§ The Union flag (commonly known as the Union Jack) appointed by Royal Proclamation, in pursuance of the Union with Ireland Act, 1800, shall, notwithstanding the passing of this Act, continue to be the official flag of Ireland, and shall be hoisted in a conspicuous place and kept flying over the building or buildings in which the Irish Parliament sits throughout each day up to sunset while the Irish Parliament is in Session.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
§ Mr. HAMERSLEY
I beg to move the Second Reading of this Clause. All through this Debate, from the time that the Prime Minister moved the Second Reading, we have been assured that the 798 object of the Members of the Government and of this Bill was to set up in Ireland a Parliament subordinate to the Imperial Parliament, that the Imperial Parliament shall have a veto power, and shall have and exercise sovereignty over the Parliament in Dublin, and shall in every respect be superior to it and exercise superior authority. Safeguards were inserted which W3 on this side of the House said were shams, but if there are to be real safeguards they should be for the purpose of fully securing to the Imperial Parliament its power and authority. That being so, I think it is only a proper consequence and corollary to that that as a symbol of authority and a symbol of power the National flag should fly over those Parliament buildings in Dublin. It may be said, why should we in a Bill of this kind to establish a separate Parliament in Ireland suggest that a Clause of this kind should be put in? Again I say that all through this Debate we have been told that Ireland is in a peculiar position and that we cannot legislate for it in the same manner as we have legislated for the Dominions when we granted them self-government. That is perfectly clear. The whole thing has been peculiar. When the Prime Minister started by introducing this Bill he made the peculiar statement that he had a mandate at the last election that this Bill should be brought in, and he founded his whole argument upon the speeches made by the Opposition, and not upon any advocacy of the Bill by Members of the Government or their supporters. I thought at the time what a splendid defence there would be in the future, if they follow his example, for the pickpockets of the country. The pickpocket will be able to say, "Oh, you cannot arrest me; I am perfectly free. It is true that I picked a man's pocket, but was notice not posted up at every railway station, 'Beware of pickpockets'?"
§ Mr. PRINGLE
On a point of Order, may I ask whether it is relevant to introduce pickpockets on a Clause of this kind?
§ Mr. HAMERSLEY
I do not think the hon. Member could have heard the Prime Minister's excuse for introducing this Bill, and I think I have shown that it is exactly an analogous position to the pickpocket's excuse that he ought not to be interfered with because there was placarded at all the railway stations, 799 "Beware of pickpockets." The Prime Minister relies entirely for his justification upon the speeches of the Opposition for everything that he may do. In every speech that has been made by the Members of the Government it has been said that the Clauses of this Bill are different from any Clauses in the Acts granting self-government to the Dominions overseas. They say Ireland is in a peculiar position. That being the case I think I am perfectly justified in saying that although there is nothing in the enactments granting self-government to the Dominions overseas, laying down that they should fly the flag of the country, Ireland being so peculiar and being in a different category altogether, there is an absolute necessity in this case to put in such a Clause. In proof of that I only have to go back to the fact—and I think it is within the recollection and knowledge of every Member in this House who has been listening—that before any self-government was granted to any Dominion, either Canada, Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa, there was never a word said in those countries, and especially in Canada and Australia, against the use and acknowledgment of the Union Jack, or that that flag should be the national flag of those countries when self-government was granted to them.
§ Mr. HAMERSLEY
The hon. Member for Stoke says that they asked leave to make their own flag. I would like him to quote his authority for that statement. There has been no application ever made on the part of one of our self-governing Dominions to make their own flag, except as regards the mercantile marine, and Canada did ask, and the then Colonial Secretary gave permission to Canada to fly the Union Jack with the Canadian arms in the corner on her revenue cutters. If the hon. Member for Stoke can quote authority for what he has said, I will be only too glad to withdraw what I have said. It is within memory and knowledge that none of the Dominions, with the exception stated, have demanded ever a separate flag. On the contrary, I should like to quote speeches to show how the leaders in the Dominions were absolutely solid on this question. I shall quote their language shortly, for I do not want to take up too much time of the Committee, just 800 to show the difference between the cases, and to bring home the different spirit and idea, and the language expressing that spirit and that idea, of the advocates of self-government in our Dominions, and the language and conduct of the Irish Nationalists who are now asking for self-government for Ireland. I do not think any man listening to me, when quoting, can help but come to this conclusion: that it is necessary to ask that the Union Jack should be flown as the national flag in Ireland as this Motion provides. Both parties in Canada, headed by Sir John A. Macdonald, and the Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, Mr. George Brown, and all the other eminent men, in the most eloquent language have advocated the Union Jack. Sir J. A. Macdonald, in a speech made at Kingston, about the time of the Confederation, said:Under the broad folds of the Union Jack we enjoy the most ample liberty to govern ourselves as we please. At the same time we participate in tile advantages which flow from association with the mightiest Empire the world has ever seen.Sir John, in other speeches, made use of similar language. The Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, on the opposite side of politics to Sir John, about the same time spoke, and said:—An immense Empire, built upon our part of the North American Continent, whore the folds of the British flag will float in triumph over a people possessing freedom, happiness and prosperity equal to the people of any other nation on the earth.… Under the banner which we believe, after all, covers the greatest amount of personal benefit and be greatest amount of personal happiness to be found in the world.I could go on quoting again—The patriotism of the British people and Government will ever be with us, and we in turn hope always to reside under the shadow of the grand old flag of England, at once the symbol of power and of civilisation.… I repent it every day—we should be proud to live under the British flag.Australian statesmen on both sides of politics, the leading men in every part of our Dominions and the founders of the Federation in these countries have said much the same thing. Let me now quote the language used a very short time ago by one of the important men in Ireland. Mr. Kettle is a very important man, one of the most important advocates of Irish Nationalism, and for the granting of this Bill. Let me show the difference between the language of the two sets of statesmen in the two countries. What I am going to quote was in connection with the display of the Union Jack at a Nationalist meeting only last March, at a time when this Bill was really under discussion. The Union Jack was floating over a building in Dublin in which were the offices of the 801 "Irish Independent." Certain questions arose about it. Mr. Kettle and other people objected to the presence of the flag, and, in fact, there was a great desire amongst numbers of people in Dublin to pull it down. Here is the language of Mr. Kettle to the "Irish Independent," and I ask the attention of the Committee to this, bearing in mind what I have just read of the language of the statesmen to whom I have referred:—Permit me to repair at the earliest possible moment an injustice towards your newspapers which, I—in common with many other persons present at the great Home Rule demonstration—appear to have committed yesterday. While I was speaking, my attention was called to the heraldic symbol of the corrupt and disastrous act of union flying from Carlisle Buildings. Flaunted in the face of the men gathered to demand the reversal of that blundering crime and criminal blunder, the thing looked like a gratuitous insult. I expressed regret that the office of 'Parnell's paper' should on such a day be so dishonoured, and translated the general feeling of the meeting into a condemnation of 'whoever was responsible.' I think it my plain duty in view of the explanatory note which appears in to-day's 'Irish Independent' to withdraw any shadow of possible imputation to your firm of conduct unworthy of Irish Nationalism. The flag … was displayed, as I understand, not by you, but by a Governmental or semi-Governmental department which rents the upper rooms of Carlisle Buildings. Until Home Rule gives us a new unsullied flag, symbolic of that relationship of friendship founded on justice, which only Home Rule can establish between Ireland and Great Britain, our Government departments must, I suppose, do the best they can with the colours in stock.[Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh at that and think it very funny, but it is a distinct statement by a man who in all probability will hold a very important position in the Government of Ireland under this Bill, if it ever becomes law. Here is a statement that you must take to heart:—Until Home Rule gives us a new, unsullied flag.That is an intimation that the old Union Jack is to be taken away and another flag put up. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] What else does it mean? [An HON. MEMBER: "The flag will be unsullied."] I am sure it must be to all our minds, if we think seriously about it, a very important matter. I am not moving this Motion with the object of throwing ridicule upon the Bill. All I desire is to see some enactment put in it that will establish beyond per-adventure the fact that the Union Jack shall be the common flag of England and Ireland in the future as in the past. That is my sole object. Unless it is in the enactment we only have to look at the threats and read the threats of hon. Gentlemen to know that the Union Jack will not be the flag of Ireland, but some other flag. I have here, and I have read them very carefully, thirty cuttings from thirty newspapers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I am not going to trouble the 802 House with them, but if hon. Members do not believe what I say I can stay here and read them over. I am perfectly prepared to do that.
§ Mr. HAMERSLEY
I am not going to read the whole newspaper; only cuttings. I believe I will be in order in reading cuttings
§ The CHAIRMAN
That is a matter for the discretion of the Chair, but I heard the hon. Member say about thirty newspapers.
