HC Deb 25 February 1907 vol 169 cc1345-71
MR. MOORE (Armagh, N.),

rose to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, "the action of His Majesty's present advisers in making an appointment of a Judgeship in the High Court of Justice in Ireland, which has been vacant for the last three years." He said he had no personal motive in bringing the matter forward, believing that if the appointment had to be made there was no man more entitled to the position than Serjeant Dodd. He had the pleasure of the hon. and learned Gentleman's acquaintance, and, though a political opponent, he wished to take the earliest opportunity of saying that Serjeant Dodd was in every respect admirably suited for the appointment. All he could say was that the hon. and learned Gentleman had received, much too late in his career, the reward now given to him. Serjeant Dodd was the leader of the northern circuit in Ireland and had a large practice. In addition to being a lawyer, he was a man who deserved well of his Party. But he went out into the wilderness in 1886, and had remained there until now, and now that he had got his reward no Member on that side of the House would grudge him for a single moment the enjoyment of it. The hon. Member for South Down at Question time made a personal reference. He (Mr. Moore) had been some years in Parliament; but he was not aware that either in taste or in form the remark of the hon. Member for South Down was in any way in keeping with the spirit of the majority of his colleagues. He was free to admit that he should not for a moment on that account deviate from the course he had marked out for himself, and he assured the House that he had no personal feeling in this matter, as the hon. Member for South Down had been good enough to suggest. His Majesty's Government on this occasion were fortified by a resolution from the Bar Council of Ireland; and he trusted that the Chief Secretary would, as barrister himself, pay due regard to the wishes of the Council of the Bar of Ireland, who had passed a resolution that day and forwarded it to the right hon. Gentleman expressing unqualified approval of the action of the Government. Speaking as a barrister, he could very well understand that the barristers of Ireland were very glad to have all the judgeships in Ireland filled up, and he was sure none would sympathise with that policy more than the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General. He understood, however, that the Chief Secretary, notwithstanding the view of the Bar, was going to ignore the resolution by abolishing two out of the next three vacant judgeships. He wished the House to consider this question on principle. The fact that the appointment concerned a judgeship was not more important to his argument than if it was a Commissionership of Works. There had been a great breach of continuity of policy by successive Irish Governments. Time after time that House—he did not care which Party was in power—had pledged itself to the reduction of this particular judgeship. He wished also to call attention to what he ventured to say was a very remarkable breach of Parliamentary faith, because there was no doubt whatsoever that Resolutions and Bills had passed that House on the assurance of the representative of the Irish Government that this particular judgeship would be abolished. After the lapse of three years to fill it up in a hurry was a great breach of Parliamentary faith. As to representations made by those authorised to make them, he did not think the House would stand a reversal of policy on a matter which had again and again been the subject of pledges. In the third place, he wished to ask what was the effect of the Government's action, from an economical point of view, in making this appointment; and, fourthly, what effect it had on the Labourers (Ireland) Act of last session. When the hon. Member for Waterford spoke on the political platform, one of the first things he took credit to himself for, in connection with the work of last session, was the great assistance given in getting the Labourers Act through the House. [Cheers.] He was very glad to hear those cheers, because he thought that when hon. Members opposite found how His Majesty's Government had run away from what were in fact their statutory pledges in connection with the Labourers Act, those cheers would not be repeated. He wished further to draw attention to the fact that there was absolutely no excuse or demand for this appointment. When one came to examine the present state of affairs in Ireland one saw that it was unnecessary, and that it was a breach of continuity of policy, a breach of faith with the House, a fraud upon the Labourers Act, and a fraud upon the British taxpayer. It was simply the creation of a job for a particular follower, who, for all he knew, had adequate reason to express his discontent with the situation. Hon. Members would remember, particularly those who were in the House when the Land Act of 1903 was passed, that a great additional annual charge was placed upon the British taxpayer—a charge of £300,000 a year. The House would also remember that the countervailing argument of the Chief Secretary was that economies would be effected in Irish administration amounting to £250,000 a year. The economies foreshadowed were to be reductions in the police and reductions in the legal establishment. But the matter did not stop there. Early in 1904 this vacancy, so hurriedly filled up last week, occurred. When the Chancery Judge, who carried with him into his retirement the affection of the whole Irish Bar, resigned, his place was filled up by the transfer of Mr. Justice Barton, a Judge of the King's Bench. There were ten Judges of the King's Bench at that time, and the transfer reduced the number to nine. There were five circuits in Ireland and the assizes were the poor man's Court for appeals from the county courts, and it was absolutely necessary that there should be two Judges for each circuit. For the last three years the place of the tenth Judge had been filled by a Lord Justice of Appeal, who went circuit with his brother the Chief Justice of the King's Bench Division. But when the Chief Secretary was asked a question by the hon. Member for Waterford, on the 16th March, 1904, he made special reference to this judgeship as a vacancy which was then pending. He would read what the right hon. Gentleman had said, because it was necessary to do so in order to establish the utter breach of continuity of policy of the Irish Government. The hon. Member for Waterford asked about this particular vacancy, and the then Chief Secretary said— There were other savings which could be effected. The other day Mr. Justice Barton was transferred to a vacancy which had occurred on the Chancery side of the High Court of Judicature in Ireland, and it was not the intention of the Irish Government to fill up the vacancy created by that transferance. A saving of £3,500 a year would thus be effected. In the measure which he had mentioned they contemplated reserving the right of saving another £3,500 a year on a vacant judgeship, but regard must, be had to the exigencies of the public service. There would be a saving of £7,000 a year, and possibly more, and that, he suggested, should be carried over to the credit side of the Development Grant. That was a definite statement that under no circumstances was that vacant judgeship to be filled, and there was no doubt whatever that that was the policy of the Irish Government on the faith of which those Estimates went through. A division took place, and therefore it could not be denied that the Estimates were carried on the faith of the statement made by the responsible Minister. That was the view expressed by the Chief Secretary for Ireland in 1904, and he was glad to say that that Minister was as good as his word. A Bill was introduced in that very year to confirm the abolition of that particular judgeship, and also providing for the extinction of the next vacancy. It was true that the Government failed to carry that Bill, but the Chief Secretary adhered to his undertaking, and the Irish Government did not fill up that judgeship. In 1905 the vacancy still existed, and another Bill was introduced for its abolition. This also failed to get through the House of Commons, but still the vacancy was not filled up. Then came a change of Government and the predecessor of the present Chief Secretary took office. Speaking on 28th May, 1906, Mr. Bryce said— In the third place it was proposed to effect certain savings on the judicial establishment in Ireland, and to apply the sum of £3,500 which belonged to a judgeship now suspended, and to suspend or extinguish another judgeship, which would save another £3,500, and to reduce the salary of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland from £8,000 to £6,000. These three savings would give him a further sum of £9,000 a year. If there was to be any continuity of policy in the same department, the House could not have a clearer case brought before it than this, where, irrespective of Party, Chief Secretary after Chief Secretary had declared that this particular judgeship should be abolished, and that the saving effected thereby should go to Irish purposes. Under those circumstances he thought it was only right, when suddenly and practically without any notice this judgeship was filled up, that the House of Commons should have an opportunity of considering how far it would allow this continuity of policy to be interrupted. But the matter did not stop there. There had also been a gross breach of faith. The estimate for the Judges passed through the House of Commons on a division on the faith of the statements that this particular judgeship was not going to be filled up. When Mr. Bryce made that statement he was trying to obtain his Labourers Bill, and one of his difficulties was where to find the money. The Consolidated Fund was to be tapped, and in various other ways the money was to be raised, and he promised to contribute £9,000 by savings from judgeships, including this identical judgeship. Mr. Bryce got the Second Reading of the Labourers Billon those representations. Consequently he was justified in saying that there had been a gross breach of faith in this matter when they found the Government suddenly turning round and filling up that vacant judgeship. He very much sympathised with the Chief Secretary in the fact that one of the first things he was called upon to defend was a gross and glaring breach of Parliamentary faith on the part of his predecessor. [Nationalist laughter and cries of "Oh, oh!"] He might remind hon. Members below the Gangway that charges of breach of faith could not be laughed away, nor could statements on the faith of which legislation had been obtained. Before this appointment was made it was only right and proper that the right hon. Gentleman should have come down to the House of Commons and told them fairly and squarely that a real demand existed for it, and that notwithstanding former statements and pledges he proposed to ask the sanction of the House for this appointment. But that was not the course adopted by the Chief Secretary; and, even assuming that the right hon. Gentleman was not to blame, at any rate his predecessor had left him in an unfortunate and invidious position. He wished to point out also how unjust this action was to the general British taxpayer.

