§ Every person shall be entitled to the full and equal protection of the Irish Government, its officers, and servants so as to protect him in lawfully doing any act he has a legal right to do or in abstaining from doing any act he has a legal right to abstain from doing, and if any Irish Minister or any officer or servant of the Irish Government shall neglect or refuse to afford any protection which it is his duty to afford, the person injured by such neglect or refusal may sustain an action for damages in respect of such injury.
§ Mr. MILDMAY
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
This Clause is almost identical with one which I moved to be added to the Home Rule Bill of 1893. It is identical in spirit with that Clause. It proposes to provide that right to protection and assistance from the authorities which every subject has a right to claim. The right hon. Gentleman may think this Clause is not necessary. Let us ask ourselves what would have happened in the past if police protection had been removed from men who had given evidence against those guilty of agrarian offences. If under similar circumstances a man is in future deprived of police protection he will have his remedy under this Clause. It is all very well to say that a reign of peace will be produced in Ireland in the future, but the minority in Ireland cannot afford to neglect the threats which hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have uttered. Threats have been made with a special frequency by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon). He said:—When the police will be our servants we shall then remember who were our enemies, and we shall deal out our punishment to them.Hon. Members are very indignant when we quote such words as these, and they seem to look upon it as an insult that they are taken at their word. They are inclined now, I think, to repudiate these sentiments, and, of course, I accept the repudiation; but how are we to know that they will always represent the Irish people in the Dublin Parliament? How are we to know that they will not be displaced by some of those whom they have been teaching for years to rely on unlawful and violent methods? Is not some protection in these circumstances necessary for men who, in spite of every temptation, have been true to the cause of law and order 310 in Ireland; trusting us to be true to them. Seeing that they have trusted us, we are responsible for their safety in the future, and I maintain that we cannot abandon them in view of the plain threats which have been made against them—the very plain declarations which have been made that in the future they will be remembered.
It has been a matter of frequent dispute in these Debates whether or not the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament has been really safeguarded. I am not going into the question at length, for it has been frequently debated. I believe that many hon. Gentlemen opposite are really desirous of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, but they always seem to forget one thing, and that is that supremacy involves control, not only over the making of laws, but over their enforcement. All the safeguards in this Bill are, I think, very vague and shadowy. The safeguards have ail been inserted with the view of protecting the people against possible faults of commission. They forget that it is no less important to protect them against possible faults of omission—omission to maintain civil and religious liberty, omission to guarantee to everyone power to do what he has a legal right to do, and to refrain from doing what he has a legal right to refrain from doing. We all know what has been meant in Ireland by leaving a man severely alone. We all know what in many parts of Ireland the lives of men who had fulfilled their legal obligations would have been. Without police protection their lives would not have been worth a clay's purchase, and nobody can deny that sins of omission on the part of the Irish Parliament may be just as serious and have results far more terrible than sins of commission. I maintain that the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament is a sham, because this Parliament parts with all control over the Irish Executive. The Irish Members will be at liberty to enforce only those laws which seem to them desirable to enforce. When I moved the Clause in 1893 Lord Morley, then Mr. Morley, characterised it as a platitude. It was merely a platitude that all should be protected in action that is legal. Unfortunately in Ireland circumstances are apt to be peculiar, and it is only too certain that, so far as Ireland is concerned, it cannot be regarded as a platitude. In the Home Rule Debates of 1886 I was sitting near Sir George Trevelyan when he gave the reasons that 311 induced him to give up his seat in Mr. Gladstone's Government. The speech he made then, in point of earnestness, feeling, and strength of conviction, impressed me more than any speech I have ever heard in this House. He said at that time that he would rather give up his political career and become a private citizen than give over to the tender mercies of an Irish Executive the law abiding citizens of that country. It is quite true that he afterwards wavered and threw up the sponge, but I maintain that the words he used on that occasion are no less applicable to Ireland now than they were then. He declared that the poor, the helpless, the uninfluential, the farmers and labourers throughout the south and west of Ireland, who underwent terrible risk of life and limb in fulfilling their legal obligations, and the smaller and humbler officers of the law would be left to the pity of those who had not concealed their intention of paying them out when they got their chance of doing so. I firmly believe that, great as are the dangers involved to the minority in Ireland through unjust actions of the Irish Legislature, the risks that they will run through unjust actions of the Irish Executive are far greater. To my mind, in connection with this new Clause, it is the liberty of Irish men which is at stake, and on that account I would urgently appeal for support to the Clause.