§ Mr. HAMERSLEY
Of course, I meant cuttings, not newspapers. I am perfectly prepared—and I do not think the Chairman will rule me out of order—to read these cuttings, if hon. Members opposite doubt my statement. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] I am very glad hon. Members agree. That has saved me a great deal of trouble, and I have no doubt that having agreed they will realise the fact that there are thirty different accounts of instances in the last two or three years in Ireland where the Union Jack has been destroyed, burnt, trampled upon, and in other ways used with contumely and contempt. Where did that happen in any of the other Dominions over the sea?
§ Mr. HAMERSLEY
Exactly; but I refer to the time before they had it. Before any suggestion was made of the confederation of Canada, where was there an instance of such things as I have stated here? Ireland in this matter stands in a perfectly distinct position as against the others. For twenty years or more the Irish Nationalists have used the most extraordinary language against England and against her rule. Whether disloyal or not, it is a fact that for twenty years past language that would never be tolerated—I was going to say by decent people—has been used against the country of England. They now come into this House and say, "All that is passed; all that has gone; give us this Home Rule and there shall be no more language of that kind used; we will submit to you in every way." In fact, they have taken back every statement made during the last twenty years. They have said it is all false and wrong. They ask you to believe them now. If you do believe them now, if they want you to believe them, let them consent to this Clause 803 going into this Act to show that they are really bonâ fide and honest in what they are saying. If they do not consent, then it shows to me that they are not honest in what they have stated. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but we have only the statements by hon. Members below the Gangway—verbal statements. I myself would prefer to have something in writing, because I confess that I do not trust them. Let us have it in writing, and then if this thing has to become laws and Ireland is to have a separate Government, let them be the same as all the other Dominions, but do not let us have a flag different to theirs, or any other flag than the one that flies over the whole of our Empire! I regard the thing with dread, and that it will happen unless we pass this Clause.
§ Mr. MacVEAGH
The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has concluded his speech by announcing that he does not trust the Irish people.
§ Mr. MacVEAGH
That announcement has in it nothing of novelty for us. In every speech which has been delivered while this discussion on the Home Rule Bill has been going on, we have found the same spirit animating the speeches of hon. Members above the Gangway. The speeches on the Second Reading were all on the subject that the Irish people could not be trusted with self-government, and every Amendment which hon. Members above the Gangway have proposed in the Committee stage has been characterised by the same sentiment. They have shown, in fact, once again the truth of what Gladstone said many years ago:—Liberalism is trust of the people qualified by prudence; Toryism is distrust of the people qualified by fear.I am surprised at the knowledge the hon. Gentleman displayed about Ireland. I do not think he was ever there.
§ Mr. MacVEAGH
I think the House would be much more interested in knowing not so much what the hon. Gentleman knows about Ireland as what Ireland knows about the hon. Gentleman, which I think is absolutely nothing. I can quite 804 understand where the hon. Gentleman got his information. There is a daily publication circulated amongst the Unionist Members where speeches can be got ready-made, and being of an inquiring turn of mind I got hold of one of these daily parts, which extends to about thirty pages. I find in it the very interesting announcement:—This memorandum has been prepared by Mr. Rosenbaum, and is circulated by permission of the Unionist Central Office. Mr. Rosenbaum will be under the Gallery during the Debates.I wonder if this boy of bulldog breed is here at present. If he was, and if it was in order, I should appeal to you, Mr. Whitley, to ask him to stand up in order that we may look on this authority on Irish questions rejoicing in the fine old British name of Rosenbaum. I wonder what part of Ireland Rosenbaum comes from. I will guarantee that until this publication was issued we never heard of Rosenbaum even in the North-East of Ireland. But that is not the only information I got in this document. On the front of it I see printed in green ink the statement, that if any hon. Member finds that the speech supplied him was used before he gets up to talk he has only to—telephone to Victoria Street, Westminster—Victoria 4592, two lines.and he will get a new speech down to him red-hot.The Intelligence Bureau will be open until 10.30 every night during the Committee Stage of the Home Rule Bill.So that if any Gentleman finds that another hon. Gentleman has run away with his speech, he has only to telephone "Victoria 4592—two lines," and he will get a new speech sent down to him. I think it would be extremely difficult for anybody in this House to discuss this Clause seriously. I admire the brave effort that the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken made to treat the matter in a serious spirit. I object to this new Clause for several reasons. In the first place, I think that the Clause must fail for want of definiteness. There are many Union Jacks, and I do not know which Union Jack he proposes for us.
§ Mr. MacVEAGH
There is an Imperialist for you who says there is only one Union Jack! Now this is a subject of which I know something——
§ Mr. MacVEAGH
The ignorance of Imperialist Members about Imperial affairs is simply colossal. As a matter of fact there is no such thing as a Union Jack. The proper name of the flag is the Great Union, and it is only a Union Jack when it is flown from the jack staff of a ship of war. I am speaking with authority, and I may give the hon. Member a bit of information that Mr. Rosenbaum could not give him. It would be a most awkward thing if this Clause was inserted, and it would be most awkward in many respects. The Union Jack changes with nearly every Sovereign—anyone who reads the history of the Union Jack will learn that—and are we to buy a new flag every time a British Sovereign mounts the Throne. In fact the hon. Gentleman who has spoken says he does not know that there are more Union Jacks than one. Well, we have the Lord Lieutenant's Union Jack in Ireland, which is an entirely different thing from the Union Jack in this country. The Lord Lieutenant's Union Jack is the Great Union with the Irish harp and the blue shield of St. George. Is that the Union Jack one sees flying every day? And they have got a different Union Jack in India. Every Colony in this great Union has a separate badge. Moreover, I may inform hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway that the Great Union is the flag of Empire which is recognised as such in every part of the British Dominions. But every Dominion in the Empire, and not only every Dominion, but every State in every Dominion, has got its own flag, and why should you attempt to impose upon us a condition which you dare not attempt to impose upon any Colony of your Empire. Why, even Scotchmen have a flag of their own. I will not attempt to inflict upon the House a full description of the Scottish flag, but if any hon. Member takes a look at the Scottish Education Office any day he walks down Whitehall he will find, not the Great Union, but the Scottish flag flying. The Great Union as it is to-day was altered at the passing of the Act of Union between England and Ireland, and it is surely rather a ridiculous proposal now when we are revising the whole terms of the Act of Union and repairing the blunder of 1800 that you should force upon us a symbol of that Union which we hate. After all, you are not flying your Union Jack or Great Union, as you ought to call it, very long even from this House. It was only a few years ago you hoisted it on the Victoria Tower, and it was only 806 done then because a body of Jingoes formed an association here that the flag was flown from Victoria Tower.
§ Mr. MacVEAGH
Oh, no. It was before Rosenbaum's time; he had not landed upon these shores at the time that decision was arrived at. It was an association for the promotion of Empire Day, a day which I venture to say the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down could not give me the date of now. A number of Gentlemen in this House continually got up and pestered the Jingo Government, day after day, week after week, and month after month to give a demonstration of their love for the Empire by hoisting the National Union from the Victoria Tower, and it was only after sustained pressure that Mr. Arnold Foster decided to hoist that flag. This Empire jogged along for seven centuries before this incident, and you have not made a bit more progress, since the Empire is not a penny richer, and now this sudden access of belated patriotism, which only a few days ago hoisted that flag, will not let us wait for seven centuries before we hoist it. I am very anxious we should not have any complication with people of Scotland, and I am afraid, if I am to depend upon authority that if we proceeded to prepare a flag of our own in accordance with this Clause we should find ourselves in very serious difficulty with the people of Scotland, and we do not want to quarrel with any portion of the Celtic fringe after we get Home Rule. When the Scottish flag was being prepared there was great difficulty about the three crosses of St. George, St. Andrew, and St. Patrick, and let me say that, notwithstanding the large part Wales plays in the government of the country, poor St. David does not get a look in at all. We are told that to combine these three crosses without losing the distinctive feature of each was not easy.Each cross must be distinct and retain equally distinctive its fimbrication, which denotes the original ground. In the first Union flag the red cross of St. George with the white ii lubrication that represents the original white field, was simply imposed upon the white saltire of St. Andrew with its blue field. To place the red saltire of St. Patrick on the white saltire of St. Andrew would have been to obliterate the latter, nor would the red saltire have its proper bordering denoting its original white field; even were the red saltire narrowed in width, the portion of the white saltire that would appear would not be the St. Andrew saltire, but only the fimbrication appertaining to the saltire of St. Patrick. The difficulty has been got over by making the white broader on one side of the red than the other. In fact, the continuity of direction of the arms of the St. Patrick red saltire has been broken by its portion being removed from the centre of the oblique points 807 that form the St. Andrew's saltire. Thus both the Irish and Scottish saltires can be easily distinguished from one another, whilst the red saltire has its due white fimbrication.What would happen to us if we removed the white fimbrication? We might have a declaration of war at once from Scotland, and we do not want to invite any complications of that character. The fact is that in reality this Clause is only intended as another demonstration of antagonism, hatred, and distrust to the Irish people. It cannot be supported by one intelligent argument except the arguments supplied hot from the Press by Mr. Rosenbaum.
