§ Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [17th February], "That the letter written by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme constitutes a gross libel on Mr. Speaker, and is a grave breach of the privileges of this House."—[Mr. Malcolm.]
§ Question again proposed. Debate resumed.
§ The PRIME MINISTERWhen this Motion was proposed on Friday last, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme withdrew from the House during its discussion. I have reason to believe that my hon. Friend would like to make a fresh statement to the House, and under those circumstances I suggest that he might be summoned to resume his seat.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI take it that the House would wish to hear the hon. Member.
§ Mr. WEDGWOOD, having entered the House, rose in his place, and addressing the Chair, said: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke on Friday I was so surprised at the publication of my letter that I was unable to appreciate the whole bearing of the 1554 matter upon you, Sir, and upon the House. I therefore desire to make this further statement. The letter I wrote to the hon. Member for Westmeath was written on the spur of the moment under an impulsive feeling that he was in trouble and had been courageous and straightforward. It was intended as a private letter, and I never dreamt of its being published. I might take my stand on the undoubted sanctity of an Englishman's private correspondence, but I will not do so. I prefer to leave that defence to the sense of justice of this House. The letter has been published, and has not only been published, but it has had public attention specially drawn to it, and I feel that, under the circumstances, the only proper course for me to take is to offer to you, Sir, and to the House, a full and unreserved apology for any wrong or objectionable expressions contained in the letter, to say that I entirely withdraw all such expressions, and to beg you and the House to accept the assurance of my profound regret for the whole incident.
§ Mr. SPEAKERSpeaking for myself I accept most readily the apology which the hon. Member has offered in a very hand- 1555 some and straightforward manner, and I feel sure that, on reflection, and especially if the hon. Member has time to look at the Official Report for last year and this year he will come to the conclusion that he and the particular cause which he cherishes had a very fair share of the time of the House. I feel sure I can recommend to the House that, under the circumstances, and after the apology which the hon. Member has offered to the House as well as myself, that the Motion moved by the hon. Member for Croydon (Mr. Malcolm) should be withdrawn.
§ Mr. MALCOLMAfter what has fallen from the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and from yourself, Mr. Speaker, I beg to accept your suggestion, and I ask leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Mr. MALCOLMThe House, I think, will perhaps desire that I should now substitute for the Motion which I have withdrawn another one.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHMr. Speaker, on a point of Order——
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe last Motion has been withdrawn, and there is nothing before the House. The hon. Member will have an opportunity later, on a Motion which is about to be submitted.
§ Mr. MALCOLMMy Motion is in the following terms:—
That the publication by the hon. Member for North Westmeath in the 'Midland Reporter' newspaper of 9th February, 1911, of the letter written by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme constitutes a grave breach of the privileges of this House.I should like to add that this is the first moment that the hon. Member for North Westmeath has really become implicated in this very unfortunate, if not disgraceful, business. I say that in no offensive sense whatever. Until we knew that that letter had been written by the hon. Member—it was only purported to be written before—until we knew it was a private communication, the hon. Member for North Westmeath was not primâ facie implicated at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] That is why, after a consultation with the Patronage Secretary and others, I gave no notice to the hon. Member for North Westmeath, who, I understand, was in the Library during the whole incident. 1556 I wrote to the hon. Member the moment I knew the sense of the House to tell him this was going to take place this afternoon. I suppose, therefore, that he will be in his place to make the necessary explanation. I beg to move.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe House will probably desire at the earliest opportunity to hear what the hon. Member for North Westmeath has to say in the matter.
§ Mr. GINNELLAlthough some hon. Members of this House do not seem disposed to allow that any opinion of mine can be correct, I venture to think that the rules of this House should not allow any hon. Member to raise a matter involving the conduct of another without giving notice of that intention to that other Member. So far as I am concerned, I accept the explanation that has just been given on that point. Had notice been given, or had I been sent for to the Library, where I was last Friday unconscious of what was going on here, I would, of course, have come here and the matter could have been disposed of at that sitting. That course not having been followed, my first duty to-day is to tender, as I now do in the most unreserved manner, to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme my apology for having taken a liberty with what was obviously a personal letter, though not marked "private," and my sincere regret for any annoyance my act may have caused him. I, and I alone, am responsible for the publication of his letter. He, and he alone, is entitled to complain of my act, [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh."] I regret the necessity for it, but I meant no discourtesy to the hon. Member. Any other person feeling disposed to criticise my act, would do well to read about Sir Robert Peel's treatment of Sir Richard Cobden's private letter of the 23rd June, 1846.
On the general subject I have no desire to occupy much time. This House is concerned to maintain first the impartiality of the Chair, and, secondly, the reputation of the Chair for impartiality. Given the first, the second would be an easy task. Without the first, the second would be impossible and undesirable. The maintenance of the first concerns not only this House but the State as well, and in this case especially Ireland. To inform the public of anything seriously wrong and dangerous in the conduct of public business, especially in Parliament, is treated as a public duty by hon. Members and all parties alike, a duty surpassing and super- 1557 seding all personal feelings. The letter unquestionably, not having been marked "private," and corroborating as it did my own view of a great and dangerous evil, I sent it to the Press in discharge of my public duty, that some people, at all events, might know, as they are entitled to know, how their business is done here. A single individual, in attacking powerful and unscrupulous vested interests, in order to allow himself any chance of success, must not be more virtuous than they. That would be quixotic. I shall not detain the House long. It is not uncommon, as a Session advances, to hear in the conversation of Members criticism of the Chair more drastic than any contained in the letter now in question, but in matters in which all party machines work in the same direction their jointinfluence is so powerful that the frankness of the tea-room and other places is not repeated in this Chamber, and the abuse is allowed to continue. The same joint influence, operating through a subsidised Irish Press, also renders it necessary for a man to fortify himself against misrepresentation in his own country. This House gives so little heed to Dublin newspapers that the possibility of its ever seeing an Irish provincial newspaper was remote. The letter might have performed its mission without disturbing anybody here, but if any busybody did send a copy to this House—a contingency not altogether forgotten—it might help to direct further public attention to an important matter, and incidentally show there are ways of reaching Mr. Speaker besides a Vote of Censure.
We are all duly impressed with the opinions of Leaders that the impartiality of the Chair should not be questioned The said Leaders would render better service to the Chair and to the country if they adopted the opinion of humbler men that the conduct of the Chair should be strictly impartial and exercised their undoubted power to bring that state of things into existence. Had they done that, there would never have been any occasion for me to bring the matter under the notice of the House. We commonly, and I think rightly, regard the party Whips as agents of their Leaders. We must assume the Leaders to be fully cognisant of the character and effect of their agents' conduct, by which they complacently profit. We listen in vain for any repudiation of the Whips by their Leaders, or for any apology or amend to the Members wronged. They even adopt the language of the Whips and apply to Members of Parliament, duly 1558 elected like themselves, the offensive slang epithet: "Private Members." There is no such thing as a Private Member of Parliament. The phrase means the "gagged Members," who are allowed no part in the business of the House but a mechanical part, which could be performed equally well by puppets worked by wires. The specific complaint against the Speaker and against the Chairman of Ways and Means is that by receiving from party Whips lists of Members, secretly selected, and giving them precedence in Debate, they, consciously or unconsciously, cooperate with the Whips in depriving of their undoubted rights the Members maliciously kept off those lists. This unfair, illegal, and unconstitutional——
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINOn a point of Order——
§ Mr. GINNELLAm I to be allowed to proceed?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman rose on a point of Order, and I want to hear what it is.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINOn a point of Order, I wanted to ask whether the hon. Member, under the cover of a personal explanation, which I understand he was invited to make, is entitled to reiterate the charges which are the subject of the Motion of condemnation moved on this side?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is not exactly an ordinary personal explanation which the hon. Member is entitled to give. The hon. Member is put upon his defence, and, in making his defence, I am sure the House will give him every latitude.