§ Mr. HEWINS
I desire to second the Motion. Very frequently during the Debates on the Bill it has been pointed out that the safeguards in the Bill are purely illusory. It is not the law that counts so much as the man behind the law—the man who administers it. The danger which my hon. Friends feel in regard to the Bill is not one that can be dealt with by paper safeguards put in the Bill. It is the danger traceable to their estimate of the human factor which has to work the Bill. The sole question to be considered is whether the apprehensions which may very well be felt are not justified, and whether the Bill in its present form contains any satisfactory means of removing those apprehensions. I think it has been sufficiently shown in the course of the Debate that the latter question has not been answered by the Bill or the Government. As to the first question whether these apprehensions are justified, I confess I take the English view of this question. To 312 me as an Englishman I am not at first hand concerned in the least with the quarrels in Ireland, and I have watched the development of this question with the greatest care. I have watched with interest the great fight made by my Friends from Ulster and I have watched the demeanour of the Irish Nationalists. I have tried as an Englishman to balance pros and cons and see where we stand. In regard to this important question, are the fears of hon. Members from Ulster justified? We have had disclaimers from the Irish benches and most loyal declarations of impartiality, and it all looks as fair as fair can be. I am not one of those who think that the question of religion comes in. I myself firmly believe that the Roman Catholic Church is one of the great sources of the stability and strength of society throughout Europe. Therefore that is not the question so far as I am concerned. But I look at what hon. Members have been doing, and I say that the apprehensions of hon. Members from Ulster are justified.
I appeal to the proceedings in this House during the course of this Bill. The question is whether without an Amendment of this kind civil and religious liberty are safe. Is religious liberty safe? Whatever hon. Members below the Gangway have done in all these things, I have seen them march day after day into the Lobby and vote for the destruction of the Welsh Church. From the point of view of a great proportion of the inhabitants of Wales in England that is an act of persecution. Then the hon. and learned Member for Waterford went to Nottingham, I think, the other day and said that he was in agreement with all the items of the programme from that side. Take the question of the schools, and we find that the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford, for the sake of carrying out his Nationalist aims, is prepared to assert that he is in complete harmony with all the items of the Liberal programme. One of those items is the destruction of religious education in schools. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I say in view, not of what hon. Members say, but of what they have done and the manner in which they have voted on religious questions in this House, on questions of administration, questions of law, questions of criminal procedure, that my hon. Friends from Ulster are perfectly justified in having apprehensions. Therefore I hope sincerely that this Clause will be accepted. 313 There is nothing very revolutionary in it at all. I should have thought that if hon. Members below the Gangway wanted to give a sense of ease and satisfaction to their colleagues from Ireland and the voters in England, who also have got to make up their minds, they could easily accept this particular Clause. If there is not discrimination in the way in which the Irish Parliament, if it is set up, provides for the administration of the laws, then this Clause will never come into effect at all. It can only come into effect if the action of the Irish Parliament proceeds on lines similar to those on which action has proceeded in the British House of Commons during the last few years.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
The hon. Member who moved this Amendment is to be congratulated upon this distinction, apart from others, that he is moving an Amendment which he moved in a discussion on the Bill of 1893. I congratulate him upon having survived so many political vicissitudes. As to the arguments put forward in support of this Amendment, I cannot help thinking that they are really the same as we have heard again and again applied to different matters as we proceeded under this Bill. The whole of his point was that there ought to be some special provision with regard to the Parliament in Ireland because you could not really trust the Members of the Irish Parliament. We have so often had to deal with that point that I am sure he will not think it want of courtesy if I refrain from answering at any length the observations which he has made. What he is really proposing is that there should be a Clause giving an action for damages against any officer who, in the discharge of his duties, neglects or refuses to carry out some function which it is thought incumbent on him to perform. To me this is an entirely novel principle, and so far as I know there is no precedent for it. It does not apply to any single Parliament, at any rate, which has been created by this House, and it