§ 5.0 P.M.
§ Mr. MACMASTER
I am sure we have all enjoyed the very amusing speech which has just been made by the hon. Member for South Down, although he did not attempt to answer the serious speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woodstock (Mr. Hamersley), who proposes to make this Clause a portion of the Act. It is all very well to make jokes with regard to the British flag, and to say that the speech which was delivered by my hon. Friend is one of those prepared for circulation in this House by Mr. Rosenbaum. Speaking for myself, I may say that I have never seen any of the speeches referred to, and I should refuse to deliver a speech made by somebody else. With regard to the Union Jack, the hon. Member for South Down seems to be singularly misinformed. The origin of the flag is perfectly historical in character and very well established, and as to the difficulty the hon. Member anticipates with regard to making a flag for Ireland, I suggest that all his difficulties would be avoided by retaining the existing flag and not interfering with it. There can be no doubt that the Union Jack is a well-recognised historical name. Some time ago an address was sent to King Edward asking for permission to fly a certain flag, and on the 29th December, 1907, Lord Knollys replied as follows:—In reply to your letter of the 9th instant, I beg to inform you that the Union Jack, being the national flag, may be flown by British subjects privately or officially on land—Yours faithfully, Knollys.So much for the Union Jack being the national flag. In addition to that, the Motion that is made here is that "the Union flag, commonly known as the Union Jack," should be hoisted over the Government buildings and official buildings and the Parliament House during the sittings of Parliament, so that as to the name of the 808 flag there can be no doubt whatever. For my part, I do not intend to go into matters which can be regarded as more or less controversial, and I am the last man in the world to make any charge against my fellow countrymen. I have seen a great deal of the Irish race. I have many friends amongst them, and I have confidence in them when they are left to the opportunities that are put before them, and not led away from the path of peace, order, and good government. It must be remembered, however, that whatever the cause may be—and we are not investigating causes at the moment—expressions have been used in Ireland with regard to our flag which, to say the least of it, are not respectful, and consequently it may be legitimate enough to inquire what there is underlying those expressions which have been made in public speeches and otherwise. The question is whether it is a fact or not that as recently as March last a public newspaper was the subject of animadversion in the city of Dublin because the Union Jack was flown from the building in which the business was carried on or near to it. Is it a fact that a large section of those in sympathy with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway sympathised with the action of Mr. Kettle on that occasion? Is it true that on that public occasion Mr. Kettle, who occupies a high and responsible position in Ireland, found it necessary to explain the circumstances under which the flag was flown from those buildings, and found it necessary to apologise for the presence of the flag in the capital city of Dublin? Is it a fact that he found it necessary to say, if I may paraphrase his words:—For the moment that flag may fly in this country, but the day will come when 'a new and unsullied flag' will fly from the legislative buildings and other public buildings in Ireland.That means that the flag is not respected; that the allegiance to it is only a strained allegiance, and that those who entertain those views are only waiting for the day when they may hoist their new, unsullied flag. With regard to myself, my main reason for taking part in this Debate is that these very warnings suggest to us that there is to be a change in the flag when the opportunity occurs to make that change. I heard an hon. Gentleman say, "Why not let the Parliament of Ireland choose a flag when that Parliament is established?" Is that what this House desires? Does this country desire, and do the people of the United Kingdom desire, 809 that the time-honoured, historical, unsullied flag known as the Union Jack is only waiting its time, and that a "new and unsullied flag," more conformable with the ideas of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, is to take its place? My only motive in wishing to have it made clear in statutory form that the flag which exists to-day is the one which shall continue in the future is these continual forewarnings and rumblings we hear so frequently as to the possibility of a change in the future. I should have thought that Irishmen, irrespective of religion, and in view of the services they have rendered to that flag, if they had a proper regard for patriotism, would consider that there should be no more honourable or higher ambition than to seek to continue their local government under the ægis of that great flag. Our flag is second to no other flag in existence to-day.
I do not desire to say anything which may offend the self-respect or national sensibility of any hon. Member of this House, but I think I may state with confidence, in the presence of statesmen sitting opposite, who are responsible for the Irish Government, that the presence of the Union Jack or the Union flag above the Parliamentary buildings in Ireland will not only be a greater guarantee than any other for peace, order, and good government in that country, but it will contribute infinitely to the financial credit of the country itself. A change in the flag flying over public institutions in Ireland might seriously injure Irish credit under a Home Rule Government, and would affect transactions involving the borrowing of money in the interests of the State. I should have thought that, after seeing this Motion on the Paper, if any value is to be attached to their recent professions, the first thing hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would do to show their devotion to the Empire would be to say "this Motion is entirely unnecessary as we ask for nothing better than the Union flag or the Union Jack, which is not identified with events before 1801, but which is identified with so many events since that time which redound to the credit both of Englishmen, Irishmen, Scotchmen, and Welshmen." I should think Members of the Nationalist party would be the first to say: "Yes, we are true to the Empire, we are true to British institutions, and we wish to work Home Rule with fair play to the minority as well as to the majority. If there is any suspicion in this House representing 810 the entire United Kingdom and having responsibility beyond that to the whole Empire, we as Nationalists should be the first to say we give our allegiance to the flag; we stand by the protection the flag guarantees, and we will administer the laws of our country in accordance with the best traditions of British Justice."
§ Mr. BIRRELL
I should like to call the attention of the Committee to the actual words of the new Clause which the hon. Gentleman has moved:—The Union flag (commonly known as the Union Jack) appointed by Royal Proclamation, in pursuance of the Union with Ireland Act, 1800, shall, notwithstanding the passing of this Act, continue to be the official flag of Ireland, and shall be hoisted in a conspicuous place and kept flying over the building or buildings in which the Irish Parliament sits throughout each day up to sunset while the Irish Parliament is in Session.Upon that I should like to say, first of all, that there is no Act of Parliament and no Royal Proclamation that makes the Great Union, known throughout history and familiar throughout the world as the Union Jack, the official flag of Ireland. There is certainly no Constitution in our own or any other where you find an Act of Parliament making solemn provision that a particular flag should be kept hoisted in a particular place over a particular building. I am not going into the heraldic question, which is interesting enough, but, nevertheless, the proclamation of the King, made in January, 1801, defines what the Union flag shall be. He proclaims:—?That the style and titles aforesaid and also the arms or ensigns armorial aforesaid shall be used henceforth, as far as conveniently may be, on all occasions wherein our Royal style and titles and arms or ensigns armorial shall be used.It is to be employed on suitable occasions. It is nowhere stated in any Proclamation that you should make it compulsory that a particular flag associated with the Royal prerogative should be hoisted habitually and conspicuously, and fly at all times, and in all weathers, when the Irish Parliament is sitting. All these things are a complete novelty. I really deprecate the notion of making this Amendment an opportunity to make demonstrations against the alleged loyalty or disloyalty of the Irish people. It is a fact that this Union Jack came into existence not so very long ago. It is not the flag that has braved a thousand years the 811 battle and the breeze. It is not that kind of flag. It is a flag, a noble flag, and a great flag, exciting emotions which will always rise in the breasts of loyal subjects, but it came into existence after the passing of the Act of Union with Ireland, and everybody who has even a schoolboy's knowledge of the Act of Union must recognise, unless he is incapable of having any sympathy with opinions which he does not share, that there are and always have been countless Irishmen who do not take any passionate pleasure in being reminded of the Act of Union. That in no way interferes with their loyalty to the Kingdom or to the connection between England and Ireland, which existed, more or less at all events, before the Act of Union; bur, whether they are wise or foolish, they associate a legislative Act of which they do not like to be reminded with that particular flag, and to say it was disloyal for Irishmen in times past to have been angry with the Union Jack, or to have treated it as a political symbol, is, I think, rather an unreasonable thing. People acquainted with Irish history know that at the present time it is contrary to law to fly the Union Jack from public-houses. That is not because this House, when it made that regulation, in any way sought to put an imputation upon the Union Jack, but because it felt that, if in a particular country the Union Jack was associated with party and party animosities and feelings, it was most desirable to keep, not so venerable an emblem because it is not venerable yet, but so glorious an emblem from the dust of party contests. Consequently, at the present time the Union Jack cannot be flown from public-houses.
