CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE (IRELAND) ACT.

HC Deb 13 March 1907 vol 171 cc126-59

MR. HOGAN (Tipperary, N.)

rose to call attention to the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act; and to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the presence of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act on the Statute Book is a gross violation of the Constitution, without parallel in any other portion of His Majesty's dominions, and that the Act should be immediately repealed." He said that the Motion was one of very great importance to Ireland. It had been the subject of frequent ballots by all the Nationalist Members, and he brought it forward on behalf of the entire Irish Party, as the whim of the ballot had this time placed it in his unworthy hands, and upon it he now ventured to address the House for the first time, feeling sure that it would extend to him the indulgence usual on such occasions. Ever since the Act of Union, in 1800, their country had lived under coercive laws. The Act to which his Motion referred was passed in the year 1887, and up to that period the number of Coercion Acts equalled the number of years which had elapsed since the destruction of the Irish Parliament. In that year there was rushed through Parliament by the use of the closure and in face of the feeling worked up in this country by the infamous, but then unexposed, Times forgeries, a permanent Coercion Act which still remained on the Statute book. By that Act trials for criminal offences were taken away from the protection of juries. In addition, new offences were created. In fact, it was applied almost entirely against political opponents of the ascendency class in Ireland. The tribunal was neither independent nor impartial. It consisted of two hirelings of the Government who, at the whim of a Minister, might be summarily dismissed. It was not the members of the criminal class who were brought before those officials. Without exception they belonged to a political party, and their alleged offences were of a political character. It was the general belief in Ireland that their sentences were prepared by their prosecutors, and the trial was a mere mockery. Hundreds of the most respected and influential men in Ireland had been imprisoned under that Act. Their treatment in prison was barbarous. There was no distinction made between them and common criminals, unless indeed to make their treatment worse than that of those who offended against the ordinary law. He spoke on the subject with feeling and from bitter experience, as he was one of the victims of the Act only five years ago, and he knew that the treatment given was perfectly inhuman. There was no such law in existence in this country. It was contrary to the Constitution of Great Britain. Not even in the Crown Colonies was there anything like it. At present the Act was not in operation, but that was no argument against its repeal. It was in force a short time ago. It could be enforced at any moment at the discretion of the Chief Secretary. By an exercise of the will of one man who might know nothing of the conditions of the country the whole Constitution under which the land was governed might be completely altered. That was not a safe nor a satisfactory state of things. It was a permanent and a standing menace to the liberty of the people. They called on the House to declare that that Act should be repealed and thus to stamp it with a verdict of disapproval. In his own case, although he lived only across the street from the police station, the police allowed him to go at large for some time, and although they could have arrested him at any moment they waited till he was in bed, and then in the dead of night came and took him away from his wife and four children. He was taken by night seven miles and put in a cell, and the Removable did not come to hear his case till three o'clock the following day. All he could say was that if the Chief Secretary had made in Ireland the speech which he heard him make the other night he would have been locked up in a like manner. It was no use to attempt by hirelings of that class to coerce the Irish people, who might be led with a silk rope but could not be driven with a pitchfork. For himself he welcomed the suffering he had undergone, as he would die for his country. He begged to move—

MR. NOLAN (Louth, S.),

in seconding the Motion, said that it was a question of immense importance to the people of Ireland. The Crimes Act placed the liberties, fortunes, and lives of millions of the people at the discretion of an irresponsible Court, or at least a Court which was not responsible to the Irish people themselves. It was also a question of paramount importance to British statesmen, and was one which ought to give His Majesty's Government cause for reflection. It was the object of British statesmen to bring the United States and Great Britain into closer contact; but only the other day he read that the Irish in America had joined hands with the Germans in order to prevent that aim being carried out and the land of their adoption being mixed up with foreign politics. The feeling of the Irish in the United States had been largely affected by the exceptional treatment which Ireland had received. He knew that the overwhelming majority of Ministerialists were supporters of the National view, and that in speaking to the Opposition on the subject they were talking to deaf ears; but still it was necessary to discuss the subject. He availed himself with pleasure of the present opportunity because of the conditions which had arisen since the general election. In that House there were something like 300 new members who had never had an opportunity of hearing that important question discussed within those walls. Apart from that, there was also the fact that beyond those walls was the vast electorate of Great Britain, who were taking an increasing interest in what took place in Parliament. It was of the highest importance that they should know for themselves the way in which Ireland was treated under English rule. That was no new opinion. It was the opinion held by many distinguished Irishmen in the past, among others by the great Daniel O'Connell, who said that if the English people only knew the way in which Ireland was treated they would rise up in revolt against it; that if Ireland in the past had been treated with exceptional harshness it was not due to the masses of the English people, but rather to their rulers. The first thing he would ask new Members of the House and the English electors outside to do was to recognise the fact that Ireland was almost a crimeless country. They heard of outrages against God and man in almost every country in the world. In Ireland there was an almost entire absence of serious crime. He would venture to say that in many of the great centres of industry in this country English officers of the law were being brutally beaten that night, and that in a day or two hon. Members would read in the newspapers of policemen giving evidence that while they were being severely beaten the crowd stood idly by and allowed the outrage to be perpetrated, and that where men and women had gone up to give evidence against criminals in this country their lives had been made a hell to them by the people of the locality. Irishmen had a right to say that if their country was without crime there was no justification for the Crimes Act's remaining on the Statute-book, and that if there was any justification for its existence there was more necessity for it in England than in Ireland. He knew the arguments which would be adduced in favour of the Act by hon. Members above the Gangway. They would say that while Ireland was crimeless now, on some future occasion the Act might be necessary. He challenged hon. Members to tell the House what conditions would necessitate the Act's being put into operation, and, if hon. Members could not tell them that, he asked them fairly and frankly to say why this Act should not be wiped off the Statute-book. One of the arguments which would be advanced by hon. Members was that a similar Act was passed by a Liberal Government. But many things had happened since then. A reform Act was passed and then came the general election of 1885, after which election English Liberal statesmen who believed in their principles could be blind no longer to the fact that a new state of affairs had arisen. When the general election of 1885 resulted in eighty-five of the 101 popularly elected Members for Ireland being returned to oppose coercion Mr. Gladstone declared that a new state of affairs had arisen; that the justification for coercive measures had passed away, and that Ireland should be governed according to the will of the Irish people. It might be said that Liberal Governments had been in power since then, and yet had not wiped the Act off the Statute-book. But the Liberal Government went one better. During the Parliament of 1892 it passed through the House of Commons in the teeth of great opposition, and in the face of great difficulty, a measure which would have given the Irish people the management of their own affairs. He failed to see how Liberal statesmen could take any other view of the matter than that advanced by Irish Members that night, because, according to all Liberal principles, if people were governed without their consent that government was tyranny, however benevolent it might be. Hon. Members above the gangway would argue that the law did no harm except to law-breakers; that the Irishman who went about his business, and did not meddle with politics or public affairs, was absolutely free; that he need have no fear of being brought before a couple of removable magistrates to be sent to prison to herd with the vilest criminals in the world. Those were the arguments of tyrants all over the world. Representatives of the Russian Government and men who knew Russia made use of the same argument, and said that in despotic Russia a man who minded his own business and did not meddle with affairs of State, was as free as he would be in the City of London. That was not the question. So long as Ireland occupied her present position, so long were Irishmen entitled to equal treatment with Englishmen; an Irishman in Ireland ought to receive the same treatment that he would receive in England or Scotland, or in any of the British Colonies. The Irishman who went to Canada, New Zealand, Australia, or South Africa, or who travelled up and down Great Britain, could, if he was charged with an offence, claim to be and would be treated in exactly the same way as if he had been born in England; but the moment he set foot upon his native soil he lived under exceptional laws. Some Sergeant Sheridan or some Sergeant O'Haloran, or some other base representative of an unjust system, could make a charge against him, all the more readily because he had been away from home, and might be supposed to have come back with the revolutionary idea of equal justice and equal treatment between man and man, and could have him hauled before a couple of removables, and sent to prison to be treated as a common criminal. Irishmen had a right to resent that kind of treatment, and to demand that a change should be made in the law. As he had said, a new condition of affairs which appealed to English Liberal statesmen arose in the election of 1885. In that new state of affairs, Mr. Gladstone decided upon giving to the Irish people the management of their own affairs. Unfortunately, both for Ireland, and, as he believed, for England as well, Mr. Gladstone failed, owing to the abandonment of their principles by a number of so-called Liberals at the time. The election of 1885 was followed by another in 1886, and at that election a very large majority were against them. Since then the Irish people had maintained an attitude which was the same now as in 1885. In 1887, the Leader of the Opposition came into power, and what did he do? He recognised, as Liberal statesmen had done, that a change had taken place. He saw that it would no longer be possible, in a light-hearted, easy way, to pass a Coercion Bill for Ireland. He had an inspiration. He said, "I will take advantage of my present majority to pass a Coercion Act which shall be perpetual." Up to then the Union was eighty-six years old, and every year that it had lasted there had been coercion in some form or other—the White boy Act, the Arms Act, the Crimes Act, a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. The majority of Irish representatives had always been resolutely opposed to the passing of exceptional laws of that kind, and saw that Liberal statesmen and their followers would have to be reckoned with. Irishmen saw that the light was beginning to dawn upon the people of England as a whole. They recognised that a large portion of the English Press was submitting the actual state of things in Ireland to the English people, and that on hundreds of platforms, in districts where, perhaps, an Irishman had never been seen before, Irish Members of Parliament were pleading the cause of their country with effect. The Leader of the Opposition recognised that it was a case with him of now or never placing the Irish people under a perpetual political disabilities Act. A Bill was passed notwithstanding the strongest opposition of the majority of Irish Members, and also of the majority of Members of the Liberal Party. He did not know exactly what was going to be the upshot of the debate that night. They felt that if it rested with the Chief Secretary, or even with his Government, that offensive statute would be wiped out without further delay. But the right hon. Gentleman would do either of two things—he would either call their attention to the fact that though there was a Liberal Government nominally in power it was not really in power, and that it was impotent to carry out its own will or the will of the people—that any measure passed triumphantly by an enormous majority in that House might be bowled over at the other end of the lobby, that it would be a waste of time to try to repeal this offensive Act. Or he might say something that would be received with great satisfaction by Irish Members and by the Irish people—that in the near future His Majesty's Government would introduce a measure of such a scope as would give the Irish people the management of their own affairs and put an end to the old and bad system which was the root of so much evil in Ireland, and which also had inflicted such damage to the reputation of England not only abroad but in many other ways. Some of the most disastrous defeats which England had sustained abroad had been administered by Irish soldiers who had been driven from their country by coercive laws. An English monarch when he suffered a reverse on the Continent, used these memorable words: —"Cursed be the laws which deprive me of such soldiers." It was those coercive laws which drove Irish soldiers abroad—laws which were now still in force in Ireland. He asked the House to recognise the wisdom and the justice of wiping this Act from the Statute-book of England to which it was a disgrace.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That, in the opinion of this House, the presence of the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act on the Statute-book is a gross violation of the Constitution, without parallel in any other portion of His Majesty's dominions, and that the Act should be immediately repealed."—(Mr. Hogan.)