does not apply to this Parliament. The hon. Gentleman fails to give any reason why we should in this particular instance with regard to this Parliament depart from the ordinary law. There is the prelection of course to all citizens in the exercise of their proper legal rights, that if any of these rights are infringed they can have recourse to the Irish Courts and through the Irish Courts by this Bill to the Judicial Committee of the 314 Privy Council, which no one will suggest, whatever may be said with reference to the Irish Courts, is not an absolutely independent and impartial tribunal. In fact, it is the one which I suppose would be selected by hon. Members opposite if they had their choice. So really we put the Irish citizens who will come under the officers created by this Parliament in exactly the same position as all persons hero. We have given exactly the same right by the Amendments which are down. We have put them exactly in the same position, and I fail to understand why it should be suggested that we are to approach the Irish Parliament as if it were going to set to work to do an injustice, instead of, as I should have thought, obtaining the confidence of the citizens by doing justice to all members of the community.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
The hon. and learned Member has said that of me and of my colleagues a good many times. He must not arrogate to himself all the omniscience.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
That is one of the fundamental errors which the hon. Gentleman makes. He thinks that because he was born in Ireland those who have not been there are to take everything from him, and that because he was born and lived in Ireland he is in a better position to tell us here what takes place in Ireland than we are.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
I apply what the hon. and learned Member says to representatives from Ireland, and I find that a very large majority of those hon. Members were also born in Ireland, and they tell us a very different story from that which the hon. and learned Member is fond of imparting to this House. After all, we cannot do better than take the views of both sides if we are to come to a conclusion. The hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Hewins) made a speech which is certainly worthy of being recorded, as it will be, and of being remembered by us. In one part of his speech he made a 315 very reasonable and very moderate statement with regard to the Irish Parliament. He told us that so far as he was concerned he did not himself think anything of the religious question, and he paid a very graceful and eloquent tribute to Roman Catholics.
§ Mr. HEWINS
I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. What I said was that I thought the Roman Catholic Church throughout the world was a source of stability and strength, and I carefully distinguished between that and the religious question and the conduct of Nationalist Members.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
I proceed to the instances which the hon. Member gave to prove his case. If the hon. Member is right, according to his argument—he has listened to these Debates, he has followed everything that has been said—although he has approached this question with a real desire to get at the facts and form an accurate and unbiassed judgment, he has come to the conclusion that by reason of the conduct of hon. Members below the Gangway in this House they are not fit to be trusted, and that there ought to be some safeguards introduced which have not hitherto been introduced in a Parliament. That is an indictment which requires some investigation, and I listened for the instances upon which he supported it. They are really remarkable. You must bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has asked us to do is not to apply this Clause to the Imperial Parliament, but to the Irish Parliament which is to be constituted, because they are in the peculiar position of men who are not to be trusted to carry out the proper functions. One instance on which he framed this serious indictment was that hon. Members below the Gangway opposite have actually voted for Disestablishment, and upon that we are to condemn the Nationalist Members for Ireland. If that be true, and if it follows that they are not to be trusted, all I can say is that the same observation will apply to the majority of this House. Certainly they apply to all those who sit on this side of the House who voted in favour of Welsh Disestablishment.
§ Mr. HEWINS
What I want the right hon. Gentleman to answer is: What business have Irish Catholics to vote for the Disestablishment of the Welsh Church?
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
And the logical sequence is that Irish Members should go to Ireland to manage their affairs, and that hon. Gentlemen in this House ought not to vote on Irish affairs. The hon. Member proceeded to give another instance, and said that Irish Members were actually voting for the destruction of religious education in schools. I am not going to argue with him whether they have voted for that.
§ Mr. HEWINS
What I said was that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford has expressed his adherence to every item of the Liberal programme, and it is impossible to do that without voting for the destruction of religious education.
§ Sir RUFUS ISAACS
I must say that involves a very serious problem. He gave one instance in support of the Motion, and he follows that by stating that the hon. and learned Member for Waterford actually supports the various items of the Liberal programme. I can understand after all that that is a great sin in the eyes of the hon. Member, but surely he does not suggest that that justifies a Clause being made applicable to Ireland which would net be made applicable equally to-all of us on these benches, who also adhere to the various items of the Liberal programme. The truth is the hon. Gentleman was very hard put to it to find any reason for supporting the Amendment. The first part of his speech was a reason why he could not support it; and the second part consisted entirely of the contention that because Irish Members supported Liberal policy in this House, therefore they are not to be trusted to carry out the functions of a Parliament in Ireland. I do impress upon this House that the responsibility as regards Irish services for Executive action must rest and does rest with the Irish Executive. The responsibility for Executive action as regards services which are not Irish services-must rest upon the Imperial Executive, and in each case you have got a Parliament to which that Executive is responsible. It is really strange that there should be this fear that any Irish Parliament elected from the constituencies and which must desire to create confidence in the constituencies throughout Ireland, and to which an Executive is responsible, would in some way foster these sins of omission—and this Clause does not relate to any sin of commission—and that therefore we are to 317 have this proposal, for which I submit no justification has been shown by either the Mover or Seconder.
§ Mr. C. CRAIG
The right hon. Gentleman resisted the Clause on two grounds-first, that it involves a certain amount of distrust of the Irish Parliament; and, secondly, that it is not necessary, as there are ample powers in the Bill to guarantee the safety of every law-abiding person already. With regard to the contention that the Irish Parliament would never act in any other than the fairest possible way to everybody in Ireland, I would only point ont that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends behind him have only become converted to that view within the last few months; and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain how it is that it is only lately the Liberal party have seen their way to advocate a Home Rule measure in this House. As a matter of fact it is common knowledge that a great number of hon. Members opposite are not at this moment satisfied that it is safe to grant Home Rule-to Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] That is a statement which I defy hon. Members opposite to get up and deny. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] It is a well-known fact on the very few occasions at the last election on which hon. Members referred to Home Rule at all, which they did as seldom as possible, and said as little about it as they could, they simply said they were in favour of some measure of self-government for Ireland, but that when it was presented to this House they would criticise very severely the details of the scheme. I would like to know what severe criticism of the details which was promised has been found during the Debate on the Committee and Report stages. Many hon. Members opposite, I admit, have been more or less consistent Home Rulers for some time, but I say without any hesitation that it is only with the greatest reluctance and with the greatest difficulty that many Members of the Liberal party have been brought to swallow this Bill and the conditions contained in it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no."] Hon. Members get up, as the Attorney-General has got up, with assumed indignation at the idea that we should ask for further safeguards for our liberties and rights. Do they really think we have no cause to ask for those further safeguards? Have they forgotten what has been said by hon. Gentlemen 318 below the Gangway any time within the last thirty years? They have not, but they have found that the only possible way in which they can support this Bill with any semblance of decency is to absolutely wipe off with a sponge everything that has been said by Gentlemen of the Nationalist party.
Let me try and put back on the slate a few of those things that they wipe off so conveniently. I will give a quotation, which I admit is very old, from a speech by the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. J. Dillon). [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!"] I hear that "Oh!" as soon as anybody proposes to make a quotation from anything that has been said by hon. Members below the Gangway, because they know perfectly well that it is impossible to get over those statements, and that it is not possible to wipe them off the slate as they propose to do. I am glad the hon. Member for Mayo is here I see him smile. He has furnished us, I am sorry to say, with a great many quotations from time to time. The statement I am about to quote is one which his subsequent career has never given us any reason to suppose he has altered as to his ideas or ideals in the-slightest degree. The speech was made in 1880, and in it he said:—I would not injure any man—I am quite sure it is the very last thing that would enter the head or the mind of the hon. Member, but this is what he would do—The way to deal with them is this. Do not have any communication with them at all Do not allow your children to mix with his children. Do not speak to him and have no dealings with them;neither buy nor sell with him, but show in every way that you can that you regard him as what he is as a traitor to his people and his country and a friend of the oppressors of the people. Believe me, if you keep up that system for a short time. It will he far more effectual than if you shoot him, because no man can he punished for such a deed, and he will give in long before to the force of public opinion, and will hand back the farm, as many men have already done.[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]
I hope hon. Members will observe the cheers. There are two conclusions we may draw from those cheers. First of all, there is their idea of not hurting a man. It is like saying, if you pushed a man into the water, you would not do him the slightest harm, while at the same time you drown him. In the second place, I hope hon. Members will observe that hon. Members below the Gangway still think that is the class of treatment to be meted out to a man in Ireland who is only doing what he has a legal right to do. At 319 the present time, owing largely to the beneficent legislation of the Chief Secretary, the beneficent operation of the Land Act of 1903 has been arrested, and there is still a large proportion, though I am glad to say not half, of the land of Ireland still unsold to the tenants. Suppose Home Rule becomes law in the course of fifteen months or so, the first thing that will happen I am perfectly sure is that a campaign will be made to force the landlords to sell their farms on whatever terms may be at that time, whether under the present Act or under any new conditions that may be instituted. When that campaign is started, the same methods exactly will be used as were used in the time the hon. Member made that speech. Pressure and oppression such as that, and the horrible pressure that used to be brought to bear by hon. Members below the Gangway in the old days, and pressure similar to what they are bringing on at the present time will be again brought to bear on the landlords of Ireland, and on persons who are supposed to hold farms, which for some reason or other hon. Members consider ought to be handed over to somebody else. Are we to believe that the very men who have advocated that class of pressure, and who will under a new Parliament be the Executive body in Ireland, are going to step in and say, "oh, no, you must not do that," and that they are going to use all the powers of the Executive to stop boycotting and to protect those unfortunate landlords. We know perfectly well that they would be stultifying themselves and going back on everything they have said and done if they did anything of the sort.
Therefore I say it is absolutely necessary we should have some further protection than is contained in the Bill. Whether it is necessary or not, I say it is most ridiculous nonsense for the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General to rise with that pretended sense of indignation because we say we have fears that under an Irish Parliament things can happen which have happened in the past, and which we are perfectly certain, if you paid the slightest attention to the history and conditions of Ireland, will happen again. As my hon. Friend reminds me, at the present time in Ireland there are over 300 people under police protection. What is to happen to those people when an Irish Parliament comes to rule in Ireland? Even during the six years under which the 320 Royal Irish Constabulary are under the control of this Parliament those men's lives will not be safe, because, although the police are under the control of this House the Executive will not be, and if the Executive do not think it proper to lend the police for the purpose of protecting them these men will be absolutely without protection; they will either have to give in altogether to the demands of the United Irish League or the Ancient Order of Hibernians, or what other horrible society it may be, or probably lose their lives How are you going to meet a case like that? If hon. Members below the Gangway were sincere in their statements that they desire to see fair play for every man in Ireland would they not use their undoubted power to remove the hatred from which these men suffer at present? We know that they have the power. If a person is boycotted, nothing would be easier than for the Member for the constituency to go down and point out that the boycott is wicked and wrong, and in almost every case it would be removed and police protection rendered unnecessary. Can hon. Members point to a single case where they have exercised that power? Take the question of cattle-driving, which, until a short time ago, when it became the fashion to be good, was rife in the Midlands and West of Ireland. How often did Nationalist Members lift a finger to stop it?
§ Mr. C. CRAIG
Perhaps the hon. Member will give us his views on man-driving in Belfast afterwards. If he does I hope he will confine himself more strictly to facts than he did on the famous occasion when, almost with tears running down his cheeks, he described the case of a man who was supposed to have been driven into a furnace in Belfast.
§ Mr. C. CRAIG
I am sorry to say that in different parts of Ireland there have been many boys injured; I do not know to which one the hon. Member refers.
§ Mr. C. CRAIG
I am happy to say that there are twenty-three members of the Ancient Order of Hibernians at present in prison in connection with that matter. If hon. Members below the Gangway were sincere in their desire to see fair play they would have put down every one of those cattle drives, whereas, as a matter of fact, although they kept silence in this House, they were instigating them at home. How can the right hon. Gentleman assume that tone of indignation at speeches such as my hon. Friend delivered when, if he knew the elements of what goes on in Ireland, he would be aware that we have cause to be certain that the things that have gone on in the past will go on in the future, except that under Home Rule they will continue in a vastly aggravated form. We are, I say, absolutely justified in asking for further protection. The right hon. Gentleman did not deal, to my satisfaction at any rate, with the question as to whether the power at present exists to
§ protect these people. I do not believe it does. I am not a lawyer, but we have discussed the matter. [Laughter.] Hon. Members laugh, but there are a considerable number of Members below the Gangway who also are not lawyers. To be a lawyer is not a disgrace, neither is it anything to boast of. But even so, I come exactly half-way between; I happened to be a lawyer and I am not one now. We have not had explained to my satisfaction that this Clause is not necessary. More information on that point ought to be given to the House. So far as the necessity for some protection is concerned, I do not think there is any hon. Member opposite who in his heart of hearts does not believe that everything that we on this side have said is not absolutely true.
§ Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 143; Noes, 283.325
|Division No. 475.]||AYES.||[10.25 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes||Middlemore, John Throgmorton|
|Aitken, Sir William Max||Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas|
|Amery, L. C. M. S.||Fletcher, John Samuel||Moore, William|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Forster, Henry William||Morrison-Bell, E. F. (Ashburton)|
|Astor, Waldorf||Gardner, Ernest||Mount, William Arthur|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Gastrell, Major W. Houghton||Newman, John R. P.|
|Baker, Sir Randolf L (Dorset, N.)||Gibbs, George Abraham||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.||Nield, Herbert|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Goldman, Charles Sydney||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Goldsmith, Frank||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.|
|8arrie, H. T.||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Bathurst, Hon. Allen B. (Glouc, E.)||Greene, Walter Raymond||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Gretton, John||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Guinness, Hon. W.E. (Bury S.Edmunds)||Pole-Carew, Sir R.|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Pryce-Jones, Colonel E.|
|8igland, Alfred||Haddock, George Bahr||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Bird, Alfred||Hall, Fred (Dulwich)||Rawson, Colonel Richard H.|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Boyton, James||Hamilton, Marquess of (Londonderry)||Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen)|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Harris, Henry Percy||Sanders, Robert|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Snssoon, Sir Philip|
|Butcher, John George||Helmsley, Viscount||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Hickman, Colonel Thomas E.||Starkey, John Ralph|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy||Swift, Rigby|
|Cassel, Felix||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Castlereagh, Viscount||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central)|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Horner, Andrew Long||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Herts. Hitchin)||Houston, Robert Paterson||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.)||Hunt, Rowland||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Chambers, James||Kebty-Fletcher, J. R.||Touche, George Alexander|
|Clive, Captain Percy Archer||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Tullibardine, Marquess of|
|Courthope, George Loyd||Kimber, Sir Henry||Valentia, Viscount|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)||Larmor, Sir J.||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Craig, Captain James (Down, E.)||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Lawson, Hon. H. (T.H'mts.,Mile End)||White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Lewisham, Viscount||Willouqhby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Croft, Henry Page||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Winterton, Earl|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Dixon, Charles Harvey||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (St. Geo.Han.S.)||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Doughty, Sir George||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)||Wright, Henry Fitzherbert|
|Du Cros, Arthur Philip||MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Macmaster, Donald||Yerburgh, Robert A|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||M'Mordie, Robert|
|Faber, Capt. W. V. (Hants, W.)||M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.|
|Fell, Arthur||Magnus, Sir Philip||Mildmay and Mr. Hewins|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Malcolm, Ian|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Molloy, Michael|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Goldstone, Frank||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Adamson, William||Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||Morgan, George Hay|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Morrell, Philip|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Griffith, Ellis J.||Morison, Hector|
|Alden, Percy||Guest, Hon. Major C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Allen, Arthur Acland (Dumbartonshire)||Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.)||Muldoon, John|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Gulney, Patrick||Munro, Robert|
|Armitage, Robert||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry||Hackett, John||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Hall, F. (Yorks, Normanton)||Neilson, Francis|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Hancock, John George||Nolan, Joseph|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Norton, Captain Cecil W.|
|Barnes, George N.||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick)||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire)||O'Connor, John (Kildare)|
|Barton, William||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George)||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Donnell, Thomas|
|Birrcil, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Hayward, Evan||O'Dowd, John|
|Black, Arthur W.||Hazleton, Richard||O'Grady, James|
|Boland, John Plus||Healy, Maurice (Cork)||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)|
|Bowerman, C. W,||Hemmerde, Edward George||O'Malley, William|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Brace, William||Henry, Sir Charles||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||O'Shee, James John|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Higham. John Sharp||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Bryce, John Annan||Hinds, John||Outhwaite, R. L.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Hodge, John||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Hogge, James Myles||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar)||Holmes, Daniel Turner||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Pirie, Duncan V,|
|Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)||Hudson, Walter||Pointer, Joseph|
|Chancellor, H. G.||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Power, Patrick Joseph|
|Chapple, Dr. W. A.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||John, Edward Thomas||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Clough, William||Jones, Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Bradford)|
|Clynes, John R.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Primrose, Hon. Neil James|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||Radford, G. H.|
|Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Jones, Lelf Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Raphael, Sir Herbert Henry|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Jones. William S. Glyn- (Stepney)||Reddy, M.|
|Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Jowett, Frederick William||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Crean, Eugene||Joyce, Michael||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)|
|Crooks, William||Keating, Matthew||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.>|
|Crumley, Patrick||Kellaway, Frederick George||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Cullinan, John||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Richards, Thomas|
|Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)||Kilbride, Denis||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||King, J.||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon.S.Molton)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Dawes, J. A.||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Delany, William||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Leach, Charles||Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Levy, Sir Maurice||Robinson, Sidney|
|Dillon, John||Lewis, John Herbert||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Roche. Augustine (Louth)|
|Doris, W.||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Duffy, William J.||Lundon, Thomas||Rose, Sir Charles Day|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lyell, Charles Henry||Rowlands, James|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||Lynch, A. A.||Rowntree, Arnold|
|Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Macdonald. J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.|
|Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||McGhee, Richard||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland!|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||MacNeill. J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||ScanIan, Thomas|
|Falconer, J.||Macpherson, James lan||Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.|
|Farrell, James Patrick||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Sheehy, David|
|Ferens. Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||M'Callum, Sir John M.||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Ffrench, Peter||M'Kean, John||Shortt, Edward|
|Field, William||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Simon, Sir John Allsebrook|
|Flennes, Hon. Eustace Edward||M'Laren, Hon. H. D. (Leics.)||Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)|
|Fitzgibbon, John||M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leltrim)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Snowden, Philip|
|Furness, Stephen W.||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert|
|George. Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd||Martin, Joseph||Sutherland, John E.|
|Gllhooly, James||Mason, David M. (Coventry)||Sutton, John E.|
|Gill, Alfred Henry||Masterman. Rt. Hon. C. F. G.||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Ginnell, Laurence||Meagher, Michael||Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)|
|Gladstone, W. G. C.||Meehan, Francis E. (Lcitrim, N.)||Tennant, Harold John|
|Glanville, Harold James||Millar, James Duncan||Thomas, James Henry|
|Thorne. G. R. (Wolverhampton)||Waring, Walter||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Thorne, William (West Ham)||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay||Williamson, Sir A.|
|Toulmin, Sir George||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)||Wilson, Hon. G. G. (Hull. W.)|
|Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander||Webb, H.||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Verney, sir Harry||White, J. Dundas (Tradeston)||Winfrey, Richard|
|Wadsworth, John||White, Sir Luke (Yorks, E.R.)||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)|
|Walsh, J. (Cork, South)||White, Patrick (Month, North)||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)||Whitehouse, John Howard||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton)||Whyte, Alexander F.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Wardle, G. J.||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)||Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
I beg to move, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned."
Question put, and agreed to. Further consideration of Bill, as amended, adjourned till To-morrow (Wednesday).
§ The Orders for the remaining Government business were read and postponed.
§ Whereupon Mr. SI-BAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."