You will not encourage loyalty by compulsory flag flying. Compulsory loyalty is as impossible a thing as compulsory religion or compulsory Greek. You cannot do it. I am sure we are all most anxious to see, as a consequence of this legislation, a state of mind and feeling springing up in Ireland in which symbols of the Union, instead of being associated with that which is distasteful to them, will, so far at any rate as the majority of the Irish people are concerned, be associated with cheerful events of which they like to be reminded. I therefore deprecate, as strongly as I can, the introduction into this Debate of any motives of loyalty or disloyalty or of any reference to the treatment which amongst an excited populace this particular flag may have received at different times. I think, as I have already 812 said, those can be explained not by any hatred of England but by an association of the Union Jack with a legislative Act they do not like and which they still associate with Mr. Pitt, Lord Castlereagh, and other persons who to the great majority of Englishmen are no more than past historical personages, of whom any intelligent man in this country might find it difficult to give an account of more than three or four sheets of paper. It is quite different in Ireland.
The objection to the Union Jack is not due to any hatred of the English people or to any unwillingness to be associated with the glories of the English people, in which the Irish, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this new Clause very generously and historically recognised, have played so great a part. I therefore object to this new Clause because it is a novelty and imposes upon a country a compulsory burden which in my opinion we have no right to impose upon it. The Union Jack is not the national flag and is not the official flag in any sense of the word. It would be quite possible for the Irish people to float a flag, and indeed they have a flag, bearing the Arms of Ireland, the golden harp on a dark blue ground, the third quarterign on the Royal Standard, a great flag which cannot be flown everywhere, and which indeed appertains to the Royal presence. It would be childish to attempt in a great Act of Parliament which seeks to establish this Irish Parliament and this Irish Executive to insert an obligation on people whether they like it or not to fly a particular flag all day long on a particular building. There is no precedent for any such proceeding anywhere, and it is an extreme novelty in this House. I like flags and I like to see them flying, but to seek to dictate to people what kind of flag they are to fly over a particular building I really think savours of the ridiculous. Assuming you want, as I want, to get rid of unhappy distinctions, bred by history, which have undoubtedly grown up, I am quite sure it is not by compulsion you will produce the result we all have at heart. I am therefore opposed to this Clause.
I am not surprised at the speech which the Chief Secretary has just made, a speech in perfect taste and a very good official defence of a Minister in charge of a Bill of the course which his Government mean to pursue. I am not going to rake up history. He seemed to think we were all going to dwell on cases 813 in which, in the excitement of some controversy, Irish mobs or others may have insulted the Union Jack on this or that occasion. I am not going to rake up these ancient and regrettable circumstances. I do not think any of us would gain anything by dwelling on a past in which such events occurred. I have nothing to complain of either in the tone or in the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but he did not, I think, show any sufficient appreciation of the importance which symbols have and must have in cases of national and corporate feeling. That, perhaps, is a small question, and it is not against anything which he said I wish to direct my observations. I am frankly surprised at the tone in which this new Clause is met by the spokesman of the Irish party below the Gangway. I confess that whatever my opinions might have been on the merits of this Amendment, I should not, were I an Irish Nationalist desirous of persuading the British House of Commons of the new spirit which it is claimed this Bill is going to create, have spent half an hour in making jokes, not always in very good taste, all directed towards making as ridiculous as he could the national flag of the Empire of which he still proposes to be a member.
§ Mr. MacVEAGH
I know the courtesy which always distinguishes the right hon. Gentleman, and I am quite sure he has no desire to misrepresent me. I made it perfectly clear we in Ireland regard the Union Jack as the Flag of Empire, and shall so regard it under Home Rule; but we claim the right which is claimed by every Colony and every Dominion in the Empire to have our own flag in addition. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I said so distinctly.
If the hon. Gentleman denies that he spent a large part of his speech in turning what he calls the Flag of Empire into ridicule——
I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. He talked very little about the Clause, and he talked a good deal about the flag. I am, in the memory of the House, no small number of the numbers of which were in convulsions of laughter during the hon. Gentleman's speech; indeed, I have listened to a good many of these Debates at this hour, and I do not think I ever saw those benches so 814 full or so interested or so amused as they were when the hon. Gentleman was giving his humourous historical account of the Flag of Empire, as he calls it. I should have supposed hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would have put up some spokesman who, whilst attacking the details of the Clause, like the right hon. Gentleman, would have said the past must be the past, and any quarrel they might have had with that which the Union Jack symbolised was over and done with and was to be forgotten.
§ Mr. MacVEAGH
The Mover of the Clause said he would not believe us if we did say it, and he was cheered by your party.
If he said it in the humourous setting given to the Debate by the hon. Gentleman it might not have carried conviction to everybody. I should certainly have thought the tone taken by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would have been very different from that which, us a matter of fact, was taken by the hon. Gentleman they put up to discredit the Amendment. Let the House take a lesson from what is done in other great communities. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary seemed to regard the Union Jack as a rather modern mushroom flag, though he did full justice to the greatness and cause of the Empire which it represents. But look how the United States use their flag. Every foreigner who lands upon their shores and expresses an intention of becoming an American citizen is shown the flag as the symbol and very embodiment of the spirit of the United States, and it becomes the great bond of union among them. Are we merely to treat our flag as so much bunting? That is not how it is regarded in every one of our Colonies. Does anybody tell me if there was a discussion at which members from the Dominions were present, and in which the position occupied by the Union Jack in the Empire was under discussion, they would tolerate for one instant the sort of speech which the spokesman of the Nationalist party has thought fit to make on this subject.
Even now the echoes of their merry laughter ring on those benches. I consider whatever be the detailed merits of this Amendment, that on questions raised by Amendments like this you can test what is the real future for inhabitants 815 of Ireland. I do not desire to say anything which will offend anybody, but remember the way in which the Home Rule controversy has been carried on by great men, by Irish men of whom Ireland has every right to be proud, by Members of this House of whom this House has every right to be proud, because they were great Parliamentarians. Some of the greatest of them have talked of Ireland carrying her flag among the nations of the world. That is the teaching of the past. But hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have told us in all these debates that that teaching is antiquated and that the past is past and should be forgoten. Ireland they say under this new Constitution which you are going to give her will become more and more closely bound up with the interests and sentiment of Great Britain and the Empire. I earnestly hope that that is true, but it is not a very easy idea to carry out, and to maintain ardently; a subordinate patriotism is not a thing which has been found easy by nations in the past. It is not a thing which the former teaching of hon. Gentlemen makes easy for them. If they are going to carry out their former professions, whether they succeed or not, they are going to reverse the whole current of their teaching altogether, and they are going to tell an Irishman that he must remain Irish, loving Ireland, but yet henceforth he must support that greater whole of which Ireland is a part, just as Scotchmen, who do not yield to any Irishmen in their love of their country, recognise that the patriotism of a Scotsman in no way hinders, obstructs, or impairs that larger patriotism which he has for the United Kingdom and for the British Empire. If you are going, when this Bill is passed, to talk very little about the Empire, very little about the Parliament which your new Parliament is said to be subordinate, if you are going to fly a purely Irish flag, if you are going to appeal to purely Irish sentiments, and if you think, after that, you are going to make Ireland bear the same relation to the United Kingdom and the Empire as Scotland bears, let me tell you, you are grievously and utterly mistaken. The cultivation of such an emotion is no easy matter, and if you think it is going to spring up at once under the operation of hon. Gentlemen's eloquence, then you are profoundly mistaken. I believe that the object which my hon. and gallant Friend has in bringing this Amendment is an 816 object which every Irishman ought most earnestly to pursue, and ought to make him do his best to induce the rising generation in Ireland to feel that they belong to the larger community. Their whole argument for this Bill in this House is that they feel we have hindered that sentiment so far by what, they consider to be our ill-contrived legislative machine. I do not agree with them, but if they believe it, then they surely ought to welcome everything which should give, with their full consent, legislative sanction to the employment of those symbols which point continuously and necessarily to that larger and higher patriotism to which they now avow themselves to be whole-hearted converts. But they have not done so. They have received the suggestion with sneers and scoffs. They have made a speech about the Imperial flag which I think myself, speaking as a citizen of this Empire, absolutely intolerable. I have listened to it with shame and disgust. If that is going to be the spirit with which they are going to deal with these great symbols in Ireland, then I can tell them, however honest their professions may be in this House, they are destined to be absolutely shattered under the policy they themselves put forward.