MR. GORDON (Londonderry, S.)

said it had been pointed out by the mover of the Resolution that new Members of the House could hardly be expected to know much about the provisions of the Act, but neither he nor the seconder had given any very clear indication of what the provisions were or to what class of case they applied. In regard to ordinary crime Ireland no doubt compared most favourably with any other part of the Kingdom. As one who claimed to be as much an Irishman as those who held different political views he was proud of that fact, but at the same time he thought he was right in saying that all Irishmen, whatever might be their political views, ought to see that the best possible efforts were made to get rid of another class of crime, and to free their country from the stigma which attached to it. He had heard it stated that the arguments of the Unionist representatives would be in regard to this Act that no man unless he was a law-breaker would suffer under it. The answer was, that they were all subject to the law, that the law did not coerce those who observed it, but did coerce those who broke it. Law-breakers might say that such a law was tyrannous. But that was all they could say about it; if there were crimes to punish and a law was passed which was adequate and necessary for that purpose, it was idle to speak of it as tyranny. He lived in Ireland, and those who did so only knew of the existence of such an Act of Parliament from speeches of those who held certain political views and who spoke from a certain standpoint, and also from articles which appeared in newspapers which advocated certain political views. Those who were law-abiding did not know that such an Act was in existence. To that part of Ireland which Unionist Members represented the law applied just as to any other part of the country, but it had never become necessary to put it in force. It had never been necessary in his part of Ireland to put this law into force. He said that deliberately. Their idea was that the existence of such a law judging from the past, was necessary. They believed that at present there were matters going on which, even with all the desire of the Chief Secretary to refrain from using it, would probably drive him to use it in the end. The Act could only be brought into operation by the Lord-Lieutenant and the members of the Privy Council. Its operation could be caused to cease if either House of Parliament presented a petition desiring the repeal of the Proclamation. It was an Act of Parliament which the present Prime Minister at one period, speaking on the subject, said he considered it would be a wise thing to have permanent. That was in 1886.

MR. HUGH LAW (Donegal, W.)

But this is 1907.