§ Mr. GINNELLI thank you Mr. Speaker. I undertake to be as brief as possible and get away. This unfair, illegal, and unconstitutional practice is wholly indefensible. It is a practice which a competent court would have no hesitation in finding to be illegal, unconstitutional, and probably corrupt. No one is likely to have those party tactics submitted to judicial investigation. It would be too expensive an undertaking, because the funds and influences of all parties would be freely used to thwart and defeat it. Wealthy men who alone could afford the expense are left no occasion for doing so. The principal thing which I think the House should bear in mind is that in the present case there is no real question at issue. The prevalence of the unfair and 1559 unconstitutional practice is admitted. You, sir, have admitted it to me at the Chair. It is proved by the custom of announcing in advance in the public newspapers the names of those who will catch the Speaker's eye at a given hour on a given night. Such a forecast of the will of this House is tantamount to saying that this House has no will. It is a flagrant breach of principle, which any Minister, solicitous for the reputation of the Chair and for the dignity of the House, would stop peremptorily. That and similar practices have made the phrase "catching the Speaker's eye" a standing jest and byword. Does the House call that impartiality? I call it organised partiality, and the question before the House is whether one may say so or not. As a matter of fact, that practice is not an exercise of the Speaker's judgment at all. It is an obedient carrying out by him of foregone decisions of men who as whips are not answerable to the Chair and not answerable to this House, I submit that a practice of such far-reaching effects is unfair and illegitimate, and may be so described until embodied in the Standing Orders; and I challenge any Member of this House who approves of this practice to move to have the practice embodied in the Standing Orders. When the Speaker, in execution of those unfair secret decisions, denies to Members their equal right of speaking on public subjects in this House, he inevitably promotes criticism of himself and diminishes his right to complain. When the Speaker deliberately, and against private protest at that Chair, makes himself, in effect, the agent of party Whips, his grievance, on just complaint being made, is against those Whips.
As the practice cannot be denied, neither can the fact that it is unconstitutional. Apart from the Law and the Standing Orders, which give no countenance whatever to the practice, the secresy and stealthiness of the practice brand it as vile. It would be absurd to deny that a practice which favours one set of Members at the expense of another set of Members is unfair on the very face of it. Such a practice and impartiality cannot co-exist. You cannot have the advantages of it, whatever they may be, and a reputation for impartiality. You must choose either one or the other. The effect of the practice goes much further than the order of speaking in Debate. It extends to the whole field of politics, and costs the public enormous sums of money. It enables 1560 leaders interested in the maintenance of the practice to occupy nearly all the time allowed for Debate in Committees of Supply and Ways and Means, thus silencing Members who come here prepared with wholesome criticisms of the various spending departments for extravagance or other faults. When a certain hour is reached, the Speaker or Chairman stands reading a litany of votes of millions of the people's money, and the people's representatives are not allowed to utter one word. You may, if you like, call that legislation, but you cannot prevent the outside public from calling it wire-pulling, and if you sanction conduct that leads to those results you will find it difficult to maintain anywhere except within these walls any reputation worth having. Under such a system the business of legislation might as well be delegated to the Party Whips, who are quite capable of working toys labelled with our names, and the rest of us, including, I suppose, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who might go into the country and amuse themselves with golf or cattle-driving, according to taste. My interest in this is one sense less, and in another more than that of almost any other Member. I have not the slightest ambition either to reform this House or to speak in it, provided that views which I know to be sound are expressed by somebody. If they are not, I desire an impartial opportunity of expressing them within the limits of time and order. There is nothing improper in that desire. It is those who would deprive me of that opportunity that offend against this House as well as against me, and it is my bounden duty to expose and frustrate their tricks. I do not, like some Members of this House, profess a duplicate patriotism. I have but one country, and that is Ireland—Ireland against the only country in the world that has robbed, ruined, and wrecked her and to whom her present condition is a lasting disgrace. So long as you insist upon Irish representatives coming to this House you ought, if you have any regard for your reputation or that of your Chair, to give them a fair hearing in matters relating to their country. When you do that, and not until then, I shall gladly profess belief in the impartiality which your present practice gives you no right to claim. Some newspapers represent me as having made a personal attack upon you, Sir. There is nothing whatever personal about it. I am concerned in you only as Speaker of the House of Commons. The sole object 1561 of my attack is a system which no Speaker could work impartially and which no Speaker should work at all, their being no warrant for it in the rules of the House. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the House for having given me such a fair hearing.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member will, according to usual custom, withdraw while his conduct is under discussion.
§ Mr. GINNELLwithdrew from the House.
§ Mr. MacVEAGHAlthough I am not implicated in this question of breach of privilege, yet as my name has, much to my surprise, been drawn into the controversy, I desire to state exactly what happened. On the day of your election, Mr. Speaker, a group of Members, of whom the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme was one, was discussing in the Library the speech delivered earlier in the day by the hon. Member for Westmeath. Some one said during the conversation that the hon. Member for Westmeath had availed himself of the only opportunity which the rules of this House afforded any Member of criticising your conduct in the Chair. As a matter of procedure I replied that it was open to any Member who felt he had a grievance against you, or the Chairman of Committees, to put down a Motion of Censure upon you or the Chairman, and I stated, as a matter of fact, there were numerous precedents in the records of the House for such action being taken. In that sense only did I say that the proper way was to move according to censure. I added, Mr. Speaker, if any hon. Member cared to earn immortality for himself by putting down that Motion, he would stand a better chance of catching your eye the next time he rose, and I also said that if a discussion and division should follow on such a Motion there could not be the slightest doubt as to the result. In the same conversation I stated that, in my judgment, there was no practical grievance in the fact that lists of names were handed by the Party Whips to the Speaker or Chairman of Committees, because, I argued, it was difficult to see how it could possibly be arranged that all of the 670 Members of this House who desired to speak should be allowed to speak on every Motion that came before the House. As a matter of fact, I urged that the present Speaker had always consulted what he believed to be the wishes of the House, and he had, again and again, called upon hon. Members whom he believed the House wished 1562 to hear, even although the names of those hon. Members did not appear on the lists. I instanced the cases of Mr. Harold Cox, Mr. Healy, and Mr. Gibson Bowles in the last Parliament, who, although they were not on the lists of any party, were always called, when they rose, to address the House. I also expressed the conviction, which I repeat with all respect, that in my judgment nobody had ever filled the Chair with more impartiality than the present occupant. I have never experienced at your hands anything but the greatest and kindest courtesy, and I should not like it to be thought for a moment that I repaid that courtesy and kindness by one word of hostile criticism.