§ Mr. JOHN REDMOND
Although I unfortunately was called away from the House about half an hour ago, and therefore did not hear the Chief Secretary or the commencement of the speech of the-right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, his concluding remarks induce me to believe that I ought to intervene for a few moments in this Debate. Let me say at the commencement that the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has, in my judgment, done a profound injustice to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. J. MacVeagh). I go so far as to say that the object which the right hon. Gentleman says ought to be entertained by all patriotic Irishmen, namely, while cultivating her own separate nationality she should also be willing to share and be proud of a wider nationality of Empire, is the object of my hon. Friend the Member for South Down, as it is certainly the object of myself and my colleagues. I was profoundly impressed the other day by a speech made in the City of London by the right hon. Gentleman, in which he enunciated this very doctrine, and I paid him the compliment—if he will admit it is a compliment—of quoting his speech at length at a Home Rule meeting a couple 817 of days afterwards. I concluded the quotation by saying that the doctrine he laid down was our ideal. He said he was proud as a Scotchman of the separate nationality of Scotland, as the Canadians were proud of the separate nationality of Canada, and as Australians were proud of the separate nationality of Australia; while they were all proud of being citizens of the Empire and of the wider nationality of that Empire. The right hon. Gentleman made no reference to Ireland, but that is our ideal, and the Irish people have been debarred from the realisation of that ideal by the history of Ireland ever since the Union. The right hon. Gentleman, I am sure, is well acquainted with the history of Ireland. Does he forget that the most extreme movement against British rule for the last 100 years since the movement commenced was a movement and a constitutional movement for reform. Take the case of Wolf Tone. His was originally a constitutional movement which had for its object Parliamentary reform and Catholic Emancipation, and it was not until 1795 when, unfortunately, Lord Fitz-william, who embodied those ideals, was withdrawn from Ireland, that these men became rebels. The same thing has happened in every movement since that day. The '48 movement was created and conducted by men who originally only asked for Parliamentary reform, and who, when they found that hope was absolutely gone, turned into rebels. From the clay of Wolf Tone down to this moment there has been no leader of Nationalist sentiment in Ireland who was not willing and eager to grasp the idea of a separate nationality combined with the Imperial unity, if he had been allowed to do so. Let me come down to this particular Amendment. It seeks to impose, for no reason I know of, some humiliation upon Ireland. [HON MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I do not think it is quite fair that I should be interrupted. Throughout all these Debates I have refrained from interruptions, and my colleagues have done the same, and I think I might be listened to now. I say I know not what the object of this Amendment is, unless it is to inflict upon Ireland some stigma on this point which has not been inflicted on any other self-governing portion of the Empire. Do you think that by putting this provision in the Bill you are going to make the Union Jack the flag of the Empire? It is already the flag of the Empire and has been so created by Statute, and the Home Rule Bill will not interfere with it. 818 If the Home Rule Bill is passed without this Amendment, the Union Jack will still be the flag of the Empire, and it will be flown in a contented Ireland after the Home Rule Bill is passed. The Union Jack is provided for by Statute. People speak of the disfavour with which the Union Jack has been received in Ireland in the past.
§ Mr. JOHN REDMOND
It was at the time of the Union—the Proclamation. That stands and is not interfered with in any way by this Bill at the time of the Union. Some hon. Gentlemen have said that the Union Jack has been received from time to time, in periods of excitement, with disfavour in Ireland. Remember this, the-Union Jack dates only from the Union of 1800, and all parties admit that the Union from that date down to this moment—I will not go into its history, or the reasons—everyone knows that from 1800 down to this moment, the Union has been detested by the overwhelming majority of the Irish people, and that flag, created only as a symbol of that Union, I think most naturally, in times of excitement has from time to time met with marks of disfavour. But after the passage of this Bill it will no longer be the symbol of a hated and distrusted Union. It will be the symbol of a Union which the Irish people have frankly and fully accepted. It will be the symbol of the great Empire into which, for the first time they say, they have been admitted on terms of equality and honour. It is nothing less than a stigma that, by a Clause in this Bill, you should compel the Irish people to put over this building or that building a flag which will be their flag for the first time after this Bill is passed.
It is said that Ireland will flaunt her own flag. I do not know what "flaunting her own flag" means, but I will tell you what Ireland will do. She will do what every Colony in the Empire does to-day. Go to Canada, and you will find there the Union Jack the symbol of the Empire, but you will find a flag of Canada alongside it. Go to Australia, and you will find the Union Jack there. I have sat in great Australian gatherings with the Union Jack over my head, and side by side with it the Australian flag, the blue flag with the Southern Cross upon it. Go where you will throughout the Empire, and you will find these flags, often where there is no Home Rule at all. My hon. Friend alluded to the case of Scotland. I remember 819 being greatly interested in seeing the flag of Scotland, without any Union Jack within eyesight of it, floating proudly over the Scottish Office in London, and not long afterwards I happened to be passing through Downing Street, on a most innocent mission, and I found the flag of Wales, without any Union Jack near it, floating over the house of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. No, Sir, we will not flaunt the flag of Ireland in the face of anybody, but you will have in the city of Dublin the Union Jack floating as a symbol of the Union, for the first time accepted by the Irish people, as a symbol of the Empire, and alongside it you will find some Irish flag. Personally I do not know what that flag will be. I know what my own predilections are in that respect, but I also know that there is great difference of opinion among Irish scholars as to what the real colour of the old Irish flag was. Whether it will be the St. Patrick blue or whether it will be what we are in the habit of calling the "immortal green," is of little importance to the Members of this House. The important fact is this, that the Irish flag will be a symbol of that local separate nationality which the right hon. Gentleman praised in his speech in the City of London, and the Union Jack will be a symbol of the Empire to which Ireland, then for the first time, will feel she has been admitted on honourable and equal terms. In these circumstances, I think the right hon. Gentleman has entirely misrepresented the motive and intention of my hon. Friend's speech, and he has certainly very gravely misrepresented the intentions, views, and ideals of my colleagues and myself.
§ Mr. WHYTE
In the few remarks I shall address to the Committee I wish specially to refer to the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour), and to recall to the memory of the House another speech which he made, the text of which was that the basis of democracy is the consent of the governed. In the opening passages of the speech he delivered to-night the Committee recognised the author of the "consent of the governed" speech; but, as he went on, he divested himself of the philosophic and historical character in which he had delivered the previous speech, and turned his remarks into a more definitely partisan way. May I remind him that the whole of this Debate arises out of the fact that the 820 United Kingdom, of which he is one of the highest leaders, has for a whole century failed to understand the application of his own doctrine to Ireland, and that the consequence has been that the Irish people, with a perfect right and in an absolutely natural sense, have denied the fact that the Union Jack was their flag. There are hon. Members on the Irish Benches who have been the inmates of Irish prisons—placed there at the dictates of English Ministers. I do not know whether or not the Union Jack flew over those prisons, but I suspect that it did. How can the right hon. Gentleman expect hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway on that side of the House to accept a Clause moved in the spirit in which it has been moved, and supported by the quotations with which it has been supported, or to accept, in the meek spirit which he suggests, a Clause which, as the hon. and learned Member for Waterford very truly said, represents an insult and a humiliation to the Irish people? The insult and humiliation it represents is that the whole spirit in which hon. Gentlemen and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have conducted this Debate is one of the deepest distrust of Ireland. Viewing the behaviour of Irishmen for over a century, they believe that the behaviour of Irishmen in the future, even under Home Rule, will be the same. There again they completely misconceive the doctrine which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman himself understands very well, and the doctrine he himself propounded, namely, that you cannot have the only loyalty to the flag that is worth having unless you have the consent of the governed.
§ Mr. CROFT
We were all interested to see the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) get up in his place and endeavour to pour oil on very troubled waters, and endeavour to wash out the impression made by the tragic speech which was made by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. MacVeagh) a little earlier in the Debate. [Laughter.] I am well aware that hon. Gentlemen opposite found a great deal of amusement, in that speech, but if it had been uttered in any other Parliament, Dominion or Provincial, in the British Empire, he would have been howled down by every man present. I do not wish to open the old sores on this question at all, but I wish to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider whether a grave injury is not being inflicted upon our national life if we permit 821 to go unchallenged a speech of that description. What is the object of this Clause? It is to invite this Parliament to decide that the Union Jack shall fly over the Parliament in Dublin. That flag flies over all the Parliaments in the British Empire, and what is good enough for the Dominions overseas is good enough for them. If there is anything in what the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford from time to time has said, and if any of his protestations are true, you would have thought that he would have been only too ready to come alongside all other parts of the Empire and fly that great flag over the Parliament in Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "So he will; he said so."] We were told by the hon. and learned Gentleman that this will be a humiliation.
§ Mr. J. REDMOND
No, I never said that. I am sure the hon. Member does not intend to misrepresent me. I never said the floating of the Union Jack over the Parliament in Dublin would be a humiliation. On the contrary, I said that is what will happen.
§ Mr. CROFT
I am very glad to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say that. I did not mean to misrepresent him. He did not wait until I had finished quoting. I was going to say that he considered that if this Clause were passed it would be a humiliation. I was not going to misquote the hon. Gentleman. If that is what is going to happen, and it is no humiliation, why not show your good faith and agree to the Clause now? The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), which has been quoted, referred to the fact that Canadians, Australians, and Scotchmen are proud of their separate national feelings. Yes, Sir, but they are all proud of our national flag, and I would still ask whether it is not possible, even now, that by consent the Irish party should agree to a Clause of this description, to which we attach a great deal of value.