MR. GORDON

said he was well aware of that fact. But if the Act were now applied in England not a single law-abiding citizen would know of its existence. If applied over the whole of the United Kingdom it would injure no one. No injustice would be done. The first section of the Act dealt with the inquiry which might become necessary were crime and outrage prevalent in a particular district, and stated the manner in which it could be brought into force by Proclamation. Under the second part, if a fair and impartial trial could not be obtained the venue might be changed on the application of the Attorney-General, and the party to be tried could apply to be tried in some other place. The Court had power to deal with that and to give witnesses expenses and the costs of counsel instructed. So much about the venue. The case had to be tried by Irishmen in Ireland and in the Irish Courts. The other part of the Act dealt with summary jurisdiction. What was that after all? In Dublin it could be exercised in precisely the way that ordinary summary jurisdiction was exercised. It was under the same Act. In the rest of Ireland when the Act under consideration was put into operation by Proclamation it was to be exercised by two resident magistrates, one of whom must have sufficient legal knowledge to satisfy either the Chief Secretary for Ireland or the Lord Chancellor—he forgot which at the moment. Those resident magistrates were appointed wholly apart from the discharge of these particular duties. They could give no more in the way of punishment than was given by the Justices at the ordinary petty sessions. They were limited to six months imprisonment, which was the ordinary petty sessions jurisdiction. There was the right of appeal to the quarter sessions, where the County Court Judge sat to hear the cases on appeal. What enormous hardship was there in that? Every word of the Act was directed against criminals, and it was only to be put in force when the Lord-Lieutenant and the Privy Council thought it necessary for the prevention, detection or punishment of crime or outrage, and not for anything else. Under those circumstances what reason was there to complain of the Act's being put into force? Hon. Members below the gangway might laugh, but he would like to hear an answer to that argument. A mere sentimental answer would not do. He did not think that even Nationalist Members would disagree with him when he said that they wanted to have outrage and crime stamped out in Ireland. As for the other parts of the Act, they were merely machinery. He had told the House what were the substantial parts of the Act. In the North of Ireland they did not regard it as a menace to their liberties at all. Even when administered by a Chief Secretary opposed to them in politics they were perfectly satisfied that it would not injure any law-abiding citizens. They had in the North of Ireland their Irish sentiments just as much as the people of the south and west, and yet they did not ask that the Act should be taken off the Statute-book. They wished it to remain, because cases had arisen in which it had been useful and necessary; the predecessors in office of the present Government knew the necessity of it, and they never attempted to repeal it. What was there at the present time to render the repeal of the Act necessary? It was passed to meet a special class of crime, which was a danger to the credit of the country. That class of crime had now diminished, but could anyone say that intimidation, boycotting, or the writing of threatening letters had disappeared? On the 21st of last month the Chief Secretary in replying to a question about boycotting in Ireland and that there were ten serious cases of boycotting in Ireland and thirty-eight minor cases. [Nationalist cries of "Oh, oh!"] What did that mean? It meant that a man living within the law, who had not broken the law of Ireland or England, was to be placed in such a position that his neighbour dare not sell him a loaf of bread or a suit of clothes, or shoe his horses, and that men dare not work on his farm, although his crops were rotting away. That was what boycotting meant. Some people, thought that boycotting meant that if persons were dissatisfied with one another they could say, "I will not deal with you, but with somebody else." That was not boycotting. What had the right hon. Gentleman said earlier in the day in reply to a Question about the Bradys, who had been deprived of the food which was being carried for them some twenty or thirty miles? They could not get lodgings in the assize town except at the police barracks.

THE SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL, Bristol, N.)

Did the Crimes Act stop boycotting?

MR. GORDON

said it did to a very large extent. Without it the state of things would have been much worse. He wanted to point out that they could not expect the case would be fairly tried in the venue in which the people actually lived, where the crime had been committed, where the people were not allowed lodging except in the police barracks, and where they could not get food except it was sent to them from the court house. Did they as Englishman expect that the jury in such a place was going to deal with the case fairly and impartially? Ought not such crimes to be stopped? Did they not think that if a fair trial could not be had in one part the case should be transferred to another where a fair trial could be had and where justice could be administered? That was a state of affairs which the Chief Secretary had had to admit that day in the House. The right hon. Gentleman had had to admit that in another case where seven people were fired at and one individual was seriously injured, no person had been brought to justice. He had had to admit on various occasions what was the state of crime and outrage in Ireland. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman if he thought boycotting a trifle.

MR. BIRRELL

No, I have never said anything of the kind.

MR. GORDON

said he did not want to go beyond fair argument. He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider the question from the point of view of one boycotted man, even if there were only one. The Judge at the last Leitrim Assizes said that any increase in crime was due to that odious form of crime carried on by intimidating and threatening letters. An isolated man living in a hostile neighbourhood received a threatening letter with the emblems of death upon it. It was no wonder that the Judge described that as an odious crime. [An Hon. Member: Who was the Judge?] He declined to be cross-examined. The Judge stated that the county inspector had informed him that a certain district in the county was in a very lawless condition; that three families representing twelve people were wholly boycotted and under police protection; that other three families received partial police protection; and that one family existed in such a state of continual danger that three policemen were quartered in the house. [Nationalist laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh at that, but it was a serious thing for those concerned. The Chief Secretary, even with his short acquaintance with Ireland, must know that in the West there were districts where everyone had to be a member of the United Irish League or it was the worse for him. Meetings were held, cases were brought forward, their pros and cons discussed, and resolutions arrived at, and the reports of those proceedings appeared in the newspapers just as much as if they were the reports of proceedings in an ordinary Court of Justice. The views of that organisation were not merely expressed at the meetings in reference to individuals, but published in the newspapers, and did anybody dare to tell the House that the jurors drawn from that class who had shown what their views were in reference to these very crimes would act fairly and impartially? The Crimes Act enabled places to be selected where cases could be tried. The Attorney-General knew there were places away from the disturbed districts where a fair trial might be obtained. The learned Judge to whom he had referred justified his statement by quoting what his predecessor at the last Con naught Winter Assize said— Everyone knows that when the chain of terrorism is complete no witness will give evidence and no jury will convict. There was the case of a horse dealer in Monaghan who took the grazing of a farm from which some previous tenant had been evicted. That poor man's whole property was destroyed; his fences and outhouses were pulled down and fourteen horses and six cows burnt. When the case came before the county court compensation to the extent of £1,150 was awarded, but he did not know whether that fully compensated the man. A case recently came before Judge Adams in Limerick County Court, in which the occupier of a grazing farm who had annoyed some people claimed compensation for the malicious burning of two ricks of hay. Judge Adams said— This was a most disgraceful business. The farmers of Ireland had received from the legislature most important benefits, and if anyone was to tell them thirty years ago that such benefits would come he would be put down as a madman. They must now, farmers and labourers, and all other subjects of the King in this country, remember that grievances having been removed law and order must prevail, and he could see no reason whatever, even according to the popular code, for the persecution to which this humble man was subjected. A piece of land formerly held by a tenant of the Count de Salis had become vacant, and the farmers were looking for portions of it to round their own takes—a very innocent and proper proceeding, but this did not suit the tribunal that sat in the neighbouring public-houses, and accordingly this man's life was made a burthen of. He was abused on the road, and his sisters had to be guarded by a force of the Royal Irish Constabulary coming to and from their work of milking cows. It was a very bad case of popular hostility. No doubt can be entertained that the fire was malicious, because, although it occurred at eight o'clock at night and the police barrack but two miles off, no intimation was conveyed to the Constabulary, who did not discover the occurrence until the morning after. He awarded £60 compensation. Those were things which could not be gainsaid, and there were many similar cases as was known to everyone in Ireland who did not keep his head quite covered up. A receiver the other day brought before a Judge the case of a man named Burns who had taken a piece of land for grazing. Here was the letter which was written to him— To Mr. H. Burns.—The caste to which you belong has too long stood between the people and their inheritance. We are determined that no such barriers shall intervene between the people and what is rightly theirs; so, in justice to you as well as to ourselves, we hereby give you notice that you shall not be permitted to occupy your farm of Addergoole one moment beyond 1st April, 1907. Rest assured that if you refuse to comply with this mandate of the people of Mullagh we will ourselves carry it into execution in broad daylight, and in the most public manner. Of course they would do nothing of the kind; but under the present régime no attempt was made to have the public law enforced in that locality. The time has passed when your prayers for mercy would have been listened to. Justice, not mercy, is all that we shall give you, or receive. That letter was signed by eighteen people and was written in reference to a case-pending in the High Court of Justice.