MR. CULLINAN (Tipperary, S.)

What about twenty-nine and a half years' purchase?


thought the House ought seriously to consider on whom the expense of this appointment would ultimately fall. What was the position? At the present time there were four retired Judges under the head of the Irish Judiciary drawing pensions amounting to over £12,000 a year. The late Lord Chancellor, Lord Ashbourne, was drawing £4,000 a year. [Nationalist cheers.] He was glad to hear hon. Members cheer that. Then there was the late Master of the Rolls, Sir Andrew Porter, and the Vice-Chancellor of Ireland, whose total pensions amounted to £12,000 a year. Surely if there was any desire on the part of a Government that had talked so loudly about retrenchment and economy on all occasions in season and out of season, to practise what they preached, they would not have saddled the British taxpayer with an additional £3,500 a year at a time when they were paying £12,000 in pensions to Irish judges. What they had done in Ireland to-day they might do in any part of the Kingdom to-morrow if their action was not checked. Their action was a striking contrast to the professions of rigid economy and parsimony in expenditure which found so much favour with hon. Gentlemen opposite. He thought the Government might at least have waited until this £12,000 had to some extent been diminished. The Chief Secretary had told the House to-day that six or eight additional examiners in title had been appointed under the Land Purchase Acts. Nobody grudged those appointments because they all agreed—or at least those of them who were sincerely and honestly anxious to have an end put to the Irish difficulties connected with the land—with such appointments. They all agreed that the more they accelerated land purchase the better, and this could not be done except by providing a proper staff and the necessary funds. Rightly or wrongly, these gentlemen were appointed to take so much work off the shoulders of the Land Commission Judge. He was satisfied that, at the moment those appointments were made, the Treasury knew by statements which had been made in the House by successive members of the Irish Government that it was not the intention of the Government to increase the expense of the Judiciary by filling up this judgeship which had then been vacant for eighteen months. Then there was the effect of withdrawing this grant from the purposes of the Labourers Act. The finance of that Act was to be provided in part from the annual income of the judgeship which was then treated as extinct. On the very day that the Labourers Bill was introduced the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, the predecessor of the present holder of that office, introduced a Bill to abolish this actual judgeship. The £3,500 a year which Mr. Bryce said would be applicable to the purposes of the Labourers Act had gone to a loyal, capable, and competent supporter of the Government. It had been taken from the labourers, and what a nice election cry it would make in the constituency which Sergeant Dodd formerly represented. That was Liberal retrenchment, economy, and reform. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laughed, but this £3,500 a year meant £100,000, for it was a perpetual judgeship. Though the Bill with respect to the abolition of the judgeship did not pass, the intention not to fill the vacancy was persisted in in the following year and again by Mr. Bryce last year. Irrespective of Party, therefore, it was a continuous policy until suddenly the present Chief Secretary was placed in an unfortunate and invidious position by a flagrant breach of Parliamentary faith on the part of his predecessor. The Government had taken away what would have provided £100,000 for the purposes of the Labourers Act to reward a most capable and competent gentleman who had served them for twenty years.