§ Mr. CROFT
Although we have been reduced to nothing but a machine, we still call ourselves a Parliament, and although I admit it is a mockery and a sham, at the same time it is our duty in whatever possible way we can to improve this Bill. Speaking not as a party man, but from the point of view of the wider feeling of the British Empire, who will read with pleasure the speech that was made this afternoon? I still hope that a very large number of hon. Gentlemen opposite will accompany my hon. and gallant Friend into the Lobby in support of this Clause.
§ Mr. PRINGLE
I must say that we on this side of the Committee, and I have no doubt hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway opposite, have listened with the greatest gratification to the main parts of this speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. He apparently has reached the stage when he would welcome a settlement of the Home Rule question by consent.
§ 6.0 P.M.
§ Mr. PRINGLE
The hon. Member is a not unimportant personage. He is the leader and the chief captain of the Confederates. He is to make a tour in Scotland shortly, and his going there has been heralded by paragraphs in all the papers telling his history from his birth upwards, until he founded the celebrated Confederates. So it is important that we should pay the utmost attention to everything that falls from his lips. He has made a proposition to the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. He said, "Why will you not accept this Clause, which, it is true, makes the Union Jack statutory in Ireland, but accept it as the symbol of your good faith?" Naturally one expects when an offer of that kind is made that the quid pro quo is to be granted. And obviously the implication in the speech of the hon. Member was that as the result of the acceptance of this Clause he and those with whom he acts—may I say those whom he leads—will be willing to work with the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) for a settlement of this Home Rule question. I hope I am not misinterpretating the hon. Gentleman.
§ Mr. PRINGLE
That does not carry us very far—not so far as the hon. Member went in his speech. He is cooling down. I must keep him up to the pitch of his earlier fervour. I took the liberty of interrupting him, suggesting that he was a Home Ruler. What did he then say? "Oh, well, we must have every safeguard in this Bill." Consequently he is apparently a Home Ruler if it is only clear that the safeguards which are necessary for the integrity of the Empire and the unity of the United Kingdom are inserted in the Bill. That must be his position. We are, then, in a position to deal. I remember reading a very interesting article in the "Observer" newspaper two years ago. It was written by a gentleman whose name frequently flames on the posters of the evening newspapers in London, and it pointed out the changes which have taken place in relation to the Home Rule problem.
§ Mr. PRINGLE
I am just developing my argument. I hope, if I am a little slow in developing my argument, I shall be treated with the indulgence which is usually displayed in your ruling.
§ The CHAIRMAN
If the hon. Member would put his point in the beginning it would be easier for the Chair to see whether the rest is relevant.
§ Mr. PRINGLE
The point upon which I started was this, that upon the basis of the hon. Member's speech there was a possibility of a settlement of the Home Rule question by agreement. On certain conditions he is prepared to consider a settlement on the lines of this Bill. If I know that is so I may vote for this Clause. I want to be quite clear as to what the attitude of the Opposition will be on this particular point. If, as I conceive it, the attitude of the hon. Member and those with whom he acts is that if safeguards are introduced, and if the new conditions are recognised which have arisen in relation to the Home Rule controversy, he would not allow the sullen negation of a small minority in the North-East corner of Ireland to prevent a great Imperial settlement, we are prepared to meet him.
§ Mr. PRINGLE
We have only got to the first step. The first term is this Clause, and on the basis of this Clause I, at least, am prepared to deal, and I have no doubt the hon. Member (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) will be prepared to accept this. It is true that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. John Redmond) has described this Clause as a humiliation, and it is because, for the first time, in making a new Constitution within the Empire, we are providing for statutory loyalty and compulsory patriotism. It is, therefore, humiliation, but still I am quite sure of this, that hon. Gentlemen from Ireland would be willing to pocket their pride, as we say in Scotland, if they were assured that, as the result of this slight slur upon their national character, they were to receive self-government from the Imperial Parliament with general consent, apart from the small minority in the North-East comer of Ireland. I think that is the situation which we have reached, and I have no doubt it appeals even to the hon. Member (Mr. Ronald M'Neill), because though he comes from the North-East of Ireland, he is an English Member, and he is not only a parochial Ulsterman, but he is also an Imperialist.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member is hanging too large a coat on a small peg. It really is impossible to discuss the whole Bill on this Clause. I must ask him to keep to the Clause.
§ Mr. PRINGLE
I thank you for the indulgence which you have extended to me. I confess that the opportunity which was opened up by the speech of the hon. Member (Mr. Croft) was too inviting for me to neglect it, and I hope that although it is rather late to go on with this matter at the present time, yet in the two years which are available before we get this through under the Parliament Act, some sort of conference on the lines I have suggested may be held, and that we may have Homo Rule by universal consent.
§ Mr. CROFT
The hon. Member has certainly given a meaning to my words which I cannot permit to go unchallenged. As one who believes in the unity of the British Empire, had I seen anything in this Bill which could have drawn more closely towards Imperial federation, I should have given it at any rate my most careful consideration, because then I should have believed that the hon. Member really desired to build up a great Imperial federation. As I have found from the very start 825 that this Bill did not aim at that end, but at a policy which is absolutely divorced from Imperial federalism, I wish him to understand that I could never support this Bill under any circumstances.
§ Mr. PRINGLE
The hon. Member seems to have some doubt as to my good faith. I wish to make an offer which will be evidence of my good faith. I am willing with him to form the nucleus of a committee to carry out the objects we have in common.
§ Colonel GREIG
The hon. Member seemed to show that he certainly has not studied this Bill or really grasped what it means. Those of us on this side who support it, read in every line and in every Clause an approach to Imperial unity, for the very simple reason that we believe that with a reconciled Ireland there will be a nearer opportunity for Imperial unity to come about. But I am not going into that point. I want to say one or two words about the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Balfour) who made a very strong attack on the hon. Member (Mr. MacVeagh). I am certain there was not a Member on this side of the House, nor indeed on the other side, who listened to that speech, who could say that from beginning to end the hon. Member uttered one single word of contempt for the flag. The right hon. Gentleman was trying to drag a red herring across this Debate. What we were laughing at was the fact, as described in words used by the hon. Member (Mr. Croft), that these Debates, to a very large extent, at least the speeches coming from the other side were machine made. That was the point that appealed to our sense of humour.
Let me say a word about this suggestion of the flag. We believe that that flag is one that should not be the flag of any particular party. We on this side are just as keen defenders of that flag and upholders of it as hon. Members opposite, and yet we find that the Tory party has made it, in the North of Ireland, a partisan emblem, and in the General Elections which have taken place in this country from time to time, it is printed on their cards as if they were the only supporters of it. Then the very Amendment, if you look at what it actually says, is an attack on the Royal Prerogative. Let us turn to what the Act of Union says:—Article I. Let it be the first article in the Kingdom of Great Britain Ireland..… and that the Royal style and titles appertaining to the 826 Imperial Crown of the said United Kingdom and its dependencies and also the ensigns, armorial flags and banners thereof shall be such as His Majesty, by His Royal Proclamation under the great Seal of the United Kingdom, shall be pleased to appoint.This Clause proposes that the Union flag (commonly known as the Union Jack) appointed by Royal Proclamation, shall henceforth, after the passing of this Act and the acceptance of this Clause, be the official flag of Ireland. Clause 2 says the Irish Parliament shall have power to do certain things, butthey shall not have power to make laws in respect of the following matters in all or any of them. The Crown.One of the prerogatives of the Crown is to say what the emblems shall be. This Clause will confine the Crown and restrict its jurisdiction.
One more thing and I have done. Again and again in this Debate there has been a denial of what we on this side of the House accept, that there is an Irish nationality as much entitled to its place in this Kingdom as the nationality to which the late leader and the present leader of the Opposition and many of us on this side belong—the Scottish nationality. We are proud of the Scottish nationality, and we expect and believe that the Irish are proud of their nationality. What will happen after this Bill has passed? That the Irish nation, and the Scottish nation when they get their Home Rule, will be independent? No, they will be interdependent nations of the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. RONALD M'NEILL
I do not think that any one on this side of the House has made the denial of Irish nationality to which the hon. Member (Colonel Greig) refers. What is constantly said, of course, is that our idea of Irish nationality is a totally different thing from the idea that prevails below the Gangway, and that the inferences we draw from Irish nationality are also very different. Surely, there was no point in the hon. Member's contention that this Clause would actually amount to an attack upon the prerogative. In support of that contention the hon. Member read a Clause from an earlier Statute which conferred upon the Crown at that time—just as we are now conferring upon the Crown power to do various things by Order in Council—power to decide by proclamation from time to time what the official flag shall be. That is exactly what 827 we are asking the House to do to-day. We are asking the House to prescribe what shall be the official flag in Ireland after this Constitution has been settled. I do not know that it is very necessary for any of us on this side of the House after what has been so extremely well said by my right hon. Friend, the Member for the City of London (Mr. Balfour), to say more in support of the proposed new Clause. The speech of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. MacVeagh) gave me very much more satisfaction than his speech the last time I had the privilege of hearing him in the House. I think the hon. Member is so much more effective when he tries to be humorous than when he tries to be serious. I think the role he played as a broad comedian gave him more scope for his particular genius than when he tried to pose as a pocket Demosthenes.