MR. BIRRELL

Were they real signatures, or were they all in the same handwriting?

MR. GORDON

said he did not know; but the Judge said that if it could be proved that they were genuine signatures he would take measures to deal with them. He only knew that the matter came before the Court and no suggestion was made that they were not real signatures. That was only a part of the chain of terrorism that was exercised. The people who could prove these signatures would not come forward and the jury would not convict. But the terror of the man who received that letter was just the same. What steps had the Attorney-General for Ireland taken in the matter?

*THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY, Liverpool, Exchange)

said the letter had not yet come before him; it was before Mr. Justice Ross. If it did come before him he would deal with it.

MR. GORDON

said that if such a matter, which was before the Court three weeks ago, and was a crime dealing with property under the control of the Court, although publicly brought forward by the police who were the executive officers, was not reported to the Attorney-General or to the Chief Secretary, the fact was significant. If the officials and the police thought it was no use, or that it would not be thought a good thing to report it to the proper authorities, it would add to the present state of disturbance in the West of Ireland. If the Chief Secretary allowed matters to go on as they were going, he would be driven to put the Coercion Act in force; and he would bitterly regret that he had acceded to this Motion.

*MR. CHERRY

said that before he dealt with the Resolution moved by the hon. Member for Tipperary, North, he wished to congratulate him on his able and eloquent speech. He was sure that the House would always hear the hon. Member in future with pleasure. The hon. and learned Member who had just sat down seemed to be enamoured of the Coercion Act. If it was such an excellent provision, why did it not apply in England or Scotland?

SIR E. CARSON (Dublin University)

said that one important provision, viz., that of change of venue, did apply to Scotland.

*MR. CHERRY

said he was speaking of the Crimes Act generally, of which that was only one small provision. But even the change of venue under the Crimes Act was a most one-sided measure. The Attorney-General for Ireland was entitled to walk into Court and name the venue, and the Court was compelled to change it at his direction. Another provision of the Crimes Act gave power to the Lord-Lieutenant to declare a certain association dangerous, and the proclamation to that effect made it a criminal offence to summon or attend a meeting of such association. That provision was put so frequently in force that under it twenty-three of the Irish Members of the House had been sent to gaol with hard labour by two stipendiary magistrates. Would the English people stand any such law as that? He would like to see a Home Secretary getting a Proclamation issued declaring that a particular trade union, say, in Birmingham, was dangerous, and sending down two magistrates from London to try the members and sentence them to six months imprisonment with hard labour. Another section of the Crimes Act provided that where a crime was committed a secret inquiry might be held and witnesses be compelled to appear before it for examination without the presence of Judge, jury, or counsel. Would the English people tolerate that? Would they stand a special Court con- stituted for the trial of offences of political nature, and consisting of two magistrates nominated by Government, who were the prosecutors in the case? His hon. and learned friend had made a most serious charge against the Irish police when he said that they neglected to report breaches of the law.

MR. GORDON

What I said was that if the police did not report that particular case it was a strange commentary on the way such reports were made.

*MR. CHERRY

said that during the year he and his hon. and learned friend the Solicitor-General had been in office the police had reported to them even the most trivial violations of the law in all parts of Ireland, and in no single instance in which a crime had been committed had they declined to direct a prosecution. On becoming Law Officers of the Crown the first duty he and his colleague had to discharge was to determine on behalf of the Government whether or not they should make use of the provisions of the Crimes Act. A more responsible duty it would be difficult to conceive. They were responsible for the preservation of law and order in the country. They knew that some hot-headed spirits conceived that, as there was a change of Government, they could do what they liked. They fully appreciated the risk, but after the most careful consideration they came unhesitatingly to the conclusion that it was better and safer to adhere to the ordinary law, fairly administered as between man and man, than to resort to the provisions of an Act which they believed to be unfair and unjust. The aim of every Government in Ireland ought to be to convince the masses of the people that the law was their friend and not their enemy, and he had no hesitation in saying that so long as the Crimes Act was made use of in prosecutions for crimes of any kind in Ireland, it would be impossible to get the majority of the people of Ireland to believe that the law was fairly administered. Soon after they came into office all the Proclamations under the Crimes Act were withdrawn and that Act was not now in force in any part of Ireland. They did something more than that; they resolved that as far as they could they would put an end to any unfairness in empanelling juries, and for that purpose they summoned the Crown solicitors of greatest experience to a conference, discussed the possibility of allowing jurors to be challenged equally on the part of the Crown and on the part of the prisoner, and arranged that as far as possible that should be done. They believed that if they showed the juries throughout the country that they were to be trusted, and that they were really made responsible to preserve law and order, they would respond to that appeal and do their duty. They believed that the reason for miscarriages of justice was that the jurors in the box felt they were not trusted. They would be told, of course, that that was a most dangerous experiment. For the purpose of seeing how it would work, he sent out before the March Assizes of last year a circular to all the Crown solicitors, asking for a return of the number of persons they felt it their duty, acting under the rules in force (which if observed were excellent), to set aside, the number of jurors challenged by the prisoners, the nature of the charge and the result of the trial. The Crown solicitors acted on the instructions given them, and they found that throughout Ireland the number of jurors challenged by the prisoners exceeded the number ordered to stand aside by the Crown, and there was not a complaint in all Ireland from north to south to his knowledge of the verdicts returned.

MR. MOORE

You cannot say that this year.