I must deprecate these constant references to rewarding a capable and competent gentleman for political services. It introduces a personal element which is very undesirable, and furthermore, it has nothing to do with the form of the Motion which is now before the House.


said it was seldom that he had to be called to order. He would do his best to obey the ruling, and he trusted he would not be found transgressing again. In reply to a Question which he put on the Notice Paper, the Chief Secretary had informed him that Mr. Justice Dodd was appointed to hear and determine Land Commission appeals, and that there were some 7,000 of these appeals pending. These, of course, were appeals from the fixing of fair rents. As a matter of fact, the bulk of these appeals were over. Rents were first fixed in 1881, and there was a great rush to the Land Courts until 1885. These were the yearly tenancies. After that there was a diminution of appeals until the House passed the Act enabling leaseholders to come in, and then there was a rush of leaseholders until 1900. The leaseholders second term of fifteen years expired in 1904, and the bulk of the notices of the leaseholders' appeals—which was practically all that was left for the Land Commission to decide now—had been served. The number of 7,000 would certainly never be increased, and Mr. Bryce had told them that they would be disposed of more quickly in the future. There was less chance of appeals owing to the extension of land purchase, and of the 7,000 now pending not more than 5,000 in all probability would ever go on. The principle which appeared to be actuating the Government was that the smaller the business the more men were wanted to do it. He moved the adjournment of the House to call attention to this matter as a matter of principle. Unless there was in this House a watchful Opposition ready to expose actions of this sort, which certainly were open to criticism, they would never know what else might happen, or to what other departments in Ireland—for it seemed safe in Ireland for the Government to experiment as it pleased—this principle might be extended.


said that although he represented an English constituency, he thought he could claim to have the right to second the Motion of the hon. and learned Member, and to speak on behalf of Ireland. He would like to join with the mover of the Motion in saying that he approached the subject in no hostile spirit to Sergeant Dodd, to whom this judgeship had been given, for he recognised that from a public point of view there was no man more qualified to occupy that position. He would like to draw attention to the principle underlying this question, a principle which reflected on the honour and integrity of the House. This was a matter of such great importance that he thought the House would agree that they should receive some very definite and conclusive statement from His Majesty's Government on the subject. It must be admitted that they on that side of the House, and also the country, had been taught to attach very little importance to what they might call Government speeches and Government undertakings. ["Oh, oh."] The Government was the Government of the British Empire, and a speech or undertaking given on the responsibility of that Government should be carried out regardless of all Party motives. He had no desire, and he did not think that was a fitting opportunity, to traverse old ground, and he thought perhaps he might come within the range of the Speaker's ruling if he ventured to speak in detail of the measure in which the Government had not carried out their pledges; but he thought, in support of his contention, he might perhaps refer to the Chinese Labour question.


The hon. Member surely knows that this has nothing whatever to do with the question at issue.


said he ventured to put it forward in support of his argument that various pledges and undertakings given by the Government had not been carried out, and he would like to ask the Government if such an undertaking as had been given more than once in this matter was to be deliberately set aside. If so, it was difficult to realise why the Government should go out of their way to give an undertaking. It was difficult for those who, like himself, were connected with the North of Ireland to elicit the sympathies of Nationalist Members, but he felt sure that they were at one on this question, because in this particular case funds had been diverted which otherwise would have been utilised for the benefit of the people of Ireland, and he would hope to receive the assistance of the hon. Members to whom he referred in the division lobby later on. It could not be said that there was any doubt about the words of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he had no doubt that had Mr. Bryce been in the same post now he would have loyally carried out those utterances. The present Chief Secretary had told them, in one or two very humorous speeches, that he was new to the Irish Office, and he ventured to say that the right hon. Gentleman did not quite realise that in parting from the serene atmosphere of the Education Department he had fallen into what might be termed a controversial vortex in placing himself at the head of Irish politics. The Government might endeavour to explain the matter away, and it might be their purpose to show that they had taken upon themselves the fulfilment of a private undertaking. He thought, however, that if there was a public pledge given in this House and an undertaking from a private individual, the public pledge should most certainly have priority. It might be that their plans had miscarried, and that unforeseen circumstances had arisen, or rather that foreseen circumstances had not arisen; and in that case they would be on the horns of a dilemma. But when a statement was made by one of His Majesty's Ministers, it was a statement for which the whole of the Government was responsible, and it was certainly with anxiety that he looked forward to the speech of the Chief Secretary as to the motives which had induced him to depart from the undertaking of his predecessor. It might be the desire of the right hon. Gentleman, if he might use the expression, to reward the Irish Party, and he certainly thought they were deserving of a great deal of reward at his hands. Nationalist Members were prepared, he was going to say, to make almost any sacrifice to obtain the support of the Government, and that perhaps would be seen as the session advanced. But the fact remained that the original pledge given by the late Chief Secretary had been deliberately broken, and he did not think that the words which he used in giving that pledge could come under the heading of a terminological inexactitude. The question of economy must be considered, and it was obvious to all that the elimination of redundant judgeships must be a question of economy. Economy was another cry by which the Government obtained the power which they now held, but he could not see that up to the present they had shown any very economical spirit. He would like to repeat what had been argued by the mover of the Motion, namely, that an emolument of £3,500 a year had been placed at the disposal of a Judge, whereas it ought to have been used in facilitating the operation of the Labourers (Ireland) Act. He did not wish to be led into discussing the discrepancies between Liberal words and Liberal actions, but he would ask if they were to take every utterance of His Majesty's Government cum grano salis, or on the other hand, were they to believe that every utterance of His Majesty's Government meant diametrically the opposite? He thought it would not be out of place to use the now historic words of the Prime Minister, "Enough of this foolery," for he thought the action of the Government could come under no other designation when they said one thing and immediately did another. They had seen nothing but inconsistency from the beginning of the session up to the present moment. He had no idea what line the Government would take on this question, and he could only say that their action had most decidedly belied their words. He had great pleasure in seconding the Motion.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Moore.)