§ Mr. SPEAKERPerhaps the House will allow me to say a word or two. I need hardly say I do not propose to defend myself against the charge of partiality, but the House might like to know exactly how matters stand with regard to what has been termed the system of handing in lists of Members. As a rule, when a Debate takes place it is extremely convenient for the Speaker, and this also includes the Chairman of Committees, to know what Members on either side of the House are prepared with speeches with regard to the particular motion under discussion. The time of the House is often restricted, and the Chair is anxious to discover the most representative men in order to call them, so that the views of all different sections of the House may be before it. In 1906, when I was confronted by a very large number of new faces, I asked the Whips, continuing a former custom, to supply me with the names of Members desiring to take part in debate. That custom has continued. It is only applicable to what the House calls full-dress debates. I do not consider myself, and I am sure the Chairman of Committees does not consider himself, in any way limited in our discretion to call only the names appearing on the list. It is a great convenience to the Chair to know what Gentlemen are particularly interested in the subject matter which is under discussion. One hon. Member has been kind enough to inform me—a matter of which I was not aware—that although his name never appeared on any official list handed in either to myself or to the Chairman of committees, during one Session he was called upon no fewer than twenty times. I think that that is a sufficient refutation of the suggestion that the Chairman of Committees and myself are in any way limited to the list of names. Notwithstanding what has been 1563 said, I shall certainly continue to ask for and receive lists from all parties in this House, because I conceive that it is of great value to the Chair, in enabling it to give to all sections of the House proper representation in their due proportion in the debates that take place.
§ The PRIME MINISTERI am sure the House is grateful to you, and so, I think, will the public outside be for the fair statement that you have just made of the practice which has regulated your own procedure, and, if my memory is correct, that of preceding Speakers—[HON. MEMBERS: "No, no"]—yes, preceding Speakers in regard to this matter, but whether of preceding Speakers or not, I think I shall carry with me the almost unanimous assent of the House when I say that that practice, as it has been pursued under your guidance and with your authority, has conduced to freedom of Debate and to the fullest representation of all sections. That is an interesting and an important point, but it is not the matter which is mainly before the House. The question is whether or not the publication now admitted by the hon. Gentleman opposite of this letter was in the terms of the Motion a breach of the privileges of the House. The House has listened with patience—and not, I think, undue patience—because it is always anxious to extend the utmost latitude to any of its Members put on his defence—the House has listened with patience to the hon. Gentleman's explanation, but I am afraid I must also add it has listened to it with disappointment. There was one point, and one only, in the hon. Gentleman's speech, which, I think, we all heard with gratification—that was the apology which he tendered my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme for circulating in a public newspaper what was obviously intended to be a private and, indeed, confidential communication. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has expressed in the fullest and handsomest terms his regret, and I cannot help thinking that the House would have been more than satisfied if the hon. Gentleman opposite had followed so excellent an example. What is the statement for the publication of which the hon. Gentleman assumes responsibility? It is not an attack on the system by which party Whips submit names to the Speaker. It is a direct charge against the Speaker himself that "he is not a bit impartial."
1564 As you said on Friday, this is not a personal matter. As far as the Speaker and the Chairman are concerned they could well afford to treat it with contempt. But it is a matter which does affect the dignity of the House of Commons, because the House itself, as a deliberative Assembly, has its credit impaired and decreased if an allegation is allowed to go forth to the world to the effect that its presiding officer is habitually guilty of partiality in the conduct of its proceedings. I cannot, therefore, think that it is possible to treat it as a matter in which the privileges of the House do not come in. The hon. Gentleman has indulged in a long argument against the practice of submitting names to the Speaker before what is called a full-dress Debate, and he says that it was under a sense of duty, in pursuance of his deep-rooted objection to this practice, that he sent this letter to the newspaper. I am bound to point out to him that on the first night of the Session the hon. Gentleman had his opportunity, of which he availed himself to the full, of developing his objection to our present form of proceeding, and before you, Sir, were reelected and took your seat in that Chair, the House had an opportunity of hearing from you—I will not say a vindication, for no vindication was needed—but an explanation of the practice you had pursued in the past; and it was after that explanation had been given that, with the express assent of all parties in the House, you were invited to resume the position which you had previously occupied. Then the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down appears to have pointed out in conversation—and it is familiar, of course, to all students of the procedure and practice of this House—that if any Member feels himself aggrieved by the action of the Chairman or the Speaker in matters of this kind the remedy is in his own hands. He has only to put down, as I believe the hon. Gentleman has done, a Motion of Censure, calling attention to the practice which he deprecates and condemns, and he may be quite sure, as the hon. Gentleman himself very truly as well as wittily said, that after putting down that Motion he would not catch the Speaker's eye wandering in a different direction when it came on for discussion. I regret to submit to the House that there can be no justification either for what the hon. Gentleman has said or for the course which he has pursued. I deeply regret it. The House is always most unwilling to declare that the act of an outsider, and still more the act of any of its 1565 own Members, constitutes a breach of its privileges. It is always willing up to the last moment and at the eleventh hour to receive from the hon. Member whose conduct is impeached in the most conciliatory and indulgent spirit any real and genuine expression of regret or apology put forward. In the present case I need not say that I feel bound to express the opinion that that expression which we all anxiously looked for has not been given, and under these circumstances I do not think it would be possible to resist the Motion which the hon. Gentleman has made.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI only desire in a single sentence to express my complete concurrence in what the Prime Minister has said.
§ Mr. BYLESI ask your leave, Sir, and the leave of the House, to say one word in this Debate, and I would not do so if I did not believe that I was expressing a view which is held by a great many units in this House, whether they are a party or not. You have indicated that the practice of receiving lists from the Whips of those who address the House, and there is no doubt about it, is a practice giving great convenience to you and the Chairman of Committees, and I do not wish for a moment to question it. The Prime Minister also justified the plan and thought it a good one, but I do want to enter this one word of caution, that, although it may be a great convenience to you and of general appreciation to the House, it may very likely have the effect of preventing many Members of this House—units of this House—who have never got into any party lists at all, from being heard. I am quite sure that there are many men who think this as well as myself, and I do think that caution is necessary in regard to this method, so that individual Members should not be prejudiced thereby. One speaker in this Debate made use of a phrase which throws a good deal of light on the subject. He said he believed it was the practice of the Speaker to call upon those whom the House wished to hear. I do not know whether that may be so or not, but I do venture to press upon my fellow Members of the House that it is extremely desirable that the House should sometimes have to listen to those whom it does not wish to hear.
§ Mr. JOHN REDMONDI am anxious to say just two or three words before this matter proceeds any further. First, Sir, I desire to associate myself with what has 1566 already been said, that it would be an absurd proposition to lay down that there was anything improper or heretical in criticising the action of the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees. It is the right of every Member of this House who considers that the action of the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees is wrong to call that action in question; and not only is it the fact that we shall find several old precedents for that, but even within recent years, when Mr. Speaker Gully was in the Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Newry put a Motion on the Paper calling attention to the action of Mr. Speaker Gully on a particular matter, that he balloted for the Motion, got an evening, and there was a Debate and Division upon it. Therefore, I must not be taken as saying that the hon. Member for Westmeath is censurable merely because he expressed disapproval of the conduct of the Speaker of the House. My objection to the action of the hon. Member is that he did not take the honourable, fair, and constitutional way of raising that question, which is not by general statement published outside this House as to general conduct, but by specific Motion put upon the Paper here and discussed in the usual way. The next thing I want to say is about these party lists. The hon. Member for Westmeath was for many years a Member of the Irish party, and the practice of that party has been this. Whenever one of these Debates has been coming on we held a meeting of the party, and we discussed the question of who-should speak, and the names on the lists handed to you are names not selected by me, not selected by the Party Whips, but selected by the unanimous decision of the whole of our party. That was the practice when the hon. Member was a Member of our party, and if ever he was excluded from those lists it must have been his own fault, because he never objected to the decision that we came to in selecting the names.