*MR. CHERRY

said if the hon. Member would allow him to proceed he would deal with this year. At the March Assizes last year he endeavoured to put the ordinary law in motion fairly with most excellent results. The same thing happened at the July Assizes. The results at the winter Assizes were still more remarkable. The most important was that for the Province of Munster. There they had not only the ordinary crime but two agrarian offences of apolitical character, one being of a most serious nature. The Judge, Mr. Justice Wright, who was not to be suspected of any undue partiality for jurors, prisoners, or the Liberal Party, at the conclusion of the Assizes in Limerick, stated that there was not a single verdict they had brought in with which he disagreed. And in both the political cases mentioned, one a very serious charge of attempt to murder, the juries convicted and the prisoners were sentenced. Not only did the Judge approve of the verdicts, but what was more remarkable in Ireland, the leading Nationalist paper of the South of Ireland published a strong leading article approving of the whole of the verdicts. He thought that a great triumph for the cause of law and order, for it was his object to make the masses of the people feel by fair and just administration that the law was their friend and not their enemy. It was his firm belief and that of his colleagues, that by pursuing that course they would really put an end to intimidation and boycotting far more effectually than by putting into force any provision of the Crimes Act. They remembered the time, ten or fifteen years ago, when those provisions were in force in different parts of the country, when the gaols were filled with Members of Parliament, and yet boycotting and intimidation was far more rife than at present. It might possibly be said that in having resort to the ordinary law they had allowed crime to go unpunished. That was the general statement, and it was contended by the leading Unionist newspapers that Ireland was in a terrible state, and that crime was increasing day by day. Yet in 1905, under the late Government the number of agrarian crimes reported by the constabulary was 278, and the total in 1906 was 234, which was a distinct improvement. To take the details: offences against the person were sixteen in 1905 and seven in 1906;offences against property were sixty-four in 1905 and seventy-one in 1906, a slight increase; offences against public peace were 193 in 1905 and 156 last year. Other offences were five in 1905 and none in 1906. Those figures showed that resort to the ordinary law had not increased crime, but had diminished it, and he believed a continuation of that policy would put an end to agrarian crime altogether. He did not think Members were aware of the enormous decrease in agrarian offences in Ireland during the last twenty years. In 1886 there were 1,056 agrarian offences reported. In 1896 they had fallen to 257. In 1905 they were 278 and last year 234. Judges in Ireland had a great fancy for the returns of constabulary inspectors, and they had been quoted in the debate. He thought, however, they should be looked at as a whole, and not those picked out which favoured a particular conclusion, and the others ignored. He had a summary of the reports of all the county inspectors in Ireland for 1906. There were only thirty-two counties in Ireland, but the reports numbered thirty-six, the cities and the ridings of counties making up that total. Of those thirty-six districts all but one were reported to be in a peaceful and satisfactory condition, and it was important to note that the exception was the East Riding of Galway where the Clanricarde property was situated. It was fair to mention that certain districts were reported as being disturbed, but even in those cases in almost every instance the police were able to notify improvement in the last twelve months. In no case had they reported any increase of lawlessness. He would refer to three or four of the counties which were not entirely satisfactory. In regard to Leitrim the report was that the country was in a satisfactory state except in certain sub-districts, that there were disputes on certain estates, but that towards the close of the year there were some signs of improvement. The men who attacked Brady had been prosecuted, but as the matter was sub judice he did not think it right to refer further to the matter. The prosecution had been instituted by the present law officers. There had been two abortive trials, but the case would be tried again at the next assizes, and he hoped sincerely the jury would come to a conclusion one way or the other. But even if they did not that would not alter his opinion one jot. He believed that it was far better that one or two guilty individuals should be acquitted than that the whole fountain of justice should be polluted. They heard a great deal about what a terrible thing boycotting and intimidation, were. Of course it was an evil. But it was not a thing of to-day or yesterday. It had been going on in spite of the Crimes Act, and as far as he could see, that Act had done absolutely nothing to stop it. He again turned to the reports of the county inspectors. Thirty-six counties, districts, and cities were reported upon in December last. In twenty-three of them the report was that there was no boycotting or intimidation whatsoever. In thirteen, some boycotting prevailed, but most of the cases were of a trifling character. Cavan was mentioned. "County peaceful," was the report. No intimidation, two cases of minor boycotting. Clare was said to be a terrible county. [Mr. W. Redmond: "No, no!"] The inspector's report on Clare was that the county was in a peaceful state, save in two sub-districts. No boycotting, two cases of intimidation. The county of Cork had been referred to. Two cases of partial boycotting and four cases of intimidation was the report for the whole county of Cork. In Fermanagh there had been one case of partial boycotting and one case of complete boycotting. Then there was Galway and the East Riding. It was reported that there was no improvement in the condition of the Riding, which continued in a lawless and unsettled state, except in certain districts. Eight persons were under constant protection. The United Irish League was still a paramount power in the Riding. There were several cases of partial boycotting. Intimidation was very prevalent. That was the only report which he could really say was unsatisfactory; on the whole he thought the position was very satisactory. He sincerely believed that if they adhered to the course which they had taken, they would next year have Ireland in an even more peaceful condition than last year, but if they adopted the course which hon. Gentlemen opposite suggested, they would have a state of lawlessness, intimidation, and violence prevailing from north to south of the country.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG (Antrim, S.)

said the first thing of which he had to complain in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that he had made voluminous references to the reports on agrarian crime in Ireland, and yet when hon. Members sitting on the Unionist Benches last session were constantly asking for the production of those Returns they were refused.

MR. CHERRY

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon, they were published in the Criminal Statistics of last year.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said he could only say that when the Returns were asked for they were refused, as the right hon. Gentleman said he did not think any useful purpose could be served by any further publication. The right hon. and learned Gentleman relied for the success of his new experiment mainly on two cases in county Cork. They were really county Cork cases, but owing to the Winter Assizes the venue was changed. But that change of venue formed a considerable part of the Act the House was now asked to repeal. He asked the House to say whether the results were to be considered satisfactory. He thought he could convict the right hon. and learned Gentleman out of his own mouth. The Attorney-General had shown that many districts of Ireland were in a very unsettled state, and yet the question before the House was whether the Crimes Act should be repealed. He respectfully asked the House to pause before they said that it should be. As had already been stated, the Act was at present harmless, and there was not a person in Ireland who was affected by its remaining on the Statute-book. The Act in one part dealt with dangerous associations. That was the point to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman said he personally objected to more than to any other. He would tell the House what class of associations came under the purview of the Act as dangerous associations. If an association was found by the Lord-Lieutenant to be formed for the commission of crime, or to encourage or aid persons to commit crime or to promote or incite to acts of violence or intimidation or to interfere with law and order, such associations should be proclaimed. The Attorney-General would have the House believe that the country was in a peaceful state, but he could refute that allegation. He would begin by quoting some words of the hon. Member for East Clare. Speaking on February 4th of this year, in his own county, the hon. Member said that unfortunately there had been lately in certain parts of Ireland a mysterious outbreak of crime. Men had been fired at and large quantities of hay had been destroyed.

MR. W. REDMOND (Clare, E.)

said he wished to explain what the hon. Member had read. When he made that speech the whole district of Clare was in such a peaceful condition that when two or three outrages did take place they caused universal regret and surprise, and it was with reference to those two or three cases he made the speech referred to. When a short time previously some very bad outrages occurred it was proved that they were committed by policemen who were allowed to leave and go to America.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said he was not sure that the House would be very much edified by the hon. Member's explanation. Still he laid great stress on what the hon. Member said in that speech. He had before now observed that hon. Members said one thing in Ireland and another thing in that House.

Mr. W. REDMOND

I repudiate that.

*MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is in possession.

MR. W. REDMOND

May I as a point of order—

*MR. SPEAKER

I will call on the hon. Member next.

MR. W. REDMOND

I do not wish to speak. It is a matter of order.

*MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member is not entitled to intervene. If he wishes to make a personal explanation he can do so at the conclusion of the speech of the hon. Member.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said the hon. Member had just given a somewhat long explanation of the remarkable speech to which he had referred, and said that his own county of Clare was in a very law-abiding condition; but the hon. Gentleman must have forgotten the Answer given by the Chief Secretary to a Question on that day, that there had been reported cases of the use of firearms for the purpose of outrage in the county of Clare since January last. Although the number was not certainly stated, there had been four more or less serious cases. A shot was fired outside a man's house, for the purpose of intimidating him; in the second case two men working together were fired at by one man and were injured; and another man was fired at and injured. That was a strange commentary on the action of the House last year in refusing to allow the Peace Preservation Act to remain on the Statute Book. The question was whether the state of crime in the country, the number of arrests, and the number of acquittals which were against the weight of the evidence, justified the House in repealing the Act at the present time. In his opinion they emphatically did not. He would have referred, if the matter had not been dealt with by his hon. friend the Member for South Derry, to the charges of the Judges at three assizes recently held in Ireland. The other day the hon. Member for East Mayo, in reference to the charge of one of the Judges to the Grand Jury delivered in the ordinary course, asked whether it was the custom for Judges in England to make political speeches from the Bench. He was very much surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had not the courage, he would almost say the common decency, ["Oh!"] yes, to stand up in his place, and defend one of His Majesty's Judges in Ireland, as any English Minister, he guaranteed, would have defended one of His Majesty's Judges in England. Whatever his idea of the Member for Mayo's remark might be, it was almost an unheard of thing that His Majesty's Minister should allow that accusation to go uncontradicted. He proposed to read to the House a list of malicious injury cases which had taken place within the last two or three months, which in his opinion formed as good an index to the condition of the country as anything could be. It had been said from time to time that the absence of charges of intimidation was the best index. To a certain extent that was true, but in many places the absence of intimidation and outrage was due to the fact that the people were so much under the heel of the United Irish League that they dare not do anything. With one or two exceptions such was the state of things that the people of Galway, Leitrim, Roscommon, and other counties in Ireland, were absolutely under the heel of the United Irish League and therefore the League did not think it necessary to employ outrage and intimidation to get the people to do what they wished. The people were in such fear, and owing to the deliberate refusal of protection from the Government, they dare not resist, and consequently the Returns showed in some cases a decrease in the amount of crime. Most of the cases of malicious injury were of a bad class, namely, that of burning hay and straw. On 4th January, 1907, for the burning of a stack of hay, £12 damages were allowed. Another case occurred at the Roscommon Quarter Sessions, where £51 15s. was allowed as damages for the malicious burning of 28 tons of hay. At the Dungannon Quarter Sessions, £65 damages were allowed on 24th October last for the malicious burning of a barn and dairy. The hon. Member was proceeding to give details of other cases of malicious injury, when

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

rose and asked the hon. Member for his authority. The hon. Member was making a serious statement, but he was not stating his authority.

*MR. SPEAKER

That is not a point of order.

MR. SWIFT MACNEILL

I have never known it done before.

MR. CHARLES CRAIG

said in that case the hon. Member will hear something new that night. He could give the hon. Member the authority for the cases, but it was a long list, and time was short. There was enough to show that the state of the country was not satisfactory, and did not correspond with the rosy statement that had been made by the Attorney-General. He would like to read an extract which was typical of what went on in places like County Wexford. At a national demonstration called by the executive of the South Wexford branch of the United Irish League, at which addresses were delivered by two Members of Parliament, Mr. Dennis Johnston said— The way to settle the evicted tenants' question was, to put it in plain language, to boycott the grabbers. I do not know," he continued, "whether our rev. chairman agrees with this line of action, but it is the line of action that has been adopted with marked advantage in every other district throughout the country and, therefore, what has been found useful in other districts must be found useful in the county of Wexford. If you want to get rid of the planters who are in occupation of evicted farms, you will have to adopt stringent measures— Mr. Edward Neville: 'I'd hang them! By God I would. I'd be the hangman to-morrow.' He need not read the remainder of Mr. Johnston's remarks, but he would read the concluding remarks of the rev. chairman— The rev. chairman in declaring the resolution carried, said they all knew as Catholics that boycotting was condemned by the head of their Church, and therefore, he could not be a party to advising anybody to boycott another, but this he would tell them to do, they could watch these parties and see what they did. These parties never dealt with them, never went into their shops, or dealt with them in any way, and they could follow the example thus given to them. That was sailing very close to the wind. The question simply resolved itself into this. When the Act was originally passed in 1887 by hon. Members opposite, or their predecessors, they believed that the state of things in Ireland was such that an exceptional mode of dealing with it was absolutely necessary. The Act was not doing the smallest harm at the present moment to anybody. The people in the north of Ireland lived under it without feeling it in any shape or form, and the same remark was true in regard to most of the people in the south. It was always possible—he hoped it was not going to happen—that a recurrence of the state of affairs which existed some years ago might take place. But even if that was not the case, he contended that he and his friends had shown that the state of Ireland at the present time was not such that they could safely throw away a method of dealing with an abnormal state of lawlessness in the country. It was very easy to repeal the Act, but it would be a very different matter to re-enact it if the circumstances were such as to require that to be done. In his opinion the country unfortunately was not ripe for the repeal of the measure, and he hoped that hon. Members, whose predecessors passed it many years ago, would not now consider that the time had come for its removal from the Statute-book.

MR. WILLIAM REDMOND

said he wanted to take the opportunity of making a personal explanation in reference to the statement of the hon. Member for South Antrim. The hon. Member had read out a number of fragmentary quotations, but anybody who would compare them with the official statements of the Attorney-General would agree that the speech of the hon. Gentleman hardly needed an answer. The hon. Member had said that he was in the habit of saying one thing in the House and another thing outside. He begged in the clearest and most explicit manner to repudiate that assertion. There was no foundation whatever for it. He had been in the House many years longer than the hon. Gentleman, and he did not believe there was a Member on either side who would believe he was capable for any reason whatever of making statements in Ireland or elsewhere, that he was either afraid or ashamed to make in his place in the House. He repudiated the statement as one of the most cowardly description.

MR. BIRRELL

I cannot but feel genuine sorrow for the hon. Gentlemen who come from Ulster for the course they have felt obliged to take in this debate. They are Irishmen. They love their country. Anything that injures it injures them, and anything that benefits it includes them in that benefit. And yet they have felt it necessary, despite the reports which we receive from the police, who subject the whole of Ireland to a miscroscopic examination to which certainly no other part of the United Kingdom is subjected, and who tell us of the improvement which they note year after year in the various counties of Ireland, and despite the fact that the Attorney-General, who is, in a great way, responsible for the administration of the law in Ireland, has been able in his most remarkable, clear, and convincing speech to put before the House and the country a state of facts which I should have thought would have caused hon. Gentlemen opposite to rejoice—notwithstanding all this they have felt it their duty to maintain that Ireland is still not only disfigured with crime, but that that crime is increasing in such a manner as to render it absolutely necessary, if law and order is to be secured and maintained, that this Criminal Law Procedure (Ireland) Act, of 1887, should remain part of the Statute law of the land. I think that was a, melancholy obligation imposed upon them. I am sure I condole with them that they should find it necessary, almost alone, to bring accusations of that sort against a country the evidence of whose, improvement has been so clearly and so well established by the reports of the police and by the speech of the Attorney-General. There can be no sort of difference of opinion as to the course to be pursued by His Majesty's Ministers with regard to the Motion. We have no doubt or hesitation as to what we ought to do. I do not believe there is a single individual member of the Administration, and there can be but few of the Party who support that Administration who are not already fully pledged, both by their voices and on several occasions by their votes, to avail themselves of every reasonable opportunity that is afforded them of removing this Criminal Law Procedure (Ireland) Act, which is really a code of tyrannical laws, from the Statute-book. We have had some ingenious defences of the Act. We have been told that no innocent man need mind it. But all arguments of that kind proceed on the assumption that anybody who is accused under that Act is guilty. That is a queer notion of the criminal law. Why it has taken centuries to evolve protection for men who are accused of crime in order that they should not bear the penalty of it until they had received justice at the hands of their fellow-countrymen and been tried by experienced and competent Judges! If you are to say that no man need worry about the criminal law unless he is disposed to be a criminal himself we might try a man for murder without a jury because, if he is a quiet, reasonable individual, he never is likely to be accused of crime. That, at all events, is not the view which His Majesty's Ministers take. Ever since the present Administration came in it has relied upon the ordinary law, and with most satisfactory results. Serious boycotting is, I quite agree, a most cruel and oppressive thing, but what we differ from hon. Gentlemen opposite in is that they believe that you will find in the Criminal Law and Procedure Act, 1887, the means of putting boycotting down in Ireland. We believe honestly that we have discovered a better way, and we are at all events justified by the experience of time in believing that our best chance of making Ireland as free from this kind of offence as happily it is from what is called ordinary crime is to endeavour to make the people of Ireland have confidence in the law and not regard it as something manufactured by their enemies. That, at all events, is the desire we have, and I say without hesitation that His Majesty's Ministers support this Motion. It is only in accordance with our pledges. Happily we have not merely pledges made when we were in opposition to support our position, but we have the experience behind us since we came into office of the righteous administration of the law, which has been attended with the most satisfactory results. With reference to the time when we should give effect to that Resolution, that is very much a matter for ourselves and for Gentlemen from Ireland. We have this session made many promises. We propose after Easter to introduce a measure which is intended to associate the people of Ireland more closely with the administration of the law, and we hope that we shall thereby remove from the administration of the law that black and ugly cloud of suspicion that now hangs over almost everything that an Irish administration does. I hope also to be able to introduce a measure which will effect the restoration of the evicted tenants. We also indicated in the King's Speech that we intend to introduce a measure for the higher education of the people of Ireland. These will necessarily occupy a great deal of time, and I do not think it would be wise for the Irish people at this time to enter into the conflict with another Chamber which would possibly arise in attempting to repeal this Statute. But let it be understood that to-night, at all events, we shall express our fixed determination so to do when the earliest opportunity affords itself, and it is only because I believe that we can devote the time of this session to better and more effective purposes that we adopt this attitude. As long as the present Administration remains in power this Act is, to all intents and purposes, dead and buried, and so far as this Resolution is concerned, His Majesty's Ministers not only offer it no opposition, but certainly wish it well and give it their support.

