoln) Walters, John Tudor
Morgan,J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)
Morley, Right Hon. John Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion) Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent
Morrell. Philip Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.) Ward, W. Dudly(Southampton
Morse, L. L. Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) Wardle, George J.
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd Wason, Eugene(Clackmannan
Moss, Samuel Robinson, S. Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)
Murnaghan, George Robson, Sir William Snowdon Waterlow, D. S.
Murphy, John Roche, Augustine (Cork) Watt, H. Anderson
Myer, Horatio Roche, John (Galway, East) Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Napier, T. B. Roe, Sir Thomas Whitbread, Howard
Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw) Rose, Charles Day White, George (Norfolk)
Nicholls, George Rowlands, J. White, Luke (York, E.R.)
Nicholson,CharlesN.(Doncast'r Runciman, Walter White,Patrick (Meath, North)
Nolan, Joseph Russell, T. W. White,J. D.(Dumbartonshire)
Norman, Henry Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) Whitehead, Rowland
Norton, Capt. Cecil William Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) Whitley, J. H. Halifax
Nussey, Thomas Willans Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) Whittaker, Thomas Palmer
Nuttall, Harry Scarisbrick, T. T. L. Wiles, Thomas
O'Brien,Kendal(TipperaryMid Schwann, C.E.(Manch'ster,N.) Wilkie, Alexander
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) Sears, J. E. Williams, Osmond (Merioneth
O'Brien, William (Cork) Seaverns, J. H. Williams, W. L. (Carmarthen)
O'Connor, James(Wicklow, W) Seddon, J. Williamson,A.(ElginandNairn
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) Seely, Major J. B. Wilson, C. H. W. (Hull, W.)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) Shackleton. David James Wilson, Henry J. (York. W.R.)
O'Doherty, Philip Shaw, Rt. Hon. T.(Hawick B.) Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)
O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth) Sheehan, Daniel Daniel Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.) Sheehy, David Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh, N.)
O'Dowd, John Shipman, Dr. John G. Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras,S.
O'Grady, J. Silcock, Thomas Ball Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
O'Hara, Patrick Simon, John Allsebrook Winfrey, R.
O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.) Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John Wodehouse,Lord(Norfork,Mid
O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N. Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie Wood, T. M'Kinnon
O'Malley, William Smith, Stewart- (Kendal) Woodhouse. Sir J T. (Huddersf'd
O'Shaughnessy. P. J. Smyth, Thomas (Leitrim, S.) Young, Samuel
O'Shee, James John Snowden, P.
Parker, James (Halifax) Spicer, Albert TELLERS FOE THE NOES.—
Partington, Oswald Stanger, H. Y. Mr. George Whiteley and
Paul, Herbert Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph(Chesh.) Mr. J. A. Pease.
Paulton, James Mellor Stevenson, Francis S.

Main Question again proposed.

Debate arising.

Motion made and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Sir Alexander Acland-Hood)—put, and agreed, to.

Debate to be resumed to-morrow.

Adjourned at twelve minutes before Twelve o'clock.