I think myself, as an old Member of the House, that it would be quite impossible satisfactorily to carry on important discussions on these occasions if some arrangement were not made with reference to the selection of speakers. It would be an absurd thing to have those men who, on the Front Government Bench or the Front Opposition Bench, or on other benches, are specially representative of this or that special policy and idea and wholly responsible for it excluded from taking part in these Debates, and that 1567 private Members who have no such responsibility and no such claim to speak were to be put in their place. With reference to the substance of the complaint that has been made in the letter that has been published, I am sure that neither you nor the House require any statement from me. My colleagues and I have had a long experience of Mr. Speaker (and I would say also of the Chairman of Committees), and we say that we have found in him not only courtesy and fairness but the utmost justice and impartiality. If we felt that he had in our judgment behaved improperly or unjustly we would not shrink for a moment from doing towards him what we did towards Mr. Speaker Gully, and moving a Motion. We have had no such occasion. We believe that he has acted with justice and impartiality, and we regret sincerely, everyone of us, that this letter was ever written or published. But now, what steps are the Government going to take? The action of the Government in a matter of this kind must have only one object—to maintain the dignity of the House, and uphold the proper authority of the Chair. That will be done if you pass this Resolution, and I am sure if you go one step further and attempt to inflict any punishment upon the hon. Member you would be injuring the object you have in view. As one who entirely disassociates himself from the charge made, and who deeply regrets it was made, I do humbly suggest to the House that, having passed the Resolution that this is a breach of privilege, you should allow this miserable incident to drop.
§ Mr. RAMSAY MACDONALDWill the House allow me to address it for one moment before it takes any further action. On Friday I expressed the view of myself and my colleagues on this matter, and I do not intend for a moment to go over the ground again. We have not changed our opinion in the least since we have read the letter, but the situation to-day is that the letter itself has been withdrawn and apologised for. Then we have the explanation of the hon. Member for Westmeath and the observation I have to make with reference to that is this, that in defending himself to-day the hon. Member has raised a totally new point. It is not a point that was contained in the original libel. It is a point that relates to certain matters which have grownup in the conduct of the business of this House, and I think that whatever view we may take of these 1568 matters that view will not in the least influence our conduct in voting with reference to the Motion before the House. In fact if that matter is to be discussed, and I think a great many Members on both sides of the House will agree that such a matter may very properly be discussed, I am sure that nobody desires that it should be discussed or considered in relation in any way whatever to the original libel which was brought before the House on Friday. Therefore the statement made originally so far as regards these lists of names and so far as this matter is concerned, we have already forgotten. We do not remember the affair at all. I should like to say, however, that so far as our practice is concerned it has been of precisely the same character as that explained by my hon. and learned Friend opposite (Mr. John Redmond). We have never put forward any list either to the Speaker or the Chairman of Committees, but that these lists have been first of all carefully considered by full meetings of our party and settled in every detail at such a meeting. Therefore, no single Member belonging to us has had the least grievance from the practice which Mr. Speaker has adopted.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Mr. JOSEPH MARTINThe hon. and learned Member for Waterford has explained a method of procedure which gives fair play to every one of the Members of his party, and the hon. Member for Leicestershire on behalf of his friends has done the same, and I must say that there will be no difference of opinion in this House as to the desire of every Member to uphold the Speaker in every practical way by repelling anything like an attack upon him for lack of impartiality. Still, in regard to the hon. Member for Westmeath, who the hon. and learned Member for Waterford says has taken the wrong means—apart from that and not wishing to associate myself with it in the least—still I agree with every word that he has stated with regard to the system of furnishing lists [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh. oh."] It is all very well for official Liberals to say "Oh." I especially agreed when the hon. Gentleman spoke of dividing the House into private Members and other Members. While Irish Members and Labour Members under this system can get their rights what is to become of a Member like me? I have been twice elected by a Metropolitan constituency to support the principles 1569 of the Liberal party. In carrying out that mission I have found it necessary from time to time to vote against the Liberal Government because I thought the action they were taking, for the moment, was not in accordance with Liberal principles. We have no such meetings as the Irish and Labour Members have with regard to selecting Members to speak. If there are any such Meetings I have never as yet been summoned to one. Once you vote against the Government you get into their black books. I have found that out. They were not slow in letting me know where I stood, once I voted against the Government.
What is the use of my going to the Whips and asking to get an opportunity to speak upon a question, no matter how important it may be to my Constituency or to the views which I hold in regard to it? So that since this question is in issue, and since it has been announced by you, Sir, that this is the best system for calling upon Members, and that you intend to carry it out, I wish to protest against it. I have heard a great many speeches from the Noble Lord (Lord Hugh Cecil) and others complaining of the great power the Government exercise by taking the time of private Members, but they also exercise it by preventing criticism being directed against them by Members of the House elected to support them who are not satisfied with the course they are pursuing. I desired, particularly, in order to make myself right in my Constituency to say a few words upon a question which was before the House. I sat in my seat for three days. I got up every time a speaker sat down—and a good many other Members of the House got up also—but I began to notice, after I had been here a few hours, that the Member who was called on by the Speaker had not been in the House at all, but slipped in a few moments before the previous speaker sat down, and he got up with all confidence and was immediately called upon. On a subsequent occasion I was very anxious to speak in Committee, and I found I had to wait a long time. Some friends sitting round me said I had not taken the right way, and they told me I should go to the Chairman of Committees and say I desired to speak. Being a new Member I acted upon their advice, being most desirous to comply in every way with the customs of the House. The Chairman said: "What do you want to say?" I shall be here a long time before I shall ever think it proper to explain to the Chairman of Committees what I am going 1570 to say. I sympathise with every word which the hon. Member (Mr. Ginnell) has said to-day, because I did not understand him to be making any particular attack upon you, Sir, but to be making an attack upon a system which I say is not a democratic system, nor one under which private Members, like myself, can get their rights.
§ Mr. JOHN WARDI think while every member probably wants to vote on the Question it would be well, before the opportunity is taken to allow what is peculiarly described as the private Member to express his feelings on the subject. Both Front Benches seem to be agreed that this is the best possible method of conducting Debates in this House, and I dare say if I belonged to the two Front Benches I should think so to. But it lands us in practice, however fair the Speaker or the Chairman may attempt to be—and I have no doubt as to their absolute impartiality—into nearly the whole of the discussion being confined to the two Front Benches, and those whom they, and one or two sections of the House, choose to decide upon as the people proper to address it. I say most emphatically it would be a mistake for you, Sir, to go under the impression that underneath all the discussion that took place when you were introduced to the chair on the opening day of the Session, and underneath the letter of the hon. Member (Mr. Wedgwood), there is not a great deal of discontent. We should be losing a very valuable opportunity if that was not understood. There is a great deal of objection on the part of the private Member who is not considered a strict party man with either party, to this method, and I was extremely sorry to hear that you had decided not to reconsider the situation in the slightest degree. It is true that an hon. Member gave illustrations of cases of men who were not party men, and who never appeared on the party lists, who could always be called upon, either by the Chairman of Committees or by the Speaker. What were the illustrations that he gave? He gave Mr. Cox, Mr. Healy, and Mr. Bowles, three of the most remarkable men in this country. The system is grossly unfair. I am not in a position exactly to verify my statement with reference to what I am now going to say, but I believe it can be verified. I believe you will discover in the records of the House that, not so very many years ago, especially considering the way in which the hon. Member (Mr. Malcolm) usually brings up references to past 1571 speeches, when this very subject was under Debate before, the House condemned the system unanimously on the ground that it was an infringement of the rights of private Members. There are Members, who are called private Members, who do not happen to be in the rut of their party or their section, and who will never have the ghost of a chance, no matter how capable they may be, of being put on the list. A system which condemns a certain number of private men, because they have not the push, or the audacity, or the self-advertisement to impose their presence on this assembly, to be excluded from its Debates and its deliberations is grossly unfair. Therefore, while I myself have never seen anything in the House either from you, Sir, or the Chairman, with which I have ever had the slightest cause of complaint or disagreement, at the same time it would be a mistake for you, and especially the two Front Benches, to think that the ordinary private Member thinks it a fair system that lists should be submitted to the Speaker for him to choose those who shall address the House, because, I believe, if a private ballot were taken on the subject, both Front Benches would have a serious eye-opener.