MR. WALTER LONG (Dublin, S.)

It was quite unnecessary for the Chief Secretary to drag in a reference to another place, for the programme of Irish legislation which the right hon. Gentleman has disclosed is likely to occupy a longer period of Parliamentary time than the Government will be able to give to Irish business this session. We, on this side of the House, were not surprised at the declaration which the Chief Secretary has made. It accords with the view of Ministers when they sat on the Opposition benches and voted in favour of the repeal of this Act. Therefore their action is consistent. None the less, it is profoundly to be regretted. It is remarkable that the Attorney-General for Ireland adopted the line taken by the Chief Secretary and has told us that as Attorney-General he could not be trusted fairly to administer an Act of Parliament. I am reluctant to follow the Attorney-General for Ireland on a point of law, but I am informed that on two points in reference to criminal law procedure the Attorney-General for Ireland is quite wrong. He said it was an unfair Act because it gave the Crown or the Attorney-General, when an order for change of venue was made, the right to select the place of trial. That is inaccurate.

MR. CHERRY

What I explained was that I thought it an unfair thing in the administration of the law for the Crown or the Attorney-General to have the absolute right of change of venue. The law ought to be equal, and the same privilege given to the prisoner as to the Crown.

MR. WALTER LONG

I will not argue the point. My right hon. and learned friend near me, who is as good an authority on law as the learned Attorney-General, holds that the prisoner has power to apply to vary or alter the order, and such an applicant is covered in regard to his costs. It is obvious that, if the opinion of my right hon. and learned friend is accurate, the Attorney-General's declaration is inaccurate. Then the Attorney-General said the Act ought to apply to the country at large, and added, "Fancy applying it to all the trade unions!" But he forgot that there was a section which expressly provided that it should not apply to trade unions. But it is with the latter part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech that we feel the greatest dissatisfaction. My hon. and learned friend the Member for South Derry has gone carefully and exhaustively into the evidence afforded by the charges of certain Judges, including the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, and he has referred specifically to cases which showed the kind of boycotting which is in existence in Ireland. The Attorney-General passed over all those references, and dealt with them by producing evidence of a different kind. We ought to have had from the Irish Government some more complete answer to these charges than eloquent declarations by the Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General that they are as much opposed to boycotting as we on this side. The Attorney-General has assured us that we do not differ in aims, only in methods. The Chief Secretary unfairly, unjustly, and unnecessarily attacked my hon. friends behind me for the part they have taken in the debate. The right hon. Gentleman said it is regrettable that they should have made the case they have made. Why? Are their statements incorrect? Can they be disproved? If so, I will admit that the censure is justified; but, if not, my hon. friends have done no more than their duty, not only to their constituents, but to thousands of men and women in Ireland who take a very different view of the extent to which boycotting prevails, and regard it as not only cruel and tyrannical, but as something which the Government can if they choose lessen, if not get rid of. The Attorney-General has told us that when he took office he made up his mind to depart from the practice he found in existence and to conduct what he himself described as an experiment; but when the right hon. and learned Gentleman claimed that it has already proved to be a success, he did not think it necessary to deal with the remarkable charges of the Judges, or with the specific cases which have been quoted. Of these cases the Government, must have cognisance, and they cannot be disposed of by the sentimental declarations of a disapproval of boycotting. The matter has been dismissed to-night in a few sentences. The House has been told that boycotting throughout Ireland is diminishing. The Opposition has never said it existed over the whole of Ireland. Their case is that in parts of Ireland boycotting is deplorably rife, and that the Government ought not to deprive themselves of any powers by which it may be got rid of. The Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General are too sanguine as to the results of their policy. The Oppo-

sition take no delight in narrating these cases of intimidation and boycotting; they have no wish to make Party capital or to blacken the character of Irishmen. We have simply acted in the discharge of a duty to our constituents. We have spoken in the name of a number of people who are suffering bitterly, and who feel that the Government does not at present appreciate the gravity of their case, and who have charged hon. Members to see that before any rash or ill-judged action is arrived at a statement of their case shall be put before the House and the country.

Question put.

The House divided: —Ayes, 252; Noes, 83. (Division List No. 43.)