§ Mr. R. M'NEILL
I can assure the hon. Member that I do not feel in the least hurt by his retort, any more than the very able gentleman to whom the hon. Member for South Down called attention below the Gallery was hurt by his remarks, although they were not absolutely in good taste.
§ Mr. R. M'NEILL
I have heard the name repeated in various parts of the House since it was introduced in this Debate by the hon. Member for South Down. The hon. Member reproached us on this side of the House because in the attempt to unravel the peculiarly intricate difficulties of the finance of this Bill we have been content to enjoy the assistance of a very able gentleman who has made a special study of it. The hon. Member made great play with the name of this gentleman, and that appeared to give him great satisfaction. It appeared to me to be rather dangerous ground for a Member of his party to travel over, for they, after all, are quite content and quite willing to enter into a Constitution for their own country, the finance of which is being devised for them by the Postmaster-General. It has been said, I think, by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. Redmond) and some others, that it would be an insult to Ireland to adopt this new Clause. That 828 was repeated by the hon. Member opposite representing a Scotch constituency, who said it would be an insult because in. all the other branches of the Empire we have never before attempted by legislation to prescribe the official flag which they were to use. But we are always being told by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite when we bring forward some Colonial analogy that there is no analogy for this Constitution. Surely, if the plea of the Front Bench opposite is accurate, there is no precedent for what is being done in regard to the Irish Constitution. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway say this is not a Bill to dissolve the United Kingdom. We are told that after this Constitution comes into force the Kingdom will be as much united as before. There is no pretence in the case of the Dominions Overseas that they are united with this country. There never was a pretence that they were to remain substantially unaffected in the relations between them and the Mother Country by the Constitutions they received. It was acknowledged that we were giving to them Constitutions which practically amounted to independence, but in the case of Ireland it is one of the different component parts of the United Kingdom which hitherto have accepted one single flag as the emblem of the unity and sovereignty they have in common.
Now, because we are to this extent showing our willingness to trust the professions which are made by hon. Members below the Gangway, that they really do wish to continue in the United Kingdom, we are told that it is a positive insult to ask them to do anything of the sort. I think this is an opportunity of showing their good faith in regard to these professions. The hon. Member for South Down produced a heavy book of reference, which I rather think was a book of reference in which I have some personal interest. He gave learned disquisitions on the Union Jack and the various styles of flags. I think, personally, that it would have been a great deal more to the point if the hon. Member had told us which particular variety of Union flag it was that his friends snatched out of the hands of the Sunday school children at Castledawson, and which excited animosity and violence against women and children when they came within sight. These are the facts which would be very much more material to the present discussion if we could get the information from hon. Members below 829 the Gangway than those learned disquisitions drawn from the Encyclopædia Britannica which were produced by the hon. Member for South Down. I speak as an Irishman, and as the representative of an English constituency, and I feel that after this Bill has come into operation—if it ever does so—we do desire to have a symbol of continued unity as proposed in the new Clause moved by my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. ROBERT HARCOURT
I only rise because there has been put into my hand an interesting document in reference to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Croft). I would not use it if I did not see that the hon. Gentleman is still in his place. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why use it at all?"] This is a poster which was put on the walls in his constituency during last election. It is headed, "The Union for ever. Every vote for the Radical means Home Rule for Ireland." There was no doubt in his mind about the mandate. It goes on in this way, "The hauling down of the Union Jack. Vote for Page Croft, and keep the old flag flying." [Cheers.] I am glad to hear that these interesting sentiments have the sympathy and support of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I rise deliberately as an Englishman to stand side by side with hon. Gentlemen from Ireland when these, imputations are made. We all know this class of electioneering.
§ Mr. R. HARCOURT
I do not dispute your ruling. I desire to say that accusations have frequently been made against English candidates at elections similar to those which are now being made against Irish Nationalists. I remember the days of the Boer war.
§ Mr. STANLEY WILSON made a remark which was inaudible.
§ Mr. R. HARCOURT
The hon. Member for the Holderness Division will allow me to remember what happened during the Boer war. I remember a poster which was put out in the Newmarket Division against the sitting Member.
§ The CHAIRMAN
I would remind the hon. Member that the Amendment proposes the compulsory flying of the Union flag over the buildings of the Irish Parliament.
§ Mr. R. HARCOURT
I see you have no desire to widen the Debate, and I will 830 return to the point you have mentioned. It is that process of compulsion which I do think causes difficulties. It has been pointed out that the Union Jack in Ireland has been turned unjustly, and as I think most lamentably, into a party emblem. I object to the use of the Union Jack in Ire land or in this country as a party emblem. I think that the use of the Union Jack in electioneering literature is most lament able. I hope it will not be an imputation on my patriotism, and I suppose my family has been as long in the country——
Mr. STANLEY WILSON
On a point of Order. Has that anything to do with the subject under discussion at the present time?
§ Mr. R. HARCOURT
I will conclude by saying that I think hon. Gentlemen opposite have reason to resent the spirit in which at is proposed that this Clause should be forced upon them. I think the method of the compulsion is the most objectionable feature of all. I was greatly struck with what the Chief Secretary said in dealing with compulsion. I remember the story of a bishop, a celebrated man, Dr. Thirlwall, when he was an undergraduate. He was accused of not being as regular as he should have been in his attendance at chapel, and it was put to him by the authorities of his college that for certain persons it was either compulsory religion or no religion at all. The bishop said that the distinction was too subtle for his simple mind. This kind of compulsion, and the spirit in which hon. Gentlemen opposite seek to impose the Clause will make no just concession to the feeling of Irish nationality, and it will justly cause resentment.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON
I certainly should not have risen but for the speech of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. Harcourt). He, in the first place, taunted us with not putting sufficient trust, I do not say in the professions of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, but in their ability to carry out those professions. He has taunted us, especially those of us who represent constituencies in the North of Ireland, with making in the North of Ireland a partisan symbol of the Union flag. He has said that the Union flag is a partisan emblem in Ireland. It is, and he might have gone further. He might have 831 said that in Ireland "God Save the King" is a party tune. Who made it a party tune? What are their party flag and their party tune, the harp without the Crown and "God save Ireland." The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that that is the present condition of things. He says that when the Home Rule Bill goes through this will be all changed.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON
And the Union Jack will be flying in every county in Ireland. The speech of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford will be read with interest to-morrow in Ireland, and I shall be surprised if it escapes altogether without comment. It is suggested that in the old days Irish Nationalists were hot against the Union Jack because it meant the symbol of a hated dominion and they had no hope of Home Rule in their minds, and if any outrages took place on that flag they were committed by poor ignorant people in the heat of the moment. Let us examine a bit of recent history in the light of that statement. On the 31st of March the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford addressed in Dublin a great meeting of rejoicing—for what? For the certainty, as he said, that within a few months they were going to be within a very close distance of achieving Home Rule. Therefore, there was no question at that moment of there not being any hope of Home Rule. The hon. and learned Member went so far as to say he was certain. That was at a great demonstration held on Sunday in the streets in Dublin. There is a newspaper in Ireland called the "Irish Independent," which has offices in one of the principal streets in Dublin. It so happened that over the office of the "Irish Independent" there was floating a Union Jack. This Union Jack was comparatively close to a part of the meeting which was being addressed by Professor Kettle. I mention all these facts because it is suggested that the animus against the flag comes from
poor ignorant people. No one will suggest that Professor Kettle is anything but a learned and eminent man in the world of letters. When Professor Kettle was speaking, a voice from the crowd called out:—
What about the 'Irish Independent' and the Union Jack floating over it?
Professor Kettle said:—
I am sure that the people of Dublin will lie able to take care of anybody who is in opposition to Ireland's will, and will know how to deal with the enemies of the Irish people. And I say that for a paper which was once founded by Mr. Parnell, it is a sorry exhibition.
§ What sorry exhibition? To fly the Union Jack. May I explain that when Mr. Kettle made that statement he was doing an injustice to the "Irish Independent." The "Irish Independent" took occasion next day to explain in its columns that Mr. Kettle had done them an injustice, and that, in point of fact, the Union Jack that was exhibited was not their Union Jack, but belonged to the Irish Lights Board, which happened to have offices over them.