§ Lord BALCARRESIt falls to my lot to hand in, both to yourself and the Chairman of Committees lists of speakers from the party on these Benches. I should like to say that the lists are entirely composed by the unofficial Members themselves. I have never handed in a name, either to you or to the Chairman of Committees, except at the request of unofficial Members. They know that, having prepared speeches, they would like their names to be submitted, but they also know, as they constantly see my lists, that sometimes two and occasionally three times as many names are sent in, as there is any chance of Members being called. The responsibility for selecting the names sent in does not rest with the Whips on this Bench, and the responsibility for the selection of speakers is exclusively retained by the Chairman.
§ Mr. WATTI desire to express my sympathy with the hon. Member (Mr. Ginnell). This House has many fictions connected with it. For example, there is the fiction that the Front Bench do not desire to keep themselves in office; there is the fiction that the Front Opposition Bench are not desirous of coming over to this side of the House; there is the third fiction, and that is that with which we 1572 are dealing to-day, that the occupants of the Chair of the House become by their election gods or demi-gods. Now, no Member of Parliament is a god. Any god that might inadvertently come into this House would immediately apply for the Chiltern Hundreds, so that, not being gods, but the appointees of parties, we cannot expect that the Whips, in their decisions, shall be anything but human. I venture to think that the occupants of the Chair have a dislike to my countrymen, and that the Scottish representatives in this House do not get justice when they desire to speak. This is the more notable, if one looks at the records of "Hansard" during the Parliament of 1906. During that Parliament there were three Bills brought forward dealing with English education, and in the Debates on these measures, never did a Scotch Member "catch the Speaker's eye." I am told that they approached the Chairman on these occasions, and indicated their desire to speak. They were told: "This is an English measure," and the inference from that is that Scottish opinion was not wanted. That is all very well if the system were carried out in its entirety, but when Scotch measures come up to be discussed in the House, at least 75 per cent. of the Members who talk upon them are Englishmen. Therefore, my case is that my countrymen have not a proper share of the time of this House. In that respect I sympathise with the hon. Member for North Westmeath as to the present position, and I sincerely hope the Government will not, in any way, punish the hon. Member or suspend him from the Service of the House.
§ Sir J. JARDINEI think many of us have learned a great deal during this Debate. This is the third Parliament in which I have sat, and until now I had not the haziest notion as to what effect the lists of names might have on the chances of a Member catching the Speaker's eye. I think we listened with pleasure to the authoritative statement which came from your lips, Sir, and also to the statement made by the Prime Minister. There are many private Members who did not know how they could get themselves heard, for no indication of procedure on that matter could be found in any of the Standing Orders. I may express my satisfaction at your statement that your eyes are not confined to those hon. Members whose names are to be found in the lists with which you are supplied. I believe there are many hon. Members in all parts of this House who, from a sense of reserve, some- 1573 times of disdain, or, it may be, dislike of such a course, would not approach the Whips or others to secure by means of favours an audience which under the laws of Parliament they are not entitled to receive as a right.
§ Mr. EUGENE WASONI did not intend to take part in this discussion had it not been for the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt). He complains that Scotland does not get fair play. I have the honour of being Chairman of the Scottish Liberal representatives, and I think I speak practically on behalf of every one of them when I say that no one would get up and endorse the sentiments of the hon. Member. I do not want to say more than this. The Scottish Liberal Members at present, at any rate, are not in the same position as the Irish Nationalist party or the Independent Labour party. The Irish Nationalist party are independent of both of the great political parties of this House. A very large majority of the Scottish Members belong to the Liberal party. You have only to look at the Treasury Bench to see that Scotland is well represented by Ministers. I do not know that it is necessary for Scottish Members to attempt to catch your eye when their case has been well put on behalf of the Government by the Prime Minister, who is the most distinguished Scottish representative in the House. There are also on that Bench the Secretary of State for War and the Home Secretary, both of whom are distinguished Scottish representatives. I think if we want Government measures to go through the less talking there is on the part of Scottish Members the more likely will be the passing of the measures.
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Master of Ellbank)I do not propose to prolong this Debate for more than a moment. I have merely risen to endorse the statement made by the hon. Member for the Chorley Division (Lord Balcarres) as to the practice which is pursued by the Opposition, and to state that we pursue a similar practice on this side. We find it is for the convenience of Members themselves. Hon. Members who wish to speak inform us, and their request is made known to the Speaker. It saves many of them from approaching the Speaker themselves, and I can only say that so far as my hon. Friend the Member for East St. Pancras (Mr. Martin) is concerned—he fancies that he will now be on our black books if he does not sup- 1574 port the Leader of the House—I shall be most happy if he will, on the first occasion he desires to speak, give me his name to be submitted to the Speaker in order that he may take his chance with other Members of being heard in the Debate.
§ Mr. PIRIEI do not think anyone can accuse me of getting up too often, or, when I do get up, of speaking too long. I generally express what I have to say in a few sentences, and it is with reluctance that I take part in this Debate at all. We have heard what has fallen from the Chairman of the Scottish Liberal Members (Mr. E. Wason). I must say I cannot endorse what he said in any way, nor do I take the view of the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Mr. Watt). I think I might, in a sentence, point the moral of the situation which has been indicated in the expressions of opinion to-day. The impossibility of Scottish Members being able to make their views known in this House is not due to your conduct in the Chair, but to the congestion of business in this House. That is responsible for the present state of affairs, and it is also due in some measure to the exaggerated sense which Members on the two Front Benches have of their own importance. I venture to say that with every confidence. Some of the Debates which took place on the Amendments to the Address were a positive scandal. We private Members did not get the opportunity of making our views known. I allude especially to the Amendment on the subject of Home Rule. Six Members were allowed to take up the time of the House to the prevention of private Members being heard. Within the last three years there have been only two Debates on the Home Rule question, and on both occasions I have not been able to have a single word. Something will have been gained by this Debate if it brings home to hon. Members that the present state of affairs is due to the congestion of business and to the action of both Front Benches. I hope the House will adopt the course suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) and content itself with an expression of opinion without taking any further action.
§ Mr. BURDETT-COUTTSI only want to say one word in support of what fell from you, Mr. Speaker. I have been in the House for twenty-five years, and I do not think I have often trespassed upon the indulgence of the House, but I may say that I have never given my name to the 1575 Whips to be put on their lists, and whenever I have addressed the House it has not been owing to the practice of supplying lists. I mention that fact in illustration of the impartiality of the Chair, though, the practice of supplying lists is one which I believe is essential.
