§ (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any Act, no subject of His Majesty shall be disqualified to hold the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland on account of his religious belief.
§ (2) The term of office of the Lord Lieutenant shall be six years, without prejudice to the power of His Majesty at any time to revoke the appointment.
§ (3) The salary and expenses of the Lord Lieutenant shall be paid out of moneys provided by the Parliament of the United Kingdom, but there shall be deducted from the Transferred Sum in each year, towards the payment of the Lord Lieutenant's salary, a sum of five thousand pounds.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
I beg to move at the end of Sub-section (2), after the word "appointment" to add the words,and with the intent that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry.It will be within the recollection of some Members of the House that in Committee on Clause 31 dealing with the term of office of the Lord Lieutenant, considerable discussion arose as to whether it was quite plain, from the language of the Bill as it stood, that it was intended that the office of Lord Lieutenant should be in future, as in the past, what is called a political party office. The Prime Minister, in the course of a speech, made it perfectly plain that that was to be altered. He said:—?He has been subject to any eclipses, political eclipses, of the party fortune which the Ministry undergo. I quite agree we are now altering his position. We are divesting it of that character. We are giving him a fixed term of years. His tenure of office will no longer be coincident, or necessarily coincident, with the office of any particular Government. He will not go out of office when the Government goes out of office, and whatever may be the political complexion of the Imperial Ministry, he will be expected, of course, to conform with his instructions within the constitutional limits which the Act prescribes."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1912, col. 2396, Vol. XLI.V.]It was thought in the course of that discussion that that was not sufficiently plain in the Bill, and accordingly I now move to add these words to the Sub-section. If the Amendment is carried the Clause will read:—The term of office of the Lord Lieutenant shall be six years, without prejudice to the power of His Majesty at any time to revoke the appointment, and the continuance in office of the Lord 1478 Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry.I put it to the House that these words make it perfectly plain. It is desirable it should be made as plain as possible that the Lord Lieutenant under this Bill, will no longer hold his appointment as a Government appointment. His tenure of office will be fixed at six years, and it will not be affected by any ups or downs, chops or changes, among Ministers, in either the Imperial or the Irish Parliament. He will be appointed for a fixed period of six years, and will be independent of what are called convulsions, changes, or crises to which politicians so often attach much importance. I therefore beg to move the inclusion of these words.
§ Sir J. D. REES
Is my Amendment to substitute five years for six years excluded by your putting the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman?
§ Sir E. CARSON
It has gone over to the majority. I am not going to discuss this Amendment, but I wish to ask the Chief Secretary a question. It is this: Will this unfortunate individual, who is to occupy this high non-political position in the midst of political controversies, have it in his power at any time to resign if he so wishes, or will he have to act for a fixed period of six years? My own impression is that to try and keep him there in certain conditions of political changes that may arise would be to put him in the most cruel position that one can imagine.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
Knowing as I do the sympathetic nature of the right hon. Gentleman and appreciating his point, I rise at once to relieve his anxiety. There is nothing in this Bill that will prevent any Lord Lieutenant exercising the prerogative, which everyone of us I hope enjoys, of resigning his position at any time he may please.
§ Sir J. D. REES
The right hon. Gentleman has moved this Amendment, but he has not explained why this appointment is removed from the category of political appointments which are made for five years.
§ Sir J. D. REES
But cannot I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain why six instead of five years has been chosen as the period? Will it be out of order to ask that?
§ Sir HILDRED CARLILE
I beg to move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "with the intent that." If this Amendment be adopted, and the consequential Amendment agreed to, it will read—the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry, and the Lord Lieutenant shall, in the discharge of the duties of his office, conform to the accustomed practice of Governors of His Majesty's Overseas Dominions in relation to matters of political controversy.It it most desirable that the position and status of the Lord Lieutenant should be clearly defined, and, in order to show what the position of the Lord Lieutenant is, I will venture to run through the responsibilities which are placed upon him by this measure. Lender Clause 2 he is to be independent of the Irish Parliament, which can only legislate with reference to himself in connection with the Irish services. In Clause 4 are enumerated certain arrangements by which His Majesty may delegate certain powers to the Lord Lieutenant in order that he may act on His Majesty's behalf. They are all important powers. In the same Clause, it is pointed out that the Lord Lieutenant shall act through the Irish Parliament, and that is important, because he is required to make appointments of officers of various Departments. Clause 6 gives him the power of summoning, proroguing, or dissolving Parliament—a very important power indeed. Clause 7 gives power to the Lord Lieutenant to give the Royal Assent to Bills. There again you have a very important power. In Clause 8 are enumerated his powers in regard to the Senate and the House of Commons. Under this Clause the Lord Lieutenant is called upon to nominate the personality of the Senate. No higher function could devolve on anyone. In Clause 11, in the event of disagreement, the Lord Lieutenant has power to call the two Houses together for a Joint Session whenever he thinks it right to do so. Clause 21 gives the Lord Lieutenant power to appoint the Comptroller and Auditor-General, who is to 1480 undertake the examination of all accounts and all expenditure, and to keep an eye upon the Irish Consolidated Fund. In Clause 27 he is called upon to appoint all the judges, whether County Court, or of the Supreme Court, or of any Court which may be set up at any future period. In Clause 29 he and the Secretary of State have the joint power of handing over for the consideration of the Privy Council any Bills which either of them, or both of them, may hold to exceed the powers granted under this Bill to the Irish Parliament.
Without referring to any other Clauses, I think I have enumerated sufficient to show that the position which the Lord Lieutenant will be called upon to occupy in Ireland is one of the highest honour and the greatest possible responsibility. With reference to the position of the Lord Lieutenant, I should like to point out that in Ireland it will be quite different to the position of a Governor in our Overseas Dominions. It will be different to the position of a provincial Legislature responsible to a central Government, and it will also be different, in some degree, from the position of the Dominions with reference to the Imperial Government. The position of the Lord Lieutenant is to some extent different from that of any officer at present exercising functions under the Imperial Government. The communications between the Lord Lieutenant and the Imperial Government are likely to be very much more frequent than is the case with reference to any Governor of our Overseas Dominions. The mere proximity of Ireland to this country will show to the most casual observer that that is likely to be the case. Then, again, with reference to the reserve services the Lord Lieutenant will undoubtedly be the Executive officer of the Imperial Government, and that will differentiate his position from that of an ordinary Governor. His position, being such as it will be, and his proximity to the Imperial Government being so close and so immediate, it is above all things desirable that the Lord Lieutenant should take no part in home politics. That is my excuse, if indeed any excuse were wanted, and I do not think any is, for the Amendment which it is my privilege now to submit to the House. It is within the recollection of Members of the House that complaint has been made against a Lord Lieutenant. Personally, I quite realise he is entirely exempt from any criticism in this House. He is, in his 1481 capacity of Lord Lieutenant, a privileged person in that respect like Mr. Speaker, but, while I fully realise that, I would point out that it is within the recollection of the House that complaint was made not very long ago of letters being written and opinions expressed in reference to an election which was then taking place. That was most undesirable, and I feel sure that Members of the House will agree with me that no one holding the exalted position of Viceroy, and acting personally on behalf of His Majesty, should lay himself open to any complaints of the nature to which I have referred. He ought to keep absolutely aloof from all party struggles in this country. I will ask the House to bear with me for a moment while I quote some words of the Prime Minister, on the 4th December last, when this subject came up for discussion on the Committee stage. I said a moment ago that the position of the Lord Lieutenant on some not unimportant points differed from that of the Governors of our Overseas Dominions. I am sure this House will agree with the Prime Minister when he said:—Yon could hardly have a more analogous case to the position of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland than that of Governor of the latest of our Federated Dominions: I mean the Union of South Africa."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1012, col. 2395, Vol. XLIV.]Then he went on to say:—In all respects the position of the Lord Lieutenant as contemplated by this Bill is analogous, if not in substance identical, with that of one of our Colonial Governors."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th December, 1912, col. 2596.]Following up his own definition, he made a further statement of much importance to the House. He said:—I would rather leave the exact farm of words—referring to the Amendment which we have now had placed before us by the Chief Secretary—I would rather leave the exact form of words to be put in at a later stage; but what I have written down and will read out for consideration is something like this.Then follows what the Prime Minister wrote down:—'"The Lord Lieutenant shall, in the discharge of the duties of his office conform to the accustomed practice of Governors of His Majesty's Oversea Dominions.'"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December. 1912, col. 2397.]One of the perfectly clear positions always taken up in the past by our Oversea Governors has been that they should stand aside altogether from any question of party; that they should be strictly considerate towards parties of all sorts, and give to any Ministry that might be formed a per- 1482 Fa[...]tly free hand That has been the principle acted upon by our Oversea Governors. They have kept themselves absolutely apart from party, and they have stood aloof from such things, with the result that their work has given, in the main, almost unbroken satisfaction to the Dominions over which they have had the privilege of presiding. I should like to quote the Prime Minister once more. He says:—I do not want to be wedded to this form of words—.
§ Sir H. CARLILE
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is observing this—but I undertake to endeavour to find and to insert at a later stage a form of words which will carry out the hon. and learned Gentleman's object, and make it perfectly clear that the position of the Lord Lieutenant in future is not to be as it has been in the past, that of a partisan of the Government of the day, but that of an impartial person, discharging his duties in accordance with those traditions which are now well established in self-governing portions of the Empire."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1912, col. 2398.]
§ Mr. SPEAKER
The Division which was taken a short time ago showed that many more than forty Members were present. We cannot always be counting the House.
§ Sir H. CARLILE
Lest there should be any misunderstanding of the Prime Minister's meaning he further added the following definition, which I think is very important:—He is an officer of the Crown, appointed for a fixed term, just like the Governor-General of Canada or of Australia. He is there to act in Irish matters on the advice of the Irish Executive—to whatever party it may belong—and in matters which are not Irish, or which are reserved, upon instructions of the Imperial Government, to whatever party it belongs. I am perfectly clear that a person in that position ought not to interfere in the political affairs either of Ireland or of the United Kingdom itself."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1912, col. 2462.]It must be clear to the House by this time, if I have been at all successful in making anything approaching a clear statement, that what the Prime Minister meant was something a great deal more than is contained in this Amendment. On the strength of that pledge, definite and clear as it is, my hon. and learned Friend, with the agreement of the Committee, consented to withdraw the Amendment which stood in his name. The Amendment which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed, poor and meagre as it is, is the proposed fulfilment of the Prime Minister's pledge. The mountain appears to have 1483 been in labour; the mouse seems to have been the only product. It may be asked why add this phrase "in relation to matters of political controversy," and put it in black and white in the Bill. The reason is, when we are dealing with a new Dominion and making an appointment like a Governorship of a new Dominion, we have, as it were, a perfectly clean slate upon which the Imperial Government may write anything it pleases. The post has no past history; there are no customs, habits, and prejudices to be overcome. Anything that may be decided that is reasonable and suitable to the occasion may come into force and be carried through, perhaps with perfect satisfaction to all concerned. But here the position is entirely different. As the Prime Minister said in the same Debate, speaking of a new Dominion:—There we were nor transforming the character of a pre-existent office."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 4th December, 1912, col. 2397.]That makes all the difference, and it is necessary in this case that in black and white the undertaking should be laid down that there is to be a complete abstention from taking part in political controversies which may arise from time to time. It is necessary, because in the past and for many years the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has been a distinctly party man. He has gone out with the Government of the moment, when anything has happened to it; he has had to act in accordance with their policy, and has been in every sense a party man. Therefore, we have customs, habits, and prejudices to overcome, and with regard to them it is absolutely desirable that we should put in black and white in the Bill the Amendment which I now move. If that is not done, there will always be a tendency to slip back into the old rut. If you embody this Amendment, perfectly unobjectionable as it is, in the Bill, thereby strengthening the rather feeble form of the Amendment the right hon. Gentleman has brought in, there will be no tendency to slip back into the old rut. Is there any doubt that you might slip back? The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the course of the same Debate on 4th December, made it perfectly clear that he did not at all agree with the view taken by the Prime Minister. Whether or not he knew all the Prime Minister's mind on the subject, I do not know, but these are the Words of the. Chancellor of the Exchequer 1484 —no mean Judge of probable events, a man who has much foresight and who has illustrated it in many ways:—You may have a partisan Lord Lieutenant.In order that we may be saved from that, and that Ireland may not have that in connection with this Bill, if ever it becomes law, I beg to move the Amendment, and I trust the right hon. Gentleman, on behalf of the Government, will see his way to accept it.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
I must say that the hon. Member has adopted a convenient course, for he has made one speech in support of three different Amendments. His first Amendment is to leave out the words "with the intent that."
§ Sir H. CARLILE
I was instructed by Mr. Speaker that he was willing that I should deal with the Amendments, otherwise I should not have done so.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
I am not complaining in the least; I am quite willing to acquiesce if the Amendments are kept separate, although the speech was one. The first Amendment is a purely drafting one. The hon. Member thinks that my Amendment would read better if the words "with the intent that" were left out. The Clause would then read:—The term of office of the Lord Lieutenant shall be six years, without prejudice to the power of His Majesty at any time to revoke the appointment, and the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry.The hon. Member does not like the words "with the intent that." If anybody suggests to me that other words are better, I confess that I am disposed always to prefer the other man's words to my own, but in this case these words were very well considered by a number of persons, and it was thought that on the whole, being declaratory words, it was desirable to insert them, and the Clause really reads more effectively and strikingly, and calls more pointed attention to it if you insert—with the intent that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry.The authorities who proposed this Amendment thought it strengthened the Clause. 1485 It certainly does not weaken it in any way. The hon. Member passed over that Amendment altogether, and did not give any reasons, so far as I can remember, in support of it, and I should really be glad to know whether he wants to take the opinion of the House upon it. Why does he object to the words "with the intent that"?
§ Mr. BIRRELL
You say they are unnecessary; that is just the point. Where the English language conveys shades of meaning through words as it does, we think the words "with the intent that" have the effect of calling particular attention to the fact that the office is not what it was before, one dependent upon the existence of the Ministry here at home, or, under the new Constitution, of the Ministry in Ireland, but is intentionally free from party fortunes.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
I confess, if the hon. Member will allow me to say so, that I think it is not merely surplusage. That the words could be omitted without any grave result, I dare say, but I think myself that the introduction of these words does most emphatically have a declaratory effect, and strengthens the new position of the Lord Lieutenant, showing that Parliament intends that it should be free from what it has been exposed to, namely, the ins and outs of political existence either here or in Ireland. Therefore, I still think the words should be retained, and, unless therefore some hon. Member is satisfied either that they do harm or that they have no effect at all, that they are purely otiose, which I should be very sorry to think they were, I think we had better adhere to the Amendment as drawn.
§ Sir J. D. REES
The right hon. Gentleman has stated that these words, though they may be surplusage, are not mere surplusage. I am not inclined to quarrel about that, but I should have thought, whether they are surplusage or mere surplusage, they would be in either case better omitted. I take it that when the right hon. Gentleman says his intention is that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by a change of Ministers he really gives the reason why the term is fixed at six years. In that case it is made quite clear that the 1486 office of Lord Lieutenant survives the normal life of a Ministry by a year. But in that case, if this office is to be placed, as I understand him to say, upon the same footing as other great offices of State, why then is the term limited to six years? The right hon. Gentleman would tell me It is usual that a period of about five years is adopted, but I should answer him that there is no such limitation, that all the great officers of State are appointed until their successors are appointed, and though I heard a Prime Minister from those benches, without correction, state that the Viceroy of India was appointed for five years, it is not the case. By custom a successor is appointed at the expiry of five years, but that great officer of State is, as a fact, appointed until his successor is appointed. Why is not the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland appointed upon the same footing as the Viceroy and Governors, with whom the right hon. Gentleman has expressly compared their tenure of office? This is a matter which does not arise merely out of an Amendment which has been passed over, but arises immediately out of the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman, as amended by the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I hope that for the information of the House he will explain why a limit is placed upon the term of office of the Lord Lieutenant. If the Lord Lieutenant's office is not to be affected by any change of Ministry, why, if you have a man who is admittedly giving great satisfaction, who makes the new Government popular and so forth, should his term be limited when the clock strikes the last day of the six years? The right hon. Gentleman has never given any explanation whatsoever upon this point, and I am sure it is not by way of captious criticism but with a real desire to understand why that I ask this question. He might, of course, answer that five years was usual, to which I reply that it is not. There is no such limitation. It has merely become the practice, and if five years had become so usual as to become almost a customary law, there is nothing in favour of six years except that it would carry him beyond the normal life of a Parliament. But if for one year, why not for many years beyond the life of a Parliament? There have been cases, I believe, where Viceroys, to the great advantage of Ireland and of the United Kingdom, have held office for more than six years. Is there the slightest reason why they should not?
§ Sir J. D. REES
There is nothing to prevent it in the Act, but the right hon. Gentleman does not mean to suggest, I think, that when a Viceroy has outlived his Government by a year he is likely to be reappointed by the other party who come in afterwards, or even that his own party, having appointed him for so long a period, is likely to keep him on and deprive their many hungry and valuable supporters of that preferment to which they legitimately look forward. I submit that there is a point of substance there, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be so courteous as to give some further explanation upon the point. When he says that the intention is that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland should not be a party politician, it is absolutely impossible for anyone who is Lord Lieutenant of a little island which is not divided but is joined to this country by the sea—the narrow sea between is, like an open road, far better than any other; it is absolutely next door to us—it is not possible that any Viceroy who is not a supporter of the party of the day should continue in power. To take the analogy of the Viceroy of India, it is perfectly well known that when there has been any difference of opinion between them they have nver been able to survive the Ministry which appointed them. Take the case of Lord Lytton. There was a difference of opinion about the Afghan war. There was a change of Government at home. Did Lord Lytton survive it? Not at all. He resigned. The same thing must happen. This proviso must be a dead-letter, and if there is to be a fixed term like six years I want to know why a limitation is imposed in this case which does not exist in the case of any other great appointment which the Government of the day make. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will make that clear.
Then as to the terms of the Amendment. It seems to me it is a very meagre and perfunctory fulfilment of the pledge of the Prime Minister given on 4th December that the Lord Lieutenant shall conform to the practice of Governors of the Oversea Dominions. My hon. Friend's Amend- 1488 ment would carry that out, but the Amendment of the Chief Secretary conspicuously does not. It really leaves that point completely out. It really does not touch it. Therefore the pledge of the Prime Minister remains if it is not carried out. I have instanced the case of a Governor who differed slightly from the Viceroy he was serving, and immediately had to resign his office. I think it is quite impossible that a Lord Lieutenant can really maintain himself in office after the Government which has appointed him has left office, and this Amendment is a most unsatisfactory carrying out of the pledge of the Prime Minister, which, in fact, it does not carry out at all. It does not really touch the point which was raised by my hon. and learned Friend, in answer to whose speech the Prime Minister made it. I certainly hope the Chief Secretary will be good enough to give the House a few-words more upon this point, because I really do not think he has at all answered the point of my hon. Friend or that his Amendment at all carries out the pledge of the Prime Minister.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
In regard to the pledge of the Prime Minister, we are dealing really with the Amendments one by one.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
Certainly. I rather hoped we should have got rid of this Amendment by the hon. Member withdrawing it.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
I think that is not so. The hon. Member only moved the first Amendment though he referred incidentally to all the others.
§ Mr. CHARLES CRAIG
Both my hon. Friends who have spoken have dealt with the question as a whole, and I take it if we dispose of this first Amendment in the first instance we shall then be allowed to develop the larger argument with which my hon. Friend dealt when the other Amendment comes on. The Chief Secretary, in his short speech, only dealt with the first Amendment, and I take it that he intends, when we arrive at the later Amendments to deal with the other 1489 question which has been raised by my hon. Friend. In that case, I shall only deal with the first Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has been advised by various legal luminaries that the words "with the intent that" are necessary, and that they ought to stand. We have been advised by other legal luminaries, perhaps not so distinguished as those by whom the right hon. Gentleman has been advised, that these words are objectionable. We take the view that if you put in these words you ought to say that the term of office of the Lord Lieutenant shall be six years, without prejudice to the power of His Majesty at any time to revoke the appointment, and that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry. That is a plain, straightforward declaration by Act of Parliament; but if you say, as the Chief Secretary proposes, "without prejudice to the power of His Majesty at any time to revoke the appointment, and with the intent that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry," we contend that you are there expressing an intention which may or may not be carried into effect. If you intend a certain thing to be done you should say so in mandatory language. This is a sort of pious opinion, and the expression of a hope that those who administer the Act will carry it into execution. If you include the words "with the intent that," you leave the matter in a more or less doubtful position as to whether the intention should be carried into effect or not. We say that you should leave no element of doubt as to whether it will be done, and, therefore, we wish these words left out, so that there may be no loophole open to anybody to act on his own responsibility. It is more mandatory to say that the appointment shall be for six years, and to add, putting the matter in mandatory terms, that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry. Surely that is obviously a better form of words than those suggested by the Chief Secretary. I trust the Solicitor-General will agree with us that these words would be clearer, and that they would impose a more obvious duty upon whoever has to administer the Act then if you leave in the words "with the intent that."
§ Mr. MOORE
I agree with the Chief Secretary that this is a purely drafting 1490 Amendment. I think we have not considered the general merits of the question as to whether this is the proper form of words. I am told that this is a concession to Unionist criticisms, and that it is really a gift for which we have to thank the Government. I must confess that I have a suspicion of any gift they may bring, and, therefore, I would like to look at the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment more closely. It is quite plain that the Government have changed their mind altogether as to the position of the Lord Lieutenant. I think it is an after development which has grown up in the course of the Debates. We were told for the first time in Committee that the Lord Lieutenant is to be a non-political officer. I think it was originally intended that if a Roman Catholic was appointed Lord Lieutenant he should occupy just the same position as the Lord Lieutenant we have at present. When they came to draw Sub-section (2) they said that the term was to be six years, and they stated further that the appointment was to be without prejudice to the power of His Majesty—that is the King advised by His Ministers—at any time to revoke the appointment. You cannot get a more general power than that. The meaning of the Chief Secretary's Amendment is that His Majesty is not to revoke the appointment if there is a change of Ministry. You have the general power that His Majesty may at any time revoke the appointment, but if this is a drafting point, you should say, "Provided always that a change of Ministry shall not be a ground for revoking the appointment." If this is an exception to the general power of His Majesty, it ought to be put in the Bill by way of proviso. The matter ought to be made perfectly clear by a proviso on the universal power given in the immediately preceding words. I submit to those who have greater experience than I have that this ought to be introduced in the shape of an ordinary proviso, and not by the colour-less expression which is really not known to draftsmanship as to an intent which may or may not be carried out. I have heard the Chief Secretary say that he will be glad to consider suggestions. On one occasion he agreed to substitute "or" for "and."
§ Mr. MOORE
I believe the right hon. Gentleman has two cases to his credit in which he accepted suggestions, and no 1491 wonder that he is proud of them. He was responsible, as Parliamentary draftsman, for some Bills which have been brought before the House. The terms of these measures formed conundrums to the people in Ireland. If you give general and unlimited power and then put in an exception, it should be done by proviso.
§ Mr. CHAMBERS
It is in the highest degree important that the Lord Lieutenant should occupy an absolutely independent position, and I have no doubt it is the intention of the Bill that he should occupy that position. But it is also important that the people of Ireland, who will be living under the new system, should believe that the Lord Lieutenant is in fact independent of the Ministry, either in this country or in Ireland. I think it would simplify the position of the Lord Lieutenant himself, whoever he may be for the time being, if ho should be guilty of an act which might give dissatisfaction to certain people, that they should know from the Act that his appointment is for six years, and that his continuance in office will not be affected by any change of Government. That means that the ordinary person on the look-out for a ground for suspicion will have it conveyed to his mind that while it was the wish of this Parliament that the Lord Lieutenant should be independent of the Government, still it is open to him not to be independent and to show partiality. In the interests of the person, whoever he may be, occupying the position, it is much better to have it definitely and distinctly -declared that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change in the Ministry. It will make the matter perfectly plain, and will take away all opportunity of finding in these words any loophole for attack.
§ Mr. RONALD M'NEILL
I am afraid that I have not been able to gather from the right hon. Gentleman exactly what his objection is to the first Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. I should be very slow to criticise such a master of English composition as the right hon. Gentleman, but I am entirely unable to understand, as a mere matter of English, what is the purport of these words "with the intent that." This is intended to be an Act of Parliament laying down what the law is to be. What does it matter to anybody what anybody's intent is? Whose intent is it supposed to be? So far as I 1492 can see it is not even grammatical. Is it the intent of the term of office, the intent of the present Government, the intent of this Parliament, the intent of His Majesty? If it is to be an enactment simply laying down the law what shall be, there is no possible object in cumbering the plain, precise words of the Statute by saying that some absolutely unknown, undefined person's intent is that certain things shall be. You may have an intent on one hand and no carrying out of the intent on the other. The function of this Parliament is to say what shall take place, and not merely to make an assertion of somebody's intent. It is perfectly easy to say that the term of office of the Lord Lieutenant shall be six years, and then go on to say that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change in Ministry. Why not stick to plain and simple language not open to misconstruction, rather than cumber the Statute with words which, if they mean anything at all, are certainly very ambiguous?
§ Mr. KING
After listening to four speeches on the other side, I conceive it might be just as well that a reply should proceed from this side of the House. Really, there is not much to answer. I doubt if there is anything at all to answer, but for all that, I think we ought to show that we are able to give good ground for the faith within us. My reading of this Section is what I think would be the ordinary reading of any sensible man who was not trying to pick holes in an inevitable Act of Parliament, for this is going to pass into law very shortly. But while there are many large subjects that might be discussed, the other side are spending a considerable amount of time in bringing up mere drafting and finicking and ridiculously small questions. The intention of the Clause is perfectly plain. It is that in future when there is a change of Government—and I suppose a change of Ministry means any change either on this side of the Channel or on the other side—the Lord Lieutenant shall remain in office as representing the Crown, and not as representing the Government as he does at present.
§ Mr. RONALD M'NEILL
Will the hon. Member put a question to the right hon. Gentleman with a view to ascertaining whether that is correct? It is a very important point, that it does not depend on a change of Ministry on either side of the Channel.
§ Mr. KING
I put a great number of questions in this House and I am always answered in the sense that I expect, and as I am quite confident what the answer will be in this case I do not think it necessary. [An HON. MEMBER: "He said so."] He has said so, as I thought; but it has been said so often that it is not necessary to repeat it, because it is perfectly plain to anybody who can read and understand a plain English sentence. That being the case, what is the good of getting up and basing arguments, as the last hon. Gentleman did, on the words, "with the intent that"? Whose intent, he asks? Why, the intent of every sensible man, with the intent of this Parliament, with the intent of the Irish people, because they are sensible people too, under this Act of Parliament, as it soon will be, with the intention of making it a success. It is not necessary to labour this matter further, but I want the House to understand that, while we on this side are willing to attend to any sensible suggestion that is put forward, this really is not a sensible Amendment at all, and if the words had been left out I am perfectly confident that hon Gentlemen on the other side would have moved an Amendment to have these words, which they now ask to have left out, put in, and they would have used almost exactly the same argument, exactly the same language, and exactly the same indignant tone with which they have been supporting this ill-timed and utterly unnecessary Amendment
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
The hon. Member who has just sat down always imparts to our Debates a piquancy, a vivacity, and a picturesqueness of colouring peculiarly his own, but I am not quite certain that he is an authority on matters of legal interpretation, and therefore I want to ask the learned Solicitor-General two questions: First, about the change of Ministry, which I take it necessarily refers to the Imperial Ministry, because the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland is in the position of the representative of the King, and could not be affected by a change of Ministry in Ireland. But I want also to ask as to whether the words "with the intent that" do strengthen the Clause. The Chief Secretary seems to think they do. I can construe this Clause in this way: "Notwithstanding the term of office of the Lord Lieutenant should be six years, without the power of His Majesty at any time to revoke the appointment, and with the intent that the continuance in office of the 1494 Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry." I take it that means we are to put a fixed term and not an indefinite term; that is, that when the Ministry goes out the Lord Lieutenant shall not be expected to resign. It goes no further than that The resignation of the Ministry is not to bring the term of the Lord Lieutenant to an end necessarily, but it leaves it open that it may. We put a fixed term in order that the Lord Lieutenant shall not be obliged to resign, but he might be pressed by the Ministry to resign. It is the difference between saying that he must not resign, and that he need not resign. Therefore, I take it, that it is a weakening phrase to put in, "with the intent," and it must strengthen the position to leave it out. The position of the Lord Lieutenant is going to be a difficult one in any case, because he has to act as the constitutional representative of the Sovereign as regards the Irish Ministry in some matters, and as the Executive officer of the British Ministry in other matters. You ought to strengthen his position and keep it as independent as possible. If you leave in the words "with intent," you must weaken the position, because you will only be saying you are not obliged to go out. You do not say, "You are not to go out." I submit that you ought to lay down without ambiguity that the position of the Lord Lieutenant is not to be affected by and his continuance in office is not to depend upon any change of Ministry. I do submit that you ought to do all that is possible to strengthen his position, and make it as independent as possible. These words will weaken it, and unless the Solicitor-General can show that they do not, then the Amendment to the Amendment ought to be accepted.
§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir J. Simon)
Let me assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that we have no desire in this matter except to get this Clause expressed in a wise and proper way. Nobody suggests that this Clause makes the difference between Home Rule and no Home Rule, and it must be obvious to hon. Gentlemen opposite that we can have no possible motive in this matter except, to the best of our ability, to get the Clause properly expressed. Hon. Members opposite have made speeches quite reasonable in tone, of course, and, if they had shown any reason why the words should be omitted, I hope that no pride of mine or of anybody else would prevent our agreeing forthwith to the Amendment. But I honestly do not 1495 think they have shown any reason, and I am very willing to state why I do not think so. I must ask the House to believe that the single object we have in view is to get the Clause put into a proper form, and that is why we may appear to be a little obstinate on this otherwise trumpery point. No one dislikes more than I do lawyers' discussions in the House of Commons on points of technicality. The matter stands in this way: Exactly the same phrase is to be found in the Bill of 1893. If you turn to that Bill you will find that which corresponds textually to Sub-section (2) of Clause 31 of the present Bill; and when that Clause was dealt with in 1893, Mr. Gladstone said it was framed and expressed in order to get rid of the partisan and political character of the office of Lord Lieutenant. Speaking for myself, and after having spent some little time in examining the different Constitutions of the Empire beyond the Seas, I confess that my own view of this Clause is that it is right as it stands, and I doubt very much whether it will be in any way improved by any addition at all. It was pointed out by hon. Gentlemen opposite that a Governor, a Viceroy, or a Governor-General, in different parts of the British Dominions, are always what you may call non-political.
The Lord Lieutenant in the past has been a political personage, and that is a good reason for saying more explicitly in the Home Rule Bill what is intended. The point the hon. Gentleman puts to me is this: What in the view of the Government is the effect and value of this phrase "with the intent," whether it was a strengthening or a weakening phrase? I think I can show the reason why the words are used and why they are quite right. The object we have in view in adding those words is not to change what I believe to be the effect of the Bill—it is to make clear that it is the intention of Parliament that this office of Lord Lieutenant, which in the past has been of a partisan character, certainly of a political character, is to be what is called a non-political office. I think that is sufficiently indicated by saying that the term of office is a fixed term of years, and that we intend that the office should be of a non-political rather than a political character. With all respect to the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, I am sure he would have been the first to complain, in view of the consequences which hon. Gentlemen opposite say may ensue from this Bill, if we had put in other terms. Sup- 1496 pose for the sake of argument—which we on this side most stoutly repudiate as ridiculous—that if Home Rule were carried and we got a state of very serious disturbance throughout Ireland, and that in this country it was thought the Lord Lieutenant in the discharge of his duties had grossly failed to maintain the claims of the Crown, and that nothing was more urgent than that the Government should recall him, and, if it refused to do so, it were defeated at the poll in this country—does anybody suppose that under these circumstances the victorious party in this country would have a mandate to withdraw the Lord Lieutenant?
§ Sir J. SIMON
Is not that an extreme case? It is right when you are drafting a Constitution which is not for to-day or tomorrow, but for all future circumstances which we cannot foresee, that you should put in your Bill the object that this appointment should be non-political.
§ Mr. RONALD M'NEILL
The hon. and learned Gentleman does not displace the case put by my hon. Friend. The case the right hon. Member puts against us is that a Ministry comes in and he asks, Is that a mandate to revoke the commission of the Lord Lieutenant? If these words are left in there is nothing to prevent that being done, because he would have remained in office in spite of the change of the Ministry. It would only have been when the new Ministry came in that they could recall him.
§ Sir J. SIMON
The hon. Member has made a subtle distinction. I thought what I suggested was that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry. I well remember it being once said by one of the most distinguished Members of this House that there was nothing so technical as a layman talking law. To suppose that there is some point and substance which is operating behind these words when the utmost that can be said one way or the other is that it is a matter of a drafting, and when in the view of people who advise us, as well as of ourselves, we have used the words that are apt, is really to ask the House of Commons to spend a great deal of time on a very small point. If I saw any solid ground for omitting these words, I would be the first, so far as it is within my authority or power, to say they ought 1497 to go. But it is because this is the apt way to express our object of making this office non-political as opposed to political that, with great respect to the arguments that have been used, I do suggest it is right to retain the words.
§ Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL
I am rather puzzled owing to the speech we have just listened to. The hon. Gentleman opposite who spoke in the course of this Debate told us he was always willing to consider any reasonable suggestion or provision we ask for on any substantial matter. I think it would interest the House if he were to tell us on what particular occasion he ever voted in favour of any such request or provision throughout the whole of these Debates.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Mr. CAMPBELL
That only shows the hon. Member has got one weak point. The Solicitor-General has completely ignored what is the matter in question between us. We have asked what is the meaning and object of the insertion of these words, and how do they strengthen or weaken the language of the proposed Amendment of the Government. That point he has entirely ignored. He says that it is perfectly plain that there are conceivable cases in which it would be essential and necessary to remove the Lord Lieutenant, but then what is the meaning of the Amendment? I understood the meaning of the Amendment was to give a sense of security and permanency of tenure to this office. Either the words do that or they do not. If they are sufficiently strong, then what is the use of saying to us that, notwithstanding these words, it will be quite open to the Government of the day to remove the Lord Lieutenant any time they think fit? That is the argument of the Solicitor-General. He says it would be ridiculous to give the Lord Lieutenant permanent tenure, because one could conceive circumstances in which the Government would be compelled to remove him. These words have no meaning unless they are intended to secure some sort of permanent tenure. I have not during the course of the Debates been a hostile critic of the drafting of the Bill. I do not like the Bill or any line of it, but I must say the expert advisers in the matter of drafting have done their work very well indeed, and I have no desire, quite the reverse, to in any way unfavourably criticise their work. I do 1498 wish, since the Solicitor-General has not done so, that someone would tell us the use of these words, "What is the intent." Do they increase the sentence or make it any more clear? They make it, to my mind, unmeaning, unless they are put in to give that loophole which the Solicitor-General suggested in order to defeat the express language of the Section and the express purpose of the Amendment, as I understood it, namely, to give a sense of security to the holder of the office, and not to make him dependent on a change of parties over here or a conflict of politics either at home or in this country. If that is the object, why are these words put in? Would not the exact same be accomplished by saying that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry?
§ Mr. CAMPBELL
I do not see the object of putting them in unless it is to throw doubts on the bona fides of the provision. It that if the intention, it is plain enough. It is a most extraordinary and novel departure in drafting to put in words to explain the intent of the subsequent language. The subsequent language is perfectly clear, and the introduction of these words can only be to weaken the security given, and in that view, and in that view only, is the argument of the Solicitor-General pertinent when he said that it was perfectly plain, notwithstanding these words, it might be desirable, and probably would be desirable to put an end to the continuance of the office.
§ Mr. CAMPBELL
Then that makes the position of the right hon. Gentleman more absurd. If he does not think that any case will ever arise in which the Ministry will have to remove the Lord Lieutenant, then his opposition to the Amendment proposed is all the more unreasonable, because the object is to make this position more permanent and its continuance more secure than it would be with the introdue- 1499 tion of the words. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has made confusion worse confounded. I understood that he was defending the insertion of these words as depriving the words of that idea of permanent security and retention they otherwise would have. He said they were useful on that account because one could conceive cases in which the Ministry might like to determine the office. He now tells us that was not his argument, and that he had no such belief. If his belief is that the occasion will never arise, and if his desire is to add to the importance of the office by increasing the security of tenure, then he ought to be in favour of the omission of these words. I cannot understand why the Government is resisting this pro-
§ posal, which I admit is not an exciting or big matter. It is really a test of sincerity and of reasonableness, and, on the contention of the Government, the omission of these words would strengthen their-purpose rather than weaken it.
§ Mr. NEWMAN
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Deputy-Speaker withheld his assent, as it appeared to him that the House was prepared to come to a decision very shortly without that Motion.
§ Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 240; Noes, 93.1501
|Division No. 504.]||AYES.||[9.6 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Essex, Sir Richard Walter||Joyce, Michael|
|Alden, Percy||Esslemont, George Birnie||Keating, Matthew|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)||Farrell, James Patrick||Kellaway, Frederick George|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles p. (Stroud)||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||Kennedy, Vincent Paul|
|Arnold, Sydney||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||Kilbride, Denis|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Ffrench, Peter||King, J.|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Field, William||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Fitzgibbon, John||Lardner, James Carrige Rushe|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)|
|Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Furness, Stephen||Leach, Charles|
|Bentham, G. J.||George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||Levy, Sir Maurice|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Gilhooly, James||Lundon, Thomas|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Gill, A. H.||Lynch, A. A.|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Ginnell, L.||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)|
|Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)||Gladstone, W. G. C.||McGhee, Richard|
|Brace, William||Glanville, Harold James||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.|
|Brady, P. J.||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Goldstone, Frank||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Griffith, Ellis J.||M'Callum, Sir John M.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Guiney, P.||M'Kean, John|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Gulland, John William||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Hackett, J.||M'Micking, Major Gilbert|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Hancock, John George||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Marks, Sir George Croydon|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Marshall, Arthur Harold|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hardie, J. Keir||Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.|
|Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Meagher, Michael|
|Chappie, Dr. William Allen||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)||Menzies, Sir Walter|
|Clough, William||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Middlebrook, William|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Molloy, M.|
|Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Hayden, John Patrick||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Hayward, Evan||Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Hazleton, Richard||Morrell, Philip|
|Cotton, William Francis||Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Crean, Eugene||Helme, Sir Norval Watson||Munro, R.|
|Crooks, William||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Crumley, Patrick||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Needham, Christopher T.|
|Cullinan, J.||Henry, Sir Charles||Neilson, Francis|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Higham, John Sharp||Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)|
|Davies, E. William (Eifion)||Hinds, John||Nolan, Joseph|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Norton, Captain Cecil W.|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Hodge, John||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Hogge, James Myles||O Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|De Forest, Baron||Home, C. Silvester (Ipswich)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Delany, William||Hudson, Walter||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Devlin, Joseph||Hughes, S. L.||O'Donnell, Thomas|
|Dickinson, W. H.||Illingworth, Percy H.||O'Dowd, John|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||O'Grady, James|
|Doris, W.||John, Edward Thomas||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Duffy, William J.||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||O'Malley, William|
|Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|O'Shaughnessy, P. J.||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|O'Shee, James John||Robinson, Sidney||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|O'Sullivan, Timothy||Roche, Augustine (Louth)||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Outhwaite, R. L.||Roe, Sir Thomas||Wadsworth, J.|
|Parker, James (Halifax)||Rowlands, James||Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)|
|Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Rowntree, Arnold||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.||Wardle, George J.|
|Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Pointer, Joseph||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Webb, H.|
|Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Scanlan, Thomas||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Pringle, William M. R.||Sheehy, David||Wiles, Thomas|
|Radford, G. H.||Sherwell, Arthur James||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Rea, Rt Hon. Russell (South Shields)||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Reddy, M.||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Redmond, William (Clare, E.)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)||Snowden, Philip||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Rendall, Athelstan||Soames, Arthur Wellesley||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Richards, Thomas||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Richardson, Albion (Peckham)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)||Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)|
|Roberts, G. H. Norwich)||Thomas, J. H.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)||G. Howard and Captain Guest.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Forster, Henry William||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Baird, J. L.||Gardner, Ernest||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gibbs, G. A.||Norton-Griffiths, John|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gilmour, Captain John||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Goldsmith, Frank||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.|
|Barnston, Harry||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Barrie, H. T.||Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)|
|Bigland, Alfred||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Perkins, Walter F.|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Home, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Pryce-Jones, Col. E.|
|Boyton, James||Horner, Andrew Long||Rawson, Col. R. H.|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Houston, Robert Paterson||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Hume-Williams, William Ellis||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)||Ingleby, Holcombe||Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Joynson-Hicks, William||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Cassel, Felix||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Cautley, H. S.||Kimber, Sir Henry||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Cave, George||Larmor, Sir J.||Steel-Maitland, A. D.|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Stewart, Gershom|
|Chambers, J.||Lloyd, G. A.||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Sykes, Alan John (Cites., Knutsford)|
|Cralg, Charles (Antrim, S.)||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninlan||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)|
|Dairymple, Viscount||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)|
|Doughty, Sir George||M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent. Mid)|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Eyres-Monsell, B. M.||Moore, William||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Faber, George Denison (Clapham)||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)|
|Fell, Arthur||Mount, William Arthur||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Sir|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Newman, John R. P.||H. Carlile and Mr. Wright.|
§ Original Question again proposed.
§ Sir H. CARLILE
On a point of Order. It is my intention to move the other Amendments standing in my name. Can I do so now?
§ Sir H. CARLILE
By agreement with Mr. Speaker I was allowed in my speech to deal with the three Amendments together. I understood that that did not deprive me of the right to move the Amendments as they came, but that I had not the right to make three speeches.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I am afraid the hon. Member has exhausted his right, because the moving of an Amendment counts as a speech. But one of the hon. Member's colleagues may move the Amendment in his stead.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
I beg to move, as-an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "affected by," ["shall not be affected by any change of Ministry"], and insert instead thereof the words "dependent upon."[HON. MEM- 1503 BERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to note Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that your calling upon me meets with the approval of so large a section of hon. Members opposite. I can only hope that the argument that I am about to address to the House will fully vindicate the wisdom of your selection.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I beg the hon. Member's pardon. He spoke on the Amendment to the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Albans, but he did not speak on the main question, and therefore is entitled to speak.
§ Mr. MOORE
On a point of Order. I have been in this House for this Debate during a considerable time, and I heard the hon. Member for St. Albans say that he moved three Amendments. You said that that was impossible. The Chief Secretary said that we were only going to deal with them one at a time, and the Chief Secretary further said—I am dealing with the intent of his words—that we were to deal with the other Amendments subsequently. I only want it to be made clear, carrying out that intention, that we only dealt with the words "with the intent that." To prevent any misunderstanding, I want your ruling as to whether we can discuss the subsequent Amendments, to leave out the words "affected by" and insert the words "dependent upon," and also the third Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans? Such a proceeding is only in conformity with what has been ruled and adopted by both sides.
§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member for St. Albans rightly said that he had covered all three points. The opinion I gave then, and which I dealt with subsequently on a point of Order—and it was correctly stated—was that only one Amendment, in fact, could be before the House at one time.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
I am sure the whole House will be glad that the great merits of the arguments I am about to adduce to them shall not be lost. I submit really that the words "shall not be affected by any change of Ministry" are nonsense, and that the continuance of the Lord Lieutenant's office may be affected by a change of Ministry, and no words which are put in can prevent it. For instance, he may have had to do with a sympathetic Irish Minister of the Government with whom he got on very well. The Government as a whole he may have been sympathetic with. Another Ministry may have been appointed with whom he finds it is impossible to work. Therefore, his continuance will undoubtedly be affected, and he will consider at once whether his relations with that particular Minister are such as to make it possible for him to continue in office. I think you need the words "dependent upon"—that is to say, that I do not think that the Lord Lieutenant's office should be dependent upon a change of Ministry. I admit the point is a small one, but I think I have sufficiently shown that the words cannot be maintained as they stand. I am sure that the Solicitor-General, with his charming reasonableness and plausibility, will at once admit the cogency of my argument and will accept the Amendment.
§ Sir J. SIMON
I have had the shortest possible notice of this, but perhaps if I call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to what it is he wishes this Bill to be, it will suffice. He asks, "That the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be dependent upon any change of Ministry." Consequently, the only thing that would keep the poor Lord Lieutenant in office would be a constant change of Ministry here.
§ Sir J. SIMON
I will repeat. The hon. Gentleman wants the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant not to be dependent upon a change of Ministry here. It follows therefore that the only thing that will keep the poor man in office will be a change of Ministry here. I agree.
§ Question, "That the Amendment be made," put, and negatived.1505
§ Mr. RONALD M'NEILL
I beg to move, at the end of the proposed Amendment, to add the words, "and the Lord Lieutenant shall in the discharge of the duties of his office conform to the accustomed practice of Governors of His Majesty's Overseas Dominions in relation to matters of political controversy."
I ask the Government to agree to this Amendment in order to redeem the pledge which the Prime Minister gave at an earlier stage, and which I think really must have been entirely overlooked by the right hon. Gentleman in putting down his Amendment. Otherwise I am quite certain he would not have so flagrantly departed from the promise of the Prime Minister. Before I call attention to what the Prime Minister said, let me say that the arguments adduced from this side of the House upon the question were that words should be put into the Bill making it quite clear that for the future an office such as that of the Lord Lieutenant shall not, as in the past, be a political office in the ordinary sense of the word, but that it should be on the same lines as those of the Governors of the Dominions—that he shall be a Viceroy in the true sense—and that the officer should be precluded by the terms of his office from taking any part in the ordinary political controversies of the country which he governs. When that argument was placed before the Committee the Prime Minister in reply said that he was much impressed by the argument of my hon. and learned Friend, and he followed by saying:—I have no objection to put one in the Bill.That is to say, a phrase such as my hon. Friend was then urging. The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not like the form of words, but he himself wrote down what he thought for the moment would be a proper way of meeting the argument of my hon. Friend. These were the words which the Prime Minister wrote down:—The Lord Lieutenant shall, in the discharge of the duties of his office, conform to the accustomed practice of the Governors of His Majesty's Overseas Dominions.It is quite true that the Prime Minister guarded himself against promising those precise words. We have no desire whatever to tie him down literally to any particular words, but the Prime Minister quite clearly showed that he recognised the claim from our side of the House as a just one; that words to the effect stated should be added to the Clause in order to make it certain that the intention should be carried out. The right hon. Gentle- 1506 man in the Amendment which he has put down has simply and entirely given the "go-by" to that promise of the Prime Minister. He has not put in words with any such meaning or intention. He has left out altogether any words whatever which would restrict the office of the Lord Lieutenant in future. As was pointed out in Committee, we are here dealing with an office around which has grown up a great mass of tradition and custom in the past—tradition and custom which as the Prime Minister himself said were compatible with the Lord Lieutenant from time to time being actually a Member of the Cabinet of the day. There have been recent instances of that, and in any case, whether in the Cabinet or not the Lord Lieutenant has been frankly recognised as a party official of the Government of the day. Therefore you cannot, when dealing with the Lord Lieutenant of the future, leave out of account these traditions. The facts must be faced. You have not merely to deal here as if you were appointing the Governor of the new Dominion or a Colony with the presumption that you have all the traditions which attach to the position of Colonial Governor. You have to deal in the future with an officer bearing the same title and historical continuity that made the Lord Lieutenant in the past always a party man. Therefore you do require, I submit, very precise words to show that a change of policy and tradition is to take place. I need not labour it further, and I am perfectly certain that if the right hon. Gentleman only looks at the promise given by the Prime Minister he will frankly see he is departing from the words of the Prime Minister.
§ Sir J. D. REES
I beg to second the Amendment in very few words, because I raised the same points when speaking on the Amendment of my hon. Friend, the Member for St. Albans (Sir H. Carlile). The Chief Secretary said he was constitutionally inclined to prefer any words that carried out the intention rather than his own. In that case he should accept this Amendment, because the words therein are the words of the Prime Minister.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that all of us, including the Prime Minister himself, thought that the words which we propose to add to the Clause do make it perfectly plain that the position of the Lord Lieutenant in so far as his appointment is concerned is to be radically changed, and 1507 that the Lord Lieutenant will become by virtue of the words we propose to add a non-political person and therefore will be bound by the rules which apply to such persons wherever they are to be found. That is our belief as to the effect of these words. I quite agree that the Prime Minister sketched out some words such as those read by the hon. Gentleman opposite. But the hon. Gentleman said, with the candour that belongs to him, he did not want to hold the Prime Minister to his words. I call attention to what the Prime Minister said on the 4th December, and these are really the governing words:—I merely throw it out for the consideration of the Committee, so that at a later stage we may be able to devise some form meeting with general assent. My right hon. Friend the Attorney-General reminds me that we must be very careful about the form of words. There is considerable danger lurking in the words "Governors of His Majesty's Oversea Dominions," because they might be construed to mean that we were setting up in Ireland a system of self-government similar in all respects, or in all substantial respects, to that which prevails in the Oversea Dominions. Therefore I do not want to be wedded to this form of words; but I undertake—And this is the undertaking we think is carried out—'and I hope this will meet the general view of hon. Gentlemen opposite—to endeavour to find and to insert at a later stage a form of words which will carry out the hon. and learned Gentleman's object, and make it perfectly clear that the position of the Lord Lieutenant in future is not to be as it has been in the past, that of a partisan of the Government of the day, but that of an impartial person discharging his duties in accordance with those traditions which are now well established in self-governing portions of the Empire."—[OFFICIAL, REPORT, 4th December, 1912, cols. 2397–2398, Vol. XLIV.]
§ Mr. BIRRELL
We think we do say so, because we have made by this Amendment the Lord Lieutenant a non-political officer, and we have said his office shall not in any way depend on any change of Ministry. What else, therefore, can it be but a non-political office? I do not think it would be at all desirable to introduce into a Bill of this sort reference to the Oversea Dominions, and that he should conform to the customs and habits of Governors-General in South Africa and elsewhere. It would be rather difficult to say what the habits of these persons are. I have known Governors-General of the greatest distinction, men of the highest intellectual eminence, who have made political speeches in the Dominions.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
Not at all. Ireland is the best example of loyalty in such matters, and if you hunt through the speeches of Lords Lieutenant appointed by both parties down to the present, I venture to say you will not find any Lords Lieutenant, even when they were Cabinet Ministers, making political speeches in Ireland.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
That was not in Ireland, and it was perfectly plain that the only way in which the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was then subject in any way to be called to account was not because he was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, but Lord Lieutenant of Aberdeen. I can assure the hon. Baronet that if it was necessary to go into it, I could give far worse examples, not really bad examples, but still deviations from the rules binding on Lords Lieutenant of speeches made by Conservative Lords Lieutenant in this country—
§ Mr. BIRRELL
What I meant to say is, there is binding upon the Lords Lieutenant under the present Constitution, nothwithstanding that they may be political partisans, an understanding which may indeed have been broken here or there by one Lord Lieutenant under one Government and one Lord Lieutenant under another, but it is certainly not compatible with the position of a Lord Lieutenant as at present constituted, nor with the position of Governor-Generals and persons in the Oversea Dominions, that they should go gallivanting about the country making speeches on questions of policy. To introduce into this Bill references to Governors-General of our Oversea Dominions would, I am satisfied, be the worst possible method, and the Government cannot consent to its being done. I am very mindful of the pledge of the Prime Minister to introduce words to make it perfectly plain and clear that the position of the Lord Lieutenant in future is not to be as it was in the past, that of a partisan of the Government of the day. We say we have done that in the best and most effective possible way, not by words necessarily loose, and which might lead to conflict by saying you are to conform to somebody else's standard. Nothing would be more difficult 1509 than to introduce behaviour and conduct into an Act of Parliament, but when you say that a person, instead of being a Liberal or a Unionist administrator, is to be a non-political person holding office for six years, and when you make it perfectly plain that the tenure of his office is in no way to depend upon the change of Ministry, I say you place it beyond all possibility of dispute that that person must fulfil the conditions laid down by the Prime Minister. I say that the Amendment proposed from the opposite side is impossible. I am quite willing to use words—
§ Mr. BIRRELL
The Prime Minister said he would not hold to the words because the Attorney-General called his attention to the fact that there was considerable danger putting in the words "Governors of the Oversea Dominions." The Prime Minister made it perfectly plain what it was that he wanted to make clear and what the position of the Lord Lieutenant was to be. We have made it clear. I am anxious to carry the Opposition with me in this matter, and if they suggest other words not open to the objections to which the words they have suggested are open, and which I cannot get over, I am perfectly willing to listen to them, but I say most candidly that the words we have put upon the Paper do carry out the pledge of the Prime Minister.
§ Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL
This is a question which really affects the good faith of His Majesty's Government, and if there were any grounds for the contention of the right hon. Gentleman that the words of this Amendment carry out the pledge given by the Prime Minister I should have nothing to say. But let me call the attention of the House to this fact in order that hon. Members may see how ludicrous is the suggestion that the right hon. Gentleman's words go within miles of the pledge given by the Prime Minister. What are the words which he says secure the pledge being carried out that words would be inserted to prevent the appointment of the Lord Lieutenant being in the nature of a partisan appointment. The Chief Secretary has said that that was the pledge, and he is right. The pledge, whatever the form of words, was clear and precise, and it was to make it plain that the Lord Lieutenant was in no sense a partisan. These are the words which the 1510 right hon. Gentleman says carry out that pledge:—Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any Act, and with the intent that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry.
§ Mr. CAMPBELL
Our contention is that the words proposed do not secure this object. The Chief Secretary has been contending that his Amendment carries out the pledge of the Prime Minister.
§ Mr. CAMPBELL
I will not be put off by references to anything else. If the Clause was all right before it did not require an Amendment, but the right hon. Gentleman has said, in order to carry out the Prime Minister's pledge, he proposes to insert the following words:—and with the intent that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be affected by any change of Ministry.You make a partisan appointment and the Government which succeeds you may be of different politics. That is to say a Conservative Government may be in office. You appoint a partisan to this office, and in order to secure that he shall be un-partisan you provide that he is not to go out of office when a Radical Government succeeds you. I never heard of a more ridiculous suggestion than that language of that sort is going to carry out the pledge of the Prime Minister. As a matter of fact, it is going to defeat that pledge because it gives a sort of freehold tenure to the person selected, however partisan he may be. The Prime Minister realised the danger and dealt with it in a most honourable way, so far as promises went, because he gave a distinct promise that when the Report stage was reached words would be inserted which in reality and substance would provide a safeguard in the direction we desire. Of course, he suggested that it would be most unfair to bind him to words spoken on the spur of the moment, and he suggested the very words which have been adopted by the hon. Member who has put down this Amendment It is true that he put in a word of caution at the time and said that there may be lurking in the words "Governors of Overseas Dominions" some difficulty. Does anyone assert that there does 1511 lurk any difficulty in those words? [An HON. MEMBER: "Yes."] Then what is the difficulty? Nobody who was really anxious to carry out the pledge of the Prime Minister honourably would have ever made the ridiculous criticisms which have just been made by the Chief Secretary. Everybody knows what is meant by "the accustomed practice of Governors of His Majesty's Overseas Dominions." It is the practice of those Governors not to interfere in the local politics of the Colonies they govern. The practice in the case of Ireland has been the reverse in recent years. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] I do not wish to introduce into the Debate any elements of bitterness, but I can tell hon. Gentlemen opposite of many instances within the last six years which would demonstrate that in the case of a particular holder of this particular office, he was an open partisan.
Has there ever been any suggestion that the practice of the Overseas Dominion Governors has been partisan in local politics? The practice has always been according to the tradition that the Governors of Overseas Dominions do not interfere in matters of political controversy. I do not say that there has not been exceptions, but we are now dealing with the criticisms which the hon. Gentleman passed on the words of this Amendment. These words do not say it is the universal practice, but we say, "the accustomed practice." Is there any man in this House, or out of it, who would not understand those words, and know that they meant to keep up the good, honourable tradition of the Governors of Overseas Dominions, that so far as matters of local political controversy were concerned they would keep out of them. Do these words accomplish that object. I think the words of the right hon. Gentleman, so far from giving any relief, as I have already pointed out, may possibly intensify the difficulty; because with a partisan in the office, you provide by your Amendment that he is not to lose his office in the event of the Government which appointed him ceasing to hold office and another Government taking its place. That is a very curious way of securing a non-partisan Lord Lietuenant in Ireland. I do not profess to be wedded to these particular words. I think the Prime Minister suggested words which are exceedingly good and incapable of abuse or misunderstanding. If the words "accustomed practice" are not acceptable, I would suggest "recognised tradition."
§ Mr. CAMPBELL
Those are equally good words, although I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman should be so terrified about the word "Overseas." If it had been "half-seas over" I could have understood it. I am quite willing to take the words "His Majesty's representatives." They are equally good, and the same thing in every way. I am not fighting for a shadow, because I believe this is a substantial matter, and it derives its substance, to my mind, more than anything else from the fact that it involves the pledge and the honour of the Prime Minister. I am quite sure the Prime Minister himself would be the last not to wish to have in this Bill this promise honourably fulfilled. It is plain to demonstration that the proposed words of the Chief Secretary—and I am bound to say, in his favour, he seems to be conscious of it—do not carry out the pledge of the Prime Minister, and whilst we are not wedded to his particular words, we make this suggestion, and we are willing to accept some such words as the words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman, "according to the accustomed practice and recognised position of His Majesty's representatives."
§ Mr. LEES SMITH
The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has indicated that he might be disposed to accept this Amendment or to accept words similar to the Amendment. I should not have risen excepting to ask the right hon. Gentleman not to do anything of the sort. I am bound to say that it seems to me that the introduction of these words would lead to consequences which hon. Gentlemen opposite have not yet faced. They have confined their attention almost entirely to the accustomed practice from the point of view of His Majesty's Government, but the Chief Secretary put a question which reveals the danger of introducing such words, or the words which the right hon. Gentleman has proposed. What is the accustomed practice? Or what is the recognised position in internal politics of Governors of the Overseas Dominions? These words only become of importance in cases of difficulty in the Overseas 1513 Dominions, and when the cause of the difficulty is great there has been the greatest variety of opinion, and there have been most acute disputes as to what the accustomed practice of the Governor is or ought to be. Only in the last four years, I believe, there have been votes of censure in Colonial Parliaments upon the Governors because the view of the party has not been the view of the Governor as to what is the recognised practice in matters of contentious legislation. I did not take down the exact words, but I think it was the Mover of the Amendment who seemed to be misled by the idea that the proper position of the Lord Lieutenant would be identical with that of a Colonial Governor. What is the general line of policy which a Colonial Governor pursues? Surely it is that he will not, in any circumstances whatever, interfere in Colonial legislation, provided that that legislation touches no Imperial interest. Does the right hon. Gentleman wish this alteration to be made? Does he mean to say that we are to tell the Lord Lieutenant that under no circumstances whatever is he to interfere with Irish legislation in matters which are within the competence of the Irish Parliament.
§ Mr. LEES SMITH
That is the point. That is what you would tell him if he were to follow the practice of the Governors of Overseas Dominions. Take a case which has been raised in these Debates. An hon. Member opposite during the course of the financial Debates, expressed grave anxiety lest the Irish Parliament should levy differential taxes against us. It is inconceivable to me, but