MR. J. MACVEAGH (Down, S.)

said he rose to give his moral support to the Motion for the adjournment; but for reasons which he would subsequently indicate, he regretted that he would be reluctantly compelled to transfer his material support to the other lobby. His reasons for supporting this Motion were, however, very different from those assigned by the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh, but the difference between them was more apparent than real; for both of them were agreed that the Government was guilty of culpable negligence in passing over the claims of another member of the Irish Bar whom modesty forbade the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh to name. The hon. and learned Member had referred to a resolution passed that day by the Council of the Irish Bar, composed almost wholly of Tories and place-hunters; but he could quite understand why the hon. and learned Member did not quote the whole of the resolution, which, not only expressed unqualified approval of Serjeant Dodd's appointment to the Bench, but unqualified disapproval of the conduct of the hon. and learned Member who had brought forward this Motion. He had listened with interest to the eloquent praise bestowed by the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh on the Judicature Bill for Ireland proposed in this House. He hoped no one would rise to point out that when that Bill was proposed it was blocked by the hon. and learned Gentleman. There was really nothing in that point unless one wanted to establish the principle that an Ulster Unionist should be consistent, and from any such deplorable result as that, might the good Lord deliver them. The great fault in judicial appointments in Ireland was, that they were made not from considerations of legal attainments, but from considerations of political services, and the hon. and learned Member and he would have been delighted if the Government upon this occasion had departed from the evil course followed by the Tory Government during the last ten years, and had appointed a political opponent. And who, amongst political opponents, had claims equal to a certain Member who should be nameless? The Liberal Party should not forget the distinguished services which this Gentleman had rendered, but on this occasion he thought that they had shown base ingratitude and that the hon. Gentleman might say— Blow, blow thou winter wind, Thou art not so unkind As man's ingratitude. Hon. Members might not be aware that this candidate in whom he was interested had any claims whatever upon the Liberal Party. But who was it who unearthed Sir Antony MacDonnell when he was lurking in the cellars of Dublin Castle; who turned the lantern upon the dark chamber and dragged him out into the light of day? Who was it who made the pace so hot for that arch-conspirator, the Member for Dover, that the right hon. Gentleman had to execute a strategic move to the rear at the bidding of his late private secretary?


I think the hon. Member is getting away from the point.


said he would be sorry to get away from the point, and he certainly hoped that there was no truth in the suggestion that the Government had not made the appointment which he suggested because they hoped he would still press for the production of the MacDonnell letters. He had in his mind a Member who would be a much better occupant of the Bench than Serjeant Dodd. He was the one who broke up the solid phalanx of the Ulster Members and smashed it into the shattered fragments which they had before them. He submitted that a service of that kind constituted an undoubted claim upon the Liberal Party. He was afraid, however, that it was too late now to remedy the mischief that had been done. He appreciated the services of Serjeant Dodd and how unselfish he was, and perhaps he was wrong in saying that it was too late to repair the damage which had caused this great constitutional crisis. Perhaps if the Government appealed to Serjeant Dodd he would give up the loaves and fishes, and then the Government could appoint the hon. Member he wished. At all events if they applied to Serjeant Dodd he was sure he would send a reply. But if that failed, might he appeal to the Chief Secretary to use his influence with the Lord Chancellor in another direction. There was a vacancy in the Court of Appeal, and he would suggest that his friend should be sent up to keep company with Lord Atkinson. He had done his duty in urging the claims of the Member for North Armagh, but if the Government turned a deaf ear to his warning, if they dared to refuse a job to every Ulster Unionist who desired it, on the Government's own head would be the consequences.

MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)

said it was really a very edifying and refreshing spectacle to some of them to see hon. Members of the Ulster Tory Party posturing in this House as the advocates of economy. The noble Viscount who seconded the Motion certainly had an ancestral claim to insist upon purity in national administration. He thought before they preached virtue they ought to practice it. It was quite true that a Bill was introduced in 1904 by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover to abolish this judgeship, but from the Order Paper of 28th July of that year it appeared that Motions to read it that day three months or six months appeared in the names of Mr. Charles Craig, Colonel Saunderson, Mr. Thomas Corbett, Mr. Sloan and Mr. Lonsdale. So that hon. Members of the Party above the gangway who blocked the Judicature and Development Grant Bill when it was introduced by the late Government now had the audacity to get up and censure the present Government for not carrying out that which they opposed when their own Government was in power.


said his statement was that the late Government refused to make this appointment.