AYES.
Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.	Collins, Sir Wm. J.(S. Pancras, W	Hayden, John Patrick
Abraham, William (Rhondda)	Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Gr'st'd	Hemmerde, Edward George
Adkins, W. Ryland D.	Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.	Henderson, Arthur (Durham)
Agnew, George William	Cotton, Sir H. J. S.	Henry, Charles S.
Alden, Percy	Cremer, William Randal	Herbert, Colonel Ivor (Mon., S.)
Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)	Crossley, William J.	Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)
Armstrong, W. C. Heaton	Cullinan, J.	Higham, John Sharp
Astbury, John Meir	Davies, Timothy (Fulham)	Hobart, Sir Robert
Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.	Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)	Hobhouse, Charles E. H.
Balfour, Robert (Lanark)	Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.	Hodge, John
Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)	Dickinson, W. H.(St. Pancras,N.	Hogan, Michael
Barlow, Percy (Bedford)	Dillon, John	Hope, W. Bateman(Somerset, N
Barnes, G. N.	Dolan, Charles Joseph	Horridge, Thomas Gardner
Barran, Rowland Hirst	Duffy, William J.	Howard, Hon. Geoffrey
Barry, E. (Cork, S.)	Duncan, C.(Barrow-in-Furness)	Jackson, R. S
Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.	Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)	Jenkins, J.
Beauchamp, E.	Elibank, Master of	Johnson, John (Gateshead)
Beck, A. Cecil	Erskine, David C.	Jones, Leif (Appleby)
Bell, Richard	Esslemont, George Birnie	Jones, William (Carnarvonshire
Benn, W.(T'w'r H'mlets, S. Geo.	Everett, R. Lacey	Jowett, F. W.
Berridge, T. H. D.	Farrell, James Patrick	Joyce, Michael
Bertram, Julius	Fenwick, Charles	Kearley, Hudson E.
Bethell, Sir J.H.(Essex, R'mf'd	Findlay, Alexander	Kennedy, Vincent Paul
Billson, Alfred	Flavin, Michael Joseph	Kilbride, Denis
Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine	Flynn, James Christopher	King, Alfred John (Knutsford
Boland, John	Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter	Laidlaw, Robert
Bramsdon, T. A.	Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry	Lamont, Norman
Bright, J. A.	Fuller, John Michael F.	Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)
Brunner, J.F.L. (Lancs., Leigh	Fullerton, Hugh	Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accringt'n
Bryce, J. Annan	Gardner, Col. Alan (Hereford, S.	Lehmann, R. C.
Buckmaster, Stanley O.	Gill, A. H.	Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich
Burke, E. Haviland-	Ginnell, L.	Levy, Maurice
Burns, Rt. Hon. John	Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John	Lewis, John Herbert
Burnyeat, W. J. D.	Glover, Thomas	Lough, Thomas
Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles	Gooch, George Peabody	Lundon, W.
Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.	Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)	Lupton, Arnold
Carr-Gomm, H. W.	Griffith, Ellis J.	Lynch, H. B.
Causton, Rt. Hn.RichardKnight	Gwynn, Stephen Lucius	Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)
Cheetham, John Frederick	Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.	Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.
Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.	Hall, Frederick	MacNeill, John Gordon Swift
Clarke, C. Goddard	Halpin, J.	Macpherson, J. T.
Cleland, J. W.	Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis	MacVeigh, Charles (Donegal, E.
Clough, William	Hart-Davies, T.	M'Callum, John M.
Coats, Sir T. Glen (Renfrew, W.)	Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)	M'Crae, George
Cobbold, Felix Thornley	Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.	M'Hugh, Patrick A.
Cogan, Denis J.	Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)	M'Kean, John
Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)	Haworth, Arthur A.	M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald
M'Killop, W.	Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)	Taylor, John W. (Durham)
M'Micking, Major G.	Pirie, Duncan V.	Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)
Maddison, Frederick	Power, Patrick Joseph	Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury
Manfield, Harry (Northants)	Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central	Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)
Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)	Radford. G. H.	Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)
Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston)	Rainy, A. Rolland	Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr
Marnham, F. J.	Raphael, Herbert H.	Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E
Massie, J.	Reddy, M.	Tomkinson, James
Meehan, Patrick A.	Redmond, John E. (Waterford	Torrance, Sir A. M.
Menzies, Walter	Redmond, William (Clare)	Verney, F. W.
Micklem, Nathaniel	Rees, J. D.	Wadsworth, J.
Montgomery, H. G.	Richardson, A.	Walsh, Stephen
Mooney, J. J.	Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)	Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)
Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)	Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)	Ward, W. Dudley (Southampt'n
Morrell, Philip	Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'd	Wardle, George J.
Morse, L. L.	Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)	Waring, Walter
Morton, Alpheus Cleophas	Robinson, S.	Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)
Murphy, John	Robson, Sir William Snowdon	Waterlow, D. S.
Myer, Horatio	Roche, Augustine (Cork)	Whitbread, Howard
Nicholls, George	Roche, John (Galway, East)	White, George (Norfolk)
Nicholson, Charles N.(Donc'r)	Roe, Sir Thomas	White, Luke (York, E. R.
Nolan, Joseph	Rogers, F. E. Newman	White, Patrick (Meath, North)
Norton, Capt. Cecil William	Rowlands, J.	Whitehead, Rowland
Nuttall, Harry	Runciman, Walter	Whiteley, George (York, W. R.
O'Brien, Kendal (Tipperary Mid	Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)	Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)
O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)	Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne	Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer
O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)	Seddon, J.	Williams, J. (Glamorgan)
O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)	Shackleton, David James	Williamson, A.
O'Doherty, Philip	Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)	Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)
O'Donnell, T. (Kerry, W.)	Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.)	Wilson, J. W. (Worcestersh.,N.)
O'Dowd, John	Sherwell, Arthur James	Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)
O'Grady, J.	Silcock, Thomas Ball	Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)
O'Kelly, James(Roscommon, N.	Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John	Wood, T. M'Kinnon
O'Malley, William	Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie	Young, Samuel
O'Mara, James	Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.
O'Shaughnessy, P. J.	Strauss, E. A. (Abingdon)	Tellers for the Ayes—Sir
Parker, James (Halifax)	Summerbell, T.	Thomas Esmonde and Capt.
Partington, Oswald	Sutherland, J. E.	Donelan.
NOES.
Anson, Sir William Reynell	Craik, Sir Henry	Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield
Anstruther-Gray, Major	Cross, Alexander	O'Neill, Hon. Robert Torrens
Arkwright, John Stanhope	Dalrymple, Viscount	Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlingt'n
Ashley, W. W.	Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-	Powell, Sir Francis Sharp
Aubrey-Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir H.	Du Cros, Harvey	Ratcliff, Major R. F.
Balcarres, Lord	Duncan, Robert(Lanark, Govan	Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (CityLond.	Fell, Arthur	Roberts, S.(Sheffield, Ecclesall)
Banbury, Sir Frederick George	Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.	Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)
Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)	Forster, Henry William	Salter, Arthur Clavell
Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)	Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)	Sheffield, Sir Berkeley George D.
Beckett, Hon. Gervase	Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)	Sloan, Thomas Henry
Bignold, Sir Arthur	Haddock, George R.	Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East
Bowles, G. Stewart	Hamilton, Marquess of	Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton
Boyle, Sir Edward	Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.	Smith, Hon W. F. D. (Strand)
Bridgeman, W. Clive	Hay, Hon. Claude George	Starkey, John R.
Butcher, Samuel Henry	Hervey, F. W. F.(Bury S. Edm'ds	Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)
Carlile, E. Hildred	Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)	Talbot, Rt. Hn. J.G. (Oxf'dUni.
Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.	Houston, Robert Paterson	Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)
Castlereagh, Viscount	Hunt, Rowland	Thornton, Percy M.
Cave, George	Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H.	Vincent, Col. Sir C. E. Howard
Cavendish, Rt. Hon. Victor C.W.	Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn. Col. W.	Walrond, Hon. Lionel
Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)	Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.	Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)
Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)	Lane-Fox, G. R.	Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm
Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham	Liddell, Henry	Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-
Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow	Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R.	Younger, George
Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)	Long,Rt.Hn.Walter (Dublin,S.
Courthope, G. Loyd	Lonsdale, John Brownlee	TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir
Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S	MacIver, David (Liverpool)	Alexander Acland-Hood and
Craig,Captain James (Down, E.	Moore, William	Viscount Valentia.