§ Mr. T. M. HEALY
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to be aware that Mr. Kettle was simply speaking as leader-writer of the opposition paper, the "Freeman."
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON
After all the hon. and learned Gentleman knows the history of politics in Ireland of recent years sufficiently well to know that those who are to-day leader-writers on the "Freeman's Journal" may to-morrow hold the highest offices of the State in Ireland. In fact, one might almost say that it had become a sine qua non to the avenues of office in Ireland at the present moment. It is sufficient to say, however much appreciation we may attach to the professions of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, if they are to all rise up in Ireland a spirit of reverence for the Empire flag they will have to reverse the whole current of the teaching which they have given in Ireland up to to-day.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 166; Noes, 296.835
|Division No. 444.]||AYES.||[6.40 p.m.|
|Amery, L. C. M. S.||Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)||Beckett, Hon. Gervase|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)|
|Anstruther-Gray, Major William||Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Beresford, Lord Charles|
|Archer-Shee, Major M.||Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Bigland, Alfred|
|Ashley, Wilfrid W.||Barnston, Harry||Bird, Alfred|
|Baird. John Lawrence||Barrie, H. T.||Blair, Reginald|
|Baker, sir Randolf L. (Dorset, N.)||Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)||Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-|
|Balcarres, Lord||Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Boyton, James|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Bridgeman, W. Clive|
|Bull, Sir William James||Hill, Sir Clement L.||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Hill-Wood, Samuel||Remnant, James Farquharson|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Hoare, S. J. G.||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Butcher, John George||Hope, James Fittalan (Sheffield)||Royds, Edmunds|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)|
|Campion, W. R.||Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Houston, Robert Paterson||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Hume-Williams, W. E.||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Cave, George||Hunt, Rowland||Sanders, Robert Arthur|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford Univ.)||Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath)||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Jessel, Captain H. M.||Sassoon, Sir Philip|
|Chambers, James||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Smith, Rt. Hon. F. E. (L'p'l., Walton)|
|Clive, Captain Percy Archer||Kerry, Earl of||Smith, Harold (Warrington)|
|Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Kimber, Sir Henry||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Courthope, George Loyd||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Stanier, Beville|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian||Knight, Captain Eric Ayshford||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Cripps, Sir Charles Alfred||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Starkey, John Ralph|
|Croft, H. P.||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Stewart, Gershom|
|Dalziel, Davison (Bixton)||Lee, Arthur Hamilton||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Lewisham, Viscount||Swift, Rigby|
|Dixon, C. H.||Lloyd, G. A.||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Doughty, Sir George||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Terrell, G. (Wilts, N.W.)|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Terrell, Henry (Gloucester)|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee||Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North)|
|Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Geo., Han. S)||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)|
|Falle, Bertram Godfray||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)||Tobin, Alfred Aspinall|
|Fell, Arthur||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Touche, George Alexander|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||McNeill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine)||Tryon, Captain George Clement|
|Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes||Magnus, Sir Philip||Tullibardine, Marquess of|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Fletcher, John Samuel (Hampstead)||Middlemore, John Throgmorton||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Gardner, Ernest||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas||White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)|
|Gastreil, Major W. Houghton||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)||Williams, Col. R (Dorset, W.)|
|Gibbs, George Abraham||Mount, William Arthur||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Gilmour, Captain John||Newton, Harry Kottingham||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Goldman, C. S.||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks. E.R.)|
|Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Nield, Herbert||Winterton, Earl|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Norton-Griffiths, J. (Wednesbury)||Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon)|
|Greene, Walter Raymond||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S. Edmunds)||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Parkes, Ebenezer||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-|
|Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)||Wright, Henry Fitzherbert|
|Hambro, Angus Valdemar||Pole-Carew, Sir R.||Yate, Colonel C. E.|
|Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)||Pollock, Ernest Murray||Younger, Sir George|
|Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)||Pretyman, Ernest George|
|Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence||Pryce-Jones, Col. E.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. Hamersley and Mr. Macmaster.|
|Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Quilter, Sir William Eley C.|
|Hickman, Col. Thomas E.||Randles, Sir John S.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Brocklehurst, W. B.||Donelan, Captain A.|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Brunner, John F. L.||Doris, William|
|Adamson, William||Bryce, J. Annan||Duffy, William J.|
|Addison, Dr. C.||Buckmaster, Stanley O.||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)|
|Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D.||Burke, E. Haviland-||Duncan, J. Hastings (York, Otley)|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Burns, Rt Hon. John||Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)|
|Alden, Percy||Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)||Chancellor, Henry George||Elverston, Sir Harold|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)|
|Armitage, Robert||Clancy, John Joseph||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)|
|Arnold, Sydney||Clough, William||Esslemont, George Birnie|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Clynes, John R.||Falconer, James|
|Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A.||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Farrell, James Patrick|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Ffrench, Peter|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Cotton, William Francis||Field, William|
|Barnes, G. N.||Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Fitzgibbon, John|
|Barton, William||Crean, Eugene||Flavin, Michael Joseph|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Crooks, William||France, Gerald Ashburner|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Crumley, Patrick||George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Cullinan, John||Gilhooly, James|
|Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts., St. George)||Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)||Gill, A. H.|
|Bentham, G. J.||Davies, Ellis (William (Eifion)||Gladstone, W. G. C.|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Glanville, H. J.|
|Black, Arthur W.||Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford|
|Boland, John Pius||Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)||Goldstone, Frank|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Dawes, J A.||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||De Forest, Baron||Greig, Col. J. W.|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Delany, William||Griffith, Ellis J.|
|Brace, William||Devlin, Joseph||Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Dickinson, W. H.||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E)|
|Guiney, Patrick||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Roberts, Charles H (Lincoln)|
|Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Hackett, John||Manfield, Harry||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Hall, Frederick (Normanton)||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Hancock, J. G.||Masen, David M. (Coventry)||Robinson, Sidney|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis (Rossendale)||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Meagher, Michael||Roche, Augustine (Louth)|
|Hardie, J. Keir||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Rowlands, James|
|Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds.)||Menzies, Sir Walter||Rowntree, Arnold|
|Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Millar, James Duncan||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Molloy, Michael||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.|
|Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Mond, Sir Alfred M.||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Mooney, John J.||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Morgan, George Hay||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.|
|Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Morrell, Philip||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Morison, Hector||Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.|
|Hayward, Evan||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Sheehy, David|
|Hazleton, Richard||Muldoon, John||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, East)||Munro, R.||Shortt, Edward|
|Helme, Sir Norval Watson||Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Henderson, J M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Needham, Christopher T.||Byles, Sir William Pollard|
|Henry, Sir Charles||Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim)|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Nolan, Joseph||Snowden, Philip|
|Higham, John Sharp||Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert|
|Hinds, John||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Sutherland, J. E.|
|Hodge, John||O'Brien, William (Cork)||Sutton, John E.|
|Hoggs, James Myles||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Holmes, Daniel Turner||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)|
|Holt, Richard Durning||O'Doherty, Philip||Tennant, Harold John|
|Hope, John Deans (Haddington)||O'Donnell, Thomas||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Home, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)||O'Dowd, John||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Ogden, Fred||Toulmin, Sir George|
|Hughes, S. L.||O'Grady, James||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rutus||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|John, Edward Thomas||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Sw'nsea)||O'Malley, William||Wadsworth, J.|
|Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)||Walsh, J. (Cork, South)|
|Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)|
|Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||O'Shee, James John||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||O'Sullivan, Timothy||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Jones, W. S. Glyn (Stepney)||Palmer, Godfrey Mark||Waring, Walter|
|Jowett, F. W.||Parker, James (Halifax)||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Joyce, Michael||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Keating, Matthew||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Watt, Henry Anderson|
|Kellaway, Frederick George||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)||Webb, H.|
|Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||White, J. Dundas (Glas., Tradeston)|
|Kilbride, Denis||Pointer, Joseph||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|King, J. (Somerset, North)||Pollard, Sir George H.||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)||Ponsonuy, Arthur A. W. H.||Wiles, Thomas|
|Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Power, Patrick Joseph||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||William, John (Glamorgan)|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)||Price, Sir H. J. (Norfolk, E.)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rind, Cockerm'th)||Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham)||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Leach, Charles||Priestley, Sir W. E. (Bradford)||Wilson. Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Pringle, William M. R.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Radford, G. H.||Winfrey, Richard|
|Lundon, Thomas||Raffan, Peter Wilson||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Lynch, A. A.||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)||Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.)|
|Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Reddy, M.||Young, W. (Perthshire, E.)|
|McGhee, Richard||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)|
|MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
|MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Richards, Thomas|
|M'Callum, Sir John M.||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|