asked what was the position with which they had to deal? Fair rent appeals had accumulated to an enormous extent, and everybody was of opinion that something should be done to remove the block, which was inflicting great injustice upon the poor tenantry in Ireland. In many cases tenants had had their rents fixed, but the appeals had been pending for six years. What was the hon. Gentleman's remedy? He asked whether Judge Ross had not offered to go and hear these appeals. He (Mr. Dillon) did not know what Judge Ross had offered, but he knew what all Ireland would have done if Judge Ross had been sent to do this work. He did not know anything which would have raised such a tempest of indignation. This Government, at all events, would not, he hoped, dream of taking that course. The fact was that great pressure had been brought upon the Government for the last two years to do something to facilitate the hearing of these appeals. To get over the difficulty the Government had appointed Judge Dodd for the purpose of hearing these appeals. The hon. Member for North Armagh, before he got to the end of his speech, had forgotten the beginning, because, in the first instance, he said that this would mean a loss to the Irish people of £3,500 a year, but at the end said the loss would be inflicted upon the British taxpayer. If he (Mr. Dillon) thought it would inflict a further charge of £3,500 upon Ireland he might hesitate, although he would not grudge that sum in order to relieve these poor tenants. He had not, however, such a conscience with regard to British taxpayers, as he thought that they owed Ireland something. The whole of this movement was a dishonest farce, because it was an attempt to turn the House of Commons into an election platform, but, as the hon. Gentleman must know, the people of Ireland were far too intelligent to be humbugged in that way.


said he was very much indebted to the mover and seconder and other hon. Members for showing that nobody had any strong objection to their old friend Serjeant Dodd. Everybody agreed, and nobody more so than the hon. Member for North Armagh, that his services had long been overlooked, while his great abilities and high character were acknowledged. He wondered under these circumstances why his right hon. friend the Member for South Dublin had overlooked him for so long. He was glad that if this was to be taken as a job it was one with so happy a purpose. There had been many jobs in Ireland, some on a great and some on a small scale. Some were jobs involving the appointment of a Judge, while one involved the sale of a nation, which had led to consequences far more serious than this case. He was happy to see that everybody acknowledged that the new Judge was well qualified for his post and would adorn the Bench. The whole urgency of this matter rested upon the necessity of getting rid of these arrears in fair rent appeals. In this matter he would describe himself as a middle-aged man in a hurry to settle the land war in Ireland by working the Land Purchase Act at what might be de- scribed as the high water mark of Treasury complaisance. He wondered how long such terms would be continued, but so far the Act had worked successfully. Applications had been made for large sums of money, but, because of judicial delay, 7,000 fair rent appeals were pending in the Court, and unless these appeals could be settled, and settled quickly, the tenantry of Ireland would be wearied to the last degree with the delay. The tenant was not educated enough to understand the subtleties of his (Mr. Birrell's) own profession, and what he wanted was that his application to become a purchaser on reasonable terms should be dealt with. Everyone agreed that some speed had taken place in past years, but notwithstanding, they could not, and ought not, to be content to brook a moment of delay that could be prevented in bringing the Land Purchase Act into full working, as well as to provide, if necessary, legislation to put the evicted tenants on their holdings. This pressed most to his mind at the present time, when every action possible on the part of the Government to bring about these two results was imperatively necessary. He agreed that if the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Dover or the Bill introduced by his predecessor last session had passed into law—and hon. Gentlemen opposite took good care it should not—the step of which complaint was made could not have been taken, and the Government would have had to find some other means of accelerating the hearing of these cases. But as neither of those Bills became law, it was open to the Government, having regard to the present state of business, to do all they could to get rid of these arrears. In a matter of this kind they attached importance to the opinion of the head of the Irish Judicature. The Lord Chancellor wrote to him that at the present rate of progress it would take two years or more to dispose of the appeals pending. It appeared that every year a considerable number—2,000 or 3,000 at least—came upon the paper for settlement, but they were always followed by new cases, and it was essential that the Judges should be able to deal with them as they arose. The Chief Commissioner, who was taking an active part in the distribution of money under the Land Purchase Act, had more than sufficient to occupy his whole time. He had been obliged to postpone the distribution of over £100,000. The Examiners of Title—twenty-four in number—gave all their time, and new rules were being made to accelerate the work. There was about £1,500,000 of purchase money awaiting distribution by the Judicial Commission, and £184,000 awaiting distribution by the Chancery Division. It was with the object of disposing of this congestion that Sergeant Dodd had been appointed. This had been called a job, but he did not care what it was called, so long as the work was done. The suggestion was that the Government should wait for dead men's shoes, until those happy, comfortable, well-paid pensioners—and he did not wish to disturb them—had dropped off, before they secured their object. But the Government could not afford to wait, and were determined not to wait, and therefore they had availed themselves of this opportunity of meeting a pressing emergency by appointing a gentleman well qualified to discharge these duties. He was surprised that the appointment was objected to. So far as the labourers were concerned, their case would not suffer in any way by this appointment. The Government would proceed with the measure they had in contemplation, which would reduce the Lord Chancellors' salary from£8,000 to £6,000 a year, and provide that two of the next three vacant judgeships would not be filled up. Therefore the most that could be alleged against the Government was that the operation of economy in this matter had been suspended in the face of a great public emergency. It was said that this particular judgeship would be for ever. It was nothing of the kind. It would not be permanent. That might not be popular with the Irish Bar. He thought that the statement he had read to the House from the Lord Chancellor—an opinion supported by the impartial vote, not of frenzied partisans in that House, but of the Judges of the Four Courts, Dublin—justified the Government in making this appointment in the interests of the public. The Government believed that this was a necessary appointment in order to carry out necessary work, and they were not satisfied to allow these arrears to go on year after year. They wanted to see them disposed of as rapidly as possible, and therefore they had taken this step, but it in no way involved more than a delay in their policy of reform, and he hoped when they introduced their Bill the hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends would see the error of their ways and would amend their habits, and become for the first time in their lives active and zealous economists.

MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)

said the right hon. Gentleman in his speech had founded his case on the desire that the work of his Department should be done, but they had heard the real explanation from the hon. Member for East Mayo, who had animadverted upon the newly-developed desire of Ulster Members for economy. The right hon. Gentleman had asked why he (Mr. Long) had not, whilst he was Chief Secretary, recognised the claims of Mr. Justice Dodd, as he now was; but during the time that he was Chief Secretary no vacancy occurred on the Irish Bench. He regarded himself, however, as bound by the condition which had been laid down by his predecessor that, unless some exceptional circumstances could be shown, there was to be no change in his policy. The right hon. Gentleman had found quite suddenly that all the views of his predecessors were unfounded, but the remarkable thing was that there had been 2,000 cases cleared off since the last statement was made in the House, and they had every reason to believe that they were now proceeding with increased rapidity. When he himself was Chief Secretary, though it might have been necessary to make some small re-arrangements among the existing Judges, there was no need whatever for the appointment of a fresh one. It was suggested that some of the work might be transferred to a learned Member of the Bench to whom he would not refer, but the hon. Member for East Mayo had answered that point, because he had stated that he and his Party would have resisted and resented any such transfer or re-arrangement; in other words, that the only thing to which they, the masters of the Treasury bench, would assent was an appointment of which they approved, and which led them to believe that the work of the Bench would be justly performed. They knew from hon. Gentlemen below the gangway from long experience what was their idea of justice in the performance of this kind of work, and it did not encourage them in viewing the future when the real reason for this appointment was given with so much candour by representatives of the Nationalist Party. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the line taken by his predecessor in office, Mr. Bryce. His hon. and learned friend had also referred to the introduction of the Labourers Act. He was not a Member of the House unfortunately last session, and he did not realise how much stress was laid on the circumstances which justified the then Chief Secretary in appealing to the House, which he did on more than one occasion, to take the Bill as a non-controversial measure agreed upon on all sides. The right hon. Gentleman in answer to the hon. Member for East Mayo, had told them that it was perfectly true that this money would be subtracted from the money available for the Irish Labourers Act, but that he and the Government would take care that they did not suffer and that the money would be made good. The hon. Member for East Mayo was quite right; they could not have it both ways. The money under the Labourers Act was voted by Parliament as part of the financial arrangements of that Act, and it was subtracted from by the appointment of this Judge. The money would have to be found somewhere, and the hon. Member for East Mayo could afford to look with complacency upon a proposal which would lay an additional charge upon the British taxpayer. He was astonished when he heard that this appointment had been made, without the smallest intimation to the House of the intention to depart from the arrangement made, and without the smallest evidence to show that there had been any material alteration in the conditions which existed at the time the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor made it, which made it necessary to appoint the new Judge, for all time, as his hon. and learned friend had said. The Chief Secretary had taken objection to that statement. Did the right hon. Gentleman think that these appeals would last more than two years? Did he

believe that he would be more fortunate than his predecessors, and did he think that he would have at his disposal the necessary vacancies on the Bench which would enable him to provide fresh work for this new Judge, and at the same time keep the promises which had been made? The right hon. Gentleman was the great Minister who was supposed to keep his promises, as if—he would be excused for saying so—he was the one Minister who desired to do so. At all events the right hon. Gentleman justified his action as compared with that of his predecessors, and had adopted a line which he could not maintain. He thought his hon. and learned friend was abundantly justified in the Motion he had made, and he could safely say that if the Unionists had been in office, and had thought it necessary to make this departure from the Parliamentary bargain which had been entered into, without notice or indication of their intention, without the production of any evidence to show that special circumstances had arisen to justify their action, they would have had a debate far more excited than the present one had been, and a condemnation expressed by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway far more severe and personal than anything that had been said that evening. If they found the change which had been made behind him unsatisfactory, he could only say that that change was infinitesimal compared with the change in hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who were to-day prepared to regard as virtuous the appointment of a new Judge, which, in the time of the late Government, they would have regarded as altogether vicious and unsatisfactory.


rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes, 250; Noes, 57. (Division List No. 19.)

Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Atherley-Jones, L. Barrow, Percy (Bedford)
Acland, Francis Dyke Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Barnard, E. B.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Baker, Joseph A (Finsbury, E.) Barnes, G. N.
Alden, Percy Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Barry, E. (Cork, S.)
Allen, Charles P. (Stroud) Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight) Beale, W. P.
Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry Barker, John Beauchamp, E.
Beck, A. Cecil Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis Murphy, John
Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo. Hardie, J. Keir (MerthyrTydvil) Nolan, Joseph
Bertram, Julius Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh O'Brien, Kendal(Tipperary Mid
Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Billson, Alfred Haworth, Arthur A. O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine Hayden, John Patrick O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Black, Arthur W. Hazel, Dr. A. E. O'Dowd, John
Boland, John Hedges, A. Paget O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.
Boulton, A. C. F. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Brace, William Herbert, Colone Ivor.(Mon, S.) Parker, James (Halifax)
Bramsdon, T. A. Higham, John Sharp Partington, Oswald
Brigg, John Hobart, Sir Robert Paul, Herbert
Brodie, H. C. Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh Hodge, John Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Chesh. Hogan, Michael Pirie, Duncan V.
Bryce, J. Annan Holden, E. Hopkinson Power, PatrickJoseph
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Holland, Sir William Henry Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Burke, E. Haviland- Hooper, A. G. Radford, G. H.
Burnyeat, W. J. D. Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Raphael, Herbert H.
Byles, William Pollard Hudson, Walter Reddy, M.
Cameron, Robert Hyde, Clarendon Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Chance, Frederick William Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Redmond, William (Clare)
Cheetham, John Frederick Jackson, R. S. Renton, Major Leslie
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Jardine, Sir J. Richards, Thomas(W. Monm'th
Clarke, C. Goddard Jenkins, J. Richards, T.E (Wolverh'mpt'n
Clough, William Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) Jones, Leif (Appleby) Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Jones, William (Carnarvonshire Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Jowett, F. W. Robinson, S.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Joyce, Michael Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Cowan, W. H. Kelley, George D. Roe, Sir Thomas
Cox, Harold Kennedy, Vincent Paul Rogers, F. E. Newman
Cremer, William Randal Kincaid-Smith, Captain Rose, Charles Day
Crossley, William J. King, Alfred. John (Knutsford) Runciman, Walter
Cullinan, J. Laidlaw, Robert Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster Sears, J. E.
Delany, William Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Seaverns, J. H.
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Lambert, George Seddon, J.
Dillon, John Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.
Dobson, Thomas W. Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E. Sherwell, Arthur James
Dolan, Charles Joseph Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Shipman, Dr. John G.
Duckworth, James Lehmann, R. C. Silcock, Thomas Ball
Duffy, William J. Levy, Maurice Simon, John Allsebrook
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Lewis, John Herbert Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Dunne, Major E. Martin(Walsall Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Lough, Thomas Snowden, P.
Elibank, Master of Lundon, W. Soares, Ernest J.
Evans, Samuel T. Lyell, Charles Henry Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Eve, Harry Trelawney Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Steadman, W. C.
Everett, R. Lacey Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Bg'hs Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Faber, G. H. (Boston) Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Farrell, James Patrick MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down S. Strachey, Sir Edward
Fenwick, Charles MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.) Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Ferens, T. R. M'Callum, John M. Sullivan, Donal
Ffrench, Peter M'Crae, George Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Findlay, Alexander M'Kean, John Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Flynn, James Christopher M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Thomasson, Franklin
Fuller, John Michael F. M'Killop, W. Thorne, William
Gardner, Col. Alan(Hereford, S. M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Tomkinson, James
Gibb, James (Harrow) M'Micking, Major G. Toulmin, George
Ginnell, L. Maddison, Frederick Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John Mallet, Charles E. Verney, F. W.
Glendinning, R. G. Meagher, Michael Wadsworth, J.
Glover, Thomas Menzies, Walter Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Goddard, Daniel Ford Molteno, Percy Alport Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Gooch, George Peabody Mond, A. Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Montagu, E. S. Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton
Gulland, John W. Montgomery, H. G. Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Mooney, J. J. Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Morrell, Philip Wedgwood, Josiah C.
Hall, Frederick Morse, L. L. Weir, James Galloway
Halpin, J. Morton, Alpheus Cleophas White, George (Norfolk)
White, Patrick (Meath, North) Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarth'n Young, Samuel
Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)
Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer Wills, Arthur Walters TELLERS FOR THE AYES—
Wiles, Thomas Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A.
Wilkie, Alexander Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S. Pease.
Williams, J. (Glamorgan) Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Anson, Sir William Reynell Faber, George Denison (York) Remnant, James Farquharson
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond. Fell, Arthur Salter, Arthur Clavell
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Sloan, Thomas Henry
Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks Fletcher, J. S. Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Hamilton, Marquess of Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton)
Bignold, Sir Arthur Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. Stone, Sir Benjamin
Bowles, G. Stewart Hervey, F. W. F (Bury S. Edm'ds Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Boyle, Sir Edward Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Tuke, Sir John Batty
Castlereagh, Viscount Houston, Robert Paterson Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Cave, George Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hon. Col. W. Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Watt, H. Anderson
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham) Liddell, Henry Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S. Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Lonsdale, John Brownlee Younger, George
Courthope, G. Loyd Magnus, Sir Philip
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. Marks, H. H. (Kent) TELLERS FOR THE NOES— Sir
Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) Mildmay, Francis Bingham Alexander Acland-Hood and
Craik, Sir Henry Moore, William Lord Balcarres
Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

Question put accordingly, "That this House do now adjourn".

The House divided:—Ayes, 63; Noes, 264. (Division List No. 20.)