§ The PRIME MINISTERThe House has resolved that the publication of this letter constitutes a grave breach of its privileges. It, therefore, remains now for the House to consider what steps, if any, it will take in pursuance of so unusual and of so serious a Resolution. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) suggested that the House might content itself in recording its opinion that a breach of privilege had been committed. I regret I cannot share that opinion. I do not know of any case in which an attack, such as that with which we are here concerned, on the impartiality of the Chair has been published and circulated by a Member—and the offence has been aggravated in this instance by the fact that the letter he circulated was a private letter which he ought not to have published, and that, although he has been given the fullest opportunity of explaining and apologising for his conduct, he refuses to do so, but adheres to and justifies the attitude he has taken up—I do not think it would be possible to find in the records of the House an instance of conduct of that kind, amounting to breach of privilege, where no consequences followed. Nor do I think it would be a good precedent to set. At the same time, I am perfectly certain that, even now, the House would be very glad if the hon. Member would withdraw from the position he has taken up and frankly express his regret, and allow the House to pass over the incident that has occurred. But in the absence of any such expression, I think we are bound to take action. That action should not be vindictive. It should be, having regard to the circumstance of the case, of as mild a kind as the circumstances will allow. On previous occasions within my own recollection, and that of many who are sitting here, hon. Members who had committed offences of this kind have been suspended for a month or for the rest of the Session and have been excluded from the precincts of the House. I shall not propose that any such course as that shall be taken. I think that 1576 the justice of the case would be met if the House resolves, in view of the Resolution which it has just passed,
That Mr. Ginnell, Member for North Westmeath, be suspended from the service of the House for one week.I move accordingly.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI am sure that it is desirable that the House should be as unanimous as possible on this subject, and I sincerely hope that it will. I therefore make no criticism as to the action which the Government has recommended to the House. I will only say that I concur with the Prime Minister that it is impossible for the House to leave the Resolution which it has just passed without taking any further action in reference to the hon. Member for North Westmeath, and that I think that the Prime Minister has indeed taken the most moderate course it was open for the Leader of the House to take in making the proposal which he has made. There is only one further observation which I wish to make. I desire to emphasise the fact to which the Prime Minister has already called attention that the offence of the hon. Member has nothing to do with the use of lists which are submitted to the Speaker. That may or may not be a desirable practice. For myself I have already associated myself with what the Prime Minister has said as to its advantages. But that is not the offence for which the hon. Gentleman's conduct is brought before the House. It is for publishing a letter in which partiality is imputed directly to the Speaker. That is a quite distinct and very grave matter with which the House will deal very mercifully if it passes the Prime Minister's Motion.
§ Mr. BOTTOMLEYI do not know whether it was in the last Parliament or in the Parliament before—Parliaments succeed each other so rapidly nowadays—that a Motion was before this House on a question of privilege in which the Duke of Norfolk was concerned, and after the discussion had proceeded to a certain extent I ventured to rise in this corner and, following the precedent set by the late Sir William Harcourt under somewhat similar circumstances years ago moved an Amendment to the Motion then before the House "That the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day." The House will permit me to say that if there be one man in this House who has least 1577 cause to complain of your lack of impartiality and generosity in the Chair it is myself. I entered this House five years ago with a cloud of prejudices and suspicion which, perhaps, I deserved, and if I have succeeded—and I speak in all seriousness—in extricating myself one inch from that cloud it is due entirely to the generosity and the impartiality with which you, without any hallmark from the party whips, have given me the opportunity from time to time to express my views. So far as this particular matter is concerned I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) has said. Of course, the question which we are discussing is not the aspect of the party system to which the hon. Member for North Westmeath made such reference, but the publication of that letter which, in express terms, did imply a charge of partiality and political partisanship to the Speaker of this House. But in inflicting a punishment—and I observe that the Attorney-General is here, and he will correct me if I am wrong—the very first question is this: Was there or was there not a guilty intention on the part of the defendant or the party judged? Now whatever we may think of the taste of the letter or of the discretion shown in publishing it no one can doubt the transparent sincerity and honesty of the hon. Member for North Westmeath in wrongly thinking that the publication of that letter was a legitimate protest against a system which almost every Member of this House in his heart condemns. Therefore without detaining the House further, and believing that this unanimous expression of opinion that the action of the hon. Member constitutes a breach of privilege of the House, I believe that it would now commend itself to the more generous instincts of the House, and in the end, if I may respectfully say so, redound more to the dignity of the House it-self if the Amendment which I now venture to move be accepted. I now move: "That the House proceed to the Orders of the Day."
§ Mr. SPEAKERI am afraid that I cannot take the Amendment in that form, because we have already proceeded to the Orders for the Day. I could put the Question in the form of the previous Question—namely, "That the Question be not now put," if that will satisfy the hon. Member.
Mr. Bottomley indicated assent.
§ Mr. WILLIAM O'BRIENIt is to me inconceivable how any Member for Ireland could have failed to observe that the fair- 1578 ness of the Speaker, and even his tenderness for minorities, in this House have been most conspicuous; and I say that, as a member myself of a not very considerable minority in this House, I deplore that the hon. Member for North Westmeath should have attacked in the wrong manner the system which undoubtedly is anything but an ideal one, but for which in conducting the proceedings of this House no one has been able to suggest a remedy, except our own remedy of trying Home Rule. I should hope that, in spite of the attitude which the Prime Minister has taken up, the House would not on this occasion altogether forget that the hon. Member for North Westmeath, whose courage certainly no man will impeach, occupies a peculiarly solitary, and, I always thought until this evening, rather friendless position in this House, such as might possibly I think sometimes have warped his better judgment. The Speaker has himself, I think in the best way, vindicated his own dignity by telling us, as we all expected him to tell us, that the matter was not one of sufficient importance to give him any personal annoyance, much less to affect his honour or his popularity with this House: but in my judgment the Government and the House of Commons will best consult their own dignity by imitating the magnanimity of the Speaker and by accepting the advice which the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. John Redmond) and the hon. Member for Hackney (Mr. Bottomley) have given to the House, and, if you cannot, according to form, proceed to the Orders of the Day, then I think that you should at all events end an unpleasant incident at once by declining to inflict even the slightest punishment for an imputation in the letter of the hon. Member, who has been already sufficiently punished by the almost universal condemnation which it has aroused in every section of the House.
§ Lord HUGH CECILThe hon. Member for North Westmeath made a speech of very considerable length, in which he not merely did not withdraw the accusation against the Speaker, but enlarged upon it, and added an obscurely worded accusation of corruption against the Whips. It would be a very reasonable thing not to inflict any punishment whatever on any act, however injudicious, if it were a single act, but it seems to me quite impossible that the House should pass over without action the deliberate raising of the issue that the Chair is not impartial.
§ Mr. BOTTOMLEYThe hon. Member for Westmeath has distinctly stated that he had not the remotest intention of implying anything personal.
§ Lord HUGH CECILI understood the hon. Member to say that he had no personal grievance against the present occupant of the Chair as an individual, but that from the Parliamentary point of view he made these criticisms. But this is not a personal quarrel between the occupant of the Chair and Members of Parliament. The Question of Privilege depends entirely on an accusation against the Chair of partiality in conducting the business of the House. A breach of privilege only arises when an imputation is made against the Speaker of the House of Commons or the Chairman of the Committee in respect of the business of the Chair. I understood the hon. Member to enlarge upon that, and that is a very different thing from what it would have been if the hon. Member had been guilty merely of a casual indiscretion.
§ Mr. PRINGLEAs a private Member I think that this House would be best con-
§ sulting its dignity by adopting the course suggested by the hon. Member for Hackney. The origin of the breach is a letter published in an obscure Irish paper, known as the "Midland Reporter," which would never have been heard of by anybody here had it not been for the hon. Member for Croydon, who makes excavations in Irish dustheaps. In the circumstances I think that the Resolution already passed that a breach of privilege has been committed is sufficient to indicate the view taken by the House of what has been done, and that it is altogether unnecessary in the circumstances to pass any punishment upon the hon. Member for North Westmeath. I think in one case in which a similar offence was committed both the Leader of the Opposition and the Speaker took the view that it would be unnecessary to have any punishment inflicted, and it seems to me that the dignity of the House would be best consulted in this case if a similar course be adopted.
§ Question put, "That the Question be not now put."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 102; Noes, 314.
1583| Division No. 17.] | AYES. | [5.45 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | John, Edward Thomas | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Jowett, F. W. | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Boland, John Plus | Joyce, Michael | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.) | Keating, M. | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Brace, William | Kelly, Edward | Pointer, Joseph |
| Brocklehurst, W. B. | Kilbride, Denis | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | King, J. (Somerset, N.) | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, N.) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Price, C E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Chancellor, H. G. | Lansbury, George | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Clynes, J. R. | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Law, Hugh A | Redmond, William (Clare) |
| Crean, Eugene | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th) | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone. E.) |
| Crumley, Patrick | Lundon, T. | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Cullinan, J. | Lynch, A. A. | Roche, John (Galway. E.) |
| Delany, William | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Rowlands, James |
| Devlin, Joseph | M'Kean, John | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Donelan, Captain A. J. C | M'Laren, Waiter S. B. (Ches., Crewe) | Scott, A. M'Callum (Glasgow, Bridgeton) |
| Doris, W. | Martin, J. | Sheeny, David |
| Duffy, William J. | Meagher, Michael | Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Morrell, Philip | Snowden, P. |
| Ffrench, Peter | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Thomas, J. H. (Derby) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Muldoon, John | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Gilhooly, James | Neilson, Francis | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent |
| Goldstone, Frank | Nolan, Joseph | Watt, Henry A. |
| Gulney, P. | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | O'Brien, William (Cork, N. E.) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Hackett, J. | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Doherty, Philip | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W. | O'Dowd, John | |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | O'Grady, James | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Bottomley and Mr. Sheehan. |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklew, W.) | |
| Hudson, Walter | O'Malley, William | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Ashton, Thomas Gair |
| Adkine, W. Ryland D. | Anderson, A. M. | Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Anson, Sir William Reynell | Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Baird, J. L. |
| Aitken, William Max | Arkwright, John Stanhope | Baker, H. T. (Accrington) |
| Baker, Sir R. L. (Dorset, N.) | France, G. A. | M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lines., Spalding) |
| Balcarres, Lord | Gardner, Ernest | M'Micking, Major Gilbert |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gastrell, Major W. H. | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd | Malcolm, Ian |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gibbs, G. A. | Mallaby-Deeley, Harry |
| Baring, Captain Hon. G. V. | Gilmour, Captain I. | Marks, G. Croydon |
| Barnston, H. | Glanville, H. J. | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Mason, David M. (Coventry) |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Goldman, C. S. | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Goldsmith, Frank | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Barton, W. | Gordon, John | Mathias, Richard |
| Bathurst, C. (Wilts, Wilton) | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.) | Griffith, Ellis J. | Meysey-Thompson, E. C. |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Beale, W. P. | Guest, Hon Frederick E. (Dorset E.) | Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Guinness, Hon. W. E. | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Gulland, John William | Montagu, Hon. E. S. |
| Benn, Ion H. (Greenwich) | Haddock, George Bahr | Moore, William |
| Bentham, G. J. | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Bethell, Sir John Henry | Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight) | Morrison, Captain J. A. |
| Bigland, Alfred | Hall, Frederick (Normanten) | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) |
| Bird, A. | Hall, Marshall (L'pool, E. Toxteth) | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Hambro, Angus Valdemar | Munro, R. |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Hamersley, A. St. George | Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C. |
| Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith- | Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, B.) | Neville, Reginald J. N. |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale) | Newman, John R. P. |
| Boyton, J. | Harmsworth, R. L. | Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) |
| Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Harris, Henry Percy | Nicholson, Wm. G (Petersfield) |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Nield, Herbert |
| Brunner, J. F. L. | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) | Norton, Capt. Cecil W. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.) | Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Paget, Almeric Hugh |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Hayward, Evan | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Butcher, J. G. | Helmsley, Viscount | Parkes, Ebenezer |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar) | Henry, Sir Charles S. | Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) |
| Byles, William Pollard | Higham, John Sharp | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Campion, W. R. | Hill, Sir Clement L. | Pearson, Weetman H. M. |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Hililer, Dr. A. P. | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Hills, John Waller | Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) |
| Cassel, Felix | Hill-Wood, Samuel | Peel, Capt. R. F. (Woodbridge) |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Hinds, John | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) |
| Cave, George | Hoare, S. J. G. | Peto, Basil Edward |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Heywood) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Holt, Richard Durning | Pole-Carew, Sir R. |
| Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Pretyman, E. G. |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Horner, A. L. | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Were'r.) | Houston, Robert Patersen | Primrose, Hon. Neil James |
| Chambers, James | Hughes, S. L. | Quilter, William Eley C. |
| Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Hume-Williams, W. E. | Radford, G. H. |
| Chapple, Dr. W. A. | Hunt, Rowland | Rainy, A. Rolland |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston B. | Hunter, Sir C. R. (Bath) | Raphael, Sir Herbert H. |
| Clough, William | Hunter, W. (Govan) | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham) | Ingleby, Holcombe | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) |
| Collins, G. P. (Greenock) | Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Jessel, Captain H. M. | Rice, Hon. W. F. |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Corbett, A. Cameron | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T'w'r H'mts, Stepney) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, B.) | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Craig, Capt. J. (Down, E.) | Kimber, Sir Henry | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Kirkwood, J. H. M. | Rose, Sir Charles Day |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Knight, Capt. E. A. | Rothschild, Lionel de |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan | Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) | Royds, Edmund |
| Cripps, Sir C. A. | Larmor, Sir J | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter |
| Dalziel, D. (Brixton) | Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts, Mile End) | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) |
| Dalziel, Sir James H. (Kirkcaldy) | Leach, Charles | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) |
| Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Lee, Arthur H. | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardiganshire) | Lloyd, G. A. | Samuel, J. (Stockton) |
| Dawes, J. A. | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Sanderson, Lancelot |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E. |
| Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Seely, Col., Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook |
| Falconer, J. | Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale) | Soares, Ernest Joseph |
| Falle, B. G. | Lyell, Charles Henry | Splcer, Sir Albert |
| Fell, Arthur | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.) | Stanier, Beville |
| Ferens, T. R. | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) |
| Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro | Mackinder, H. J. | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Macmaster, Donald | Staveley-Hill, Henry |
| Fitzroy, Hon. E. A. | Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Stewart, Gershom |
| Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | M'Calmont, Colonel James | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Forster, Henry William | M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.) | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) |
| Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay | Winterton, Earl |
| Sykes, Alan John | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Talbot, Lord E. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon) |
| Tennant, Harold John | Weigall, Capt. A. G. | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Terrell, G. (Wilts, N. W.) | Wheler, Granville C. H. | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| Terrell, N. (Gloucester) | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) | White, Sir George (Norfolk) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Thomson, W. Mitchell (Down, North) | Whitehouse, John Howard | Yate, Col. C. E |
| Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. | Young, W. (Perthshire, E.) |
| Toulmin, George | Wiles, Thomas | Younger, George |
| Tullibardlne, Marquess of | Williams, P. (Middlesbrough) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Valentia, Viscount | Williamson, Sir A. | |
| Verney, Sir Harry | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Illingworth. |
| Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.) | |
| Waring, Walter |
§ Question put, "That Mr. Ginnell, Member for North Westmeath, be suspended
1584§ from the service of this House for one week."
§ The House divided: Ayes. 311; Noes. 84.
1585| Division No. 18.] | AYES. | [6.0 p.m. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood) | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. |
| Addison, Dr. Christopher | Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich) | Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton) |
| Adkins, W. Ryland D. | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.) | Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth) |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Hambro, Angus Valdemar |
| Agnew, Sir George William | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Hamersley, Alfred St. George |
| Aitken, William Max. | Chambers, James | Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.) |
| Allen, Charles Peter (Stroud) | Chaplin, Rt. Hon. Henry | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) |
| Anderson, Andrew Macbeth | Chapple, Dr. William Allen | Harmsworth, R. Leicester |
| Anson, Sir William Reynell | Churchill, Rt Hon. Winston S. | Harris, Henry Percy |
| Anstruther-Gray, Major William | Clough, William | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Collings, Rt. Hon. J. (Birmingham) | Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale) |
| Ashton, Thomas Gair | Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock) | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) |
| Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. B.) |
| Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Baird, John Lawrence | Cooper, Richard Ashmole | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry |
| Baker, Harold T. (Accrington) | Corbett, A. Cameron | Hayward, Evan |
| Baker, Sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.) | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Helmsley, Viscount |
| Balcarres, Lord | Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Henry, Sir Charles S. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Higham, John Sharp |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Hill, Sir Clement L. |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Craik, Sir Henry | Hillier, Dr. Alfred Peter |
| Baring, Captain Hon. Guy Victor | Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Hills, John Waller |
| Barnston, Harry | Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan | Hill-Wood, Samuel |
| Barran, Rowland Hirst (Leeds, N.) | Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred | Hinds, John |
| Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.) | Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) | Hoare, Samuel John Gurney |
| Barry, Redmond John (Tyrone, N.) | Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) | Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H. |
| Barton, William | Davies, M. Vaughan. (Cardiganshire) | Holt, Richard Durning |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc. E.) | Dawes, J. A. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Horner, Andrew Long |
| Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks | Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | Houston, Robert Paterson |
| Beale, William Phipson | Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Hughes, S. L. |
| Beauchamp, Edward | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Hume-Williams, William Ellis |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Falconer, James | Hunter, Sir Charles Roderick (Bath) |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Falle, P. G. | Hunter, William (Lanark, Govan) |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Fell, Arthur | Ingleby, Holcombe |
| Bethell, Sir John Henry | Ferens, T. R. | Isaacs, Sir Rufus Daniel |
| Bigland, Alfred | Ferguson, Rt. Hon. R. C. Munro | Jessel, Captain H. M. |
| Bird, Alfred | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A. | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Boscawen, Sackville T. Griffith- | Forster, Henry William | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T'w'r H'mts, Stepney) |
| Bowerman, Charles W. | France, Gerald Ashburner | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr |
| Boyton, James | Gardner, Ernest | Kimber, Sir Henry |
| Brassey, H. Leonard Campbell | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Kirkwood, John H. H. |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Gibbs, George Abraham | Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Gilmour, Captain John | Lambert, George (Devon, S. Molton) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Glanville, Harold James | Larmor, Sir J |
| Burn, Col. C. R. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'm'ts, Mile End) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Goldman, Charles Sydney | Leach, Charles |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Goldsmith, Frank | Lee, Arthur Hamilton |
| Butcher, J. G. | Gordon, John | Lloyd, George Ambrose |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) |
| Campion, W. R. | Griffith, Ellis J. | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) |
| Carllie, Edward Hildred | Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke) | Lockwood, Rt. Hen. Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Cassel, Felix | Guinness, Hon. Walter Edward | Lough, Rt. Hon. Themas |
| Castlereagh, Viscount | Gulland, John William | Lowther, Claude (Cumberland, Eskdale) |
| Cave, George | Haddock, George Bahr | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Lyttelton, Rt Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.) | Peel, Hon. W. R. W. (Taunton) | Sykes, Alan John |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Peto, Basil Edward | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Mackinder, Halford J. | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Tennant, Harold John |
| Macmaster, Donald | Pole-Carew, Sir R. | Terrell, George (Wilts, N. W.) |
| Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J. | Pollock, Ernest Murray | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| M'Calmont, Colonel James | Pretyman, E. G. | Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.) |
| M'Laren, H. D. (Leices.) | Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.) | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lines., Spalding) | Primrose, Hon. Neil James | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Quilter, William Eley C. | Toulmin, George |
| Magnus, Sir Philip | Radford, George Heynes | Tullibardine, Marquess of |
| Malcolm, Ian | Rainy, A. Rolland | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Mallaby-Deeley, Harry | Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry | Valentia, Viscount |
| Marks, George Croydon | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Marshall, Arthur Harold | Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Remnant, James Farquharson | Waring, Walter |
| Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Rice, Hon. Walter Fitz-Uryan | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Mathias, Richard | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Menzies, Sir Walter | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Weigall, Capt. A. G. |
| Meysey-Thompson, E. C. | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Wheler, Granville C. H. |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Ronaldshay, Earl of | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz | Rose, Sir Charles Day | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Money, L. G. Chiozza | Rothschild, Lionel de | White, Sir Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Montagu, Hon. E. S. | Royds, Edmund | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Moore, William | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P. |
| Morpeth, Viscount | Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | St. Maur, Harold | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) | Williamson, Sir Archibald |
| Munro, Robert | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claude |
| Murray, Capt. Hon. Arthur C. | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) | Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R.) |
| Neville, Reginald J. N. | Sanderson, Lancelot | Winterton, Earl |
| Newman, John R. P. | Sandys, G. J. (Somerset, Wells) | Wolmer, Viscount |
| Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield) | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Ripon) |
| Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncaster) | Seely, Col., Right Hon. J. E. B. | Wood, John (Stalybridge) |
| Nield, Herbert | Simon, Sir John Allsebrook | Wood, T. M'Kinnon (Glasgow) |
| Norton, Captain Cecil William | Soares, Ernest Joseph | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury) | Spicer, Sir Albert | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William | Stanier, Beville | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Paget, Almeric Hugh | Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk) | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston) | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Parkes, Ebenezer | Staveley-Hill, Henry | Younger, George |
| Pearce, Robert (Staffs., Leek) | Steel-Maitland, A. D. | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Stewart, Gershom | |
| Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Strachey, Sir Edward | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Master of Elibank and Mr. Illingworth. |
| Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham) | Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North) | |
| Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge) | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin Harbour) | Hudson, Walter | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Bottomley, Horatio | John, Edward Thomas | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North) | Jowett, Frederick William | Phillips, John (Longford, S.) |
| Brace, William | Joyce, Michael | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Keating, Matthew | Pirie, Duncan V. |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | King, J. (Somerset, N.) | Pointer, Joseph |
| Byles, William Pollard | Lansbury, George | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Clynes, John R. | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Law, Hugh A. | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Crumley, Patrick | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld., Cockerm'th) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Cullinan, J. | Lundon, Thomas | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Delany, William | Lynch, Arthur Alfred | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) |
| Devlin, Joseph | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Donelan, Captain A. J. C. | M'Kean, John | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Doris, William | Martin, Joseph | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Duffy, William J. | Meagher, Michael | Sheehan, Daniel Daniel |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Sheehy, David |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Meehan, Patrick A. (Queen's Co.) | Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Morrell, Philip | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Ffrench, Peter | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Snowden, Philip |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Neilson, Francis | Thomas, J. H. (Derby) |
| Gilhooly, James | Nolan, Joseph | Wardle, George J. |
| Goldstone, Frank | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Gulney, Patrick | O'Brien, William (Cork) | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| Hackett, John | O'Doherty, Philip | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | O'Dowd, John | |
| Haslam, James (Derbyshire) | O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. O'Grady and Mr. William Thorne. |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | O'Malley, William |