Anson, Sir William Reynell Dalrymple, Viscount Remnant James Farquharson.
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond. Douglas, Rt.Hon. A. Akers- Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan Salter, Arthur Clavell
Beach, Hn. Michael Hicks Faber, George Denison (York) Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)
Beckett, Hon. Gervase Fell, Arthur Sloan, Thomas Henry
Bignold, Sir Arthur Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey Smith, Abel H. (Hertford East)
Bowles, G. Stewart Fletcher, J. S. Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton.
Boyle, Sir Edward Hamilton, Marquess of Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh)
Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B. Stone, Sir Benjamin
Castlereagh, Viscount Hervey, F. W. F. (Bury S. Edm'ds Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Cave, George Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury) Tuke, Sir John Batty
Cavendish, Rt. Hn. Victor C. W. Houston, Robert Paterson Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W. Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cecil, Lord John P. Joicey- Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm. Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham) Liddell, Henry Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George
Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S Younger, George
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow) Lonsdale, John Brownlee
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North) Magnus, Sir Philip TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir
Courthope, G. Loyd Marks, H. H. (Kent) Alexander Acland-Hood and
Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. Mildmay, Francis Bingham Lord Balcarres.
Craig, Capt. James (Down, E.) Moore, William
Craik, Sir Henry Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.) Balfour, Robert (Lanark) Beck, A. Cecil
Acland, Francis Dyke Baring, Godfrey(Isle of Wight) Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets, S. Geo.
Ainsworth, John Stirling Barker, John Bertram, Julius
Alden, Percy Barlow, Percy (Bedford) Bethell, Sir JH. (Essex, Romford
Allen. Charles P. (Stroud) Barnard, E. B. Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)
Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry Barnes, G. N. Billson, Alfred
Atherley-Jones, L. Barry, E. (Cork, S.) Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine
Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) Beale, W. P. Black, Arthur W.
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E. Beauchamp, E. Boland, John
Boulton, A. C. F. Haworth, Arthur A. Norton, Capt. Cecil William
Brace, William Hayden, John Patrick O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid
Bramsdon, T. A. Hazel, Dr. A. E. O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)
Brigg, John Hedges, A. Paget O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)
Brodie, H. C. Henderson, Arthur (Durham) O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)
Brunner, J. F. L. (Lancs., Leigh) Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S. O'Dowd, John
Brunner, Rt. Hn. Sir J. T. (Cheshire Higham, John Sharp O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.
Bryce, J. Annan Hobart, Sir Robert O'Shaughnessy, P. J.
Buckmaster, Stanley O. Hobhouse, Charles E. H. Parker, James (Halifax)
Burke, E. Haviland- Hodge, John Partington, Oswald
Burnyeat, W. J. D. Hogan, Michael Paul, Herbert
Byles, William Pollard Holden, E. Hopkinson Philipps, Col. Ivor (S'thampton)
Cameron, Robert Holland, Sir William Henry Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)
Carr-Gomm, H. W. Hooper, A. G. Pirie, Duncan V.
Chance, Frederick William Howard, Hon. Geoffrey Power, Patrick Joseph
Cheetham, John Frederick Hudson, Walter Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central)
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. Hyde, Clarendon Radford, G. H.
Clarke, C. Goddard Isaacs, Rufus Daniel Raphael, Herbert H.
Clough, William Jackson, R. S. Reddy, M.
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.) Jardine, Sir J. Redmond, John E. (Waterford)
Cobbold, Felix Thornley Jenkins, J. Redmond, William (Clare)
Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) Rees, J. D.
Cotton, Sir H. J. S. Jones, Leif (Appleby) Renton, Major Leslie
Cowan, W. H. Jones, William (Carnarvonsh. Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th)
Cox, Harold Jowett, F. W. Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n
Cremer, William Randal Joyce, Michael Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)
Crombie, John William Kelley, George D. Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)
Crossley, William. J. Kennedy, Vincent Paul Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)
Cullinan, J. Kincaid-Smith, Captain Robinson, S.
Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) King, Alfred John (Knutsford) Robson, Sir William Snowdon
Delany, William Laidlaw, Robert Roe, Sir Thomas
Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.) Lamb, Enmund G. (Leominster Rogers, F. E. Newman
Dillon, John Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) Rose, Charles Day
Dobson, Thomas W. Lambert, George Runciman, Walter
Dolan, Charles Joseph Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.) Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)
Duckworth, James Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E. Sears, J. E.
Duffy, William J. Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington Seaverns, J. H.
Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness Lehmann, R. C. Seddon, J.
Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall Levy, Maurice Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)
Edwards, Enoch (Hanley) Lewis, John Herbert Sherwell, Arthur James
Elibank, Master of Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David Shipman, Dr. John G.
Evans, Samuel T. Lough, Thomas Silcock, Thomas Ball
Eve, Harry Trelawney Lundon, W. Simon, John Allsebrook
Everett, R. Lacey Lyell, Charles Henry Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie
Faber, G. H. (Boston) Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.
Farrell, James Patrick Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs Snowden, P.
Fenwick, Charles Mackarness, Frederic C. Soares, Ernest J.
Ferens, T. R. Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. Spicer, Sir Albert
Ffrench, Peter MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S. Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.)
Findlay, Alexander MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E. Steadman, W. C.
Flynn, James Christopher M'Callum, John M. Stewart, Halley (Greenock)
Fuller, John Michael F. M'Crae, George Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)
Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S. M'Iver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W. Strachey, Sir Edward
Gibb, James (Harrow) M'Kean, John Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)
Ginnell, L. M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald Sullivan, Donal
Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)
Glendinning, R. G. M'Micking, Major G. Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury
Glover, Thomas Maddison, Frederick Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan), E.
Goddard, Daniel Ford Mallet, Charles E. Thomasson, Franklin
Gooch, George Peabody Massie, J. Thorne, William
Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward Meagher, Michael Tomkinson, James
Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill Menzies, Walter Toulmin, George
Gulland, John W. Molteno, Percy Alport Trevelyan, Charles Philips
Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton Mond, A. Verney, F. W.
Gwynn, Stephen Lucius Montagu, E. S. Wadsworth, J.
Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. Montgomery, H. G. Waldron, Laurence Ambrose
Hall, Frederick Mooney, J. J. Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)
Halpin, J. Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen) Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent
Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis Morrell, Philip Ward, W. Dudley(Southampton
Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil Morse, L. L Waring, Walter
Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) Morton, Alpheus Cleophas Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh Murphy, John Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney
Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) Nolan, Joseph
Watt, H. Anderson Wiles, Thomas Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
Wedgwood, Josiah C. Wilkie, Alexander Wodehouse, Lord
Weir, James Galloway Williams, J. (Glamorgan) Young, Samuel
White, George (Norfolk) Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'rth'n
White, Luke (York, E. R.) Williams, Osmond (Merioneth) TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.
Whitehead, Rowland Wills, Arthur Walters Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.
Whitley, J. H. (Halifax) Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

Main Question put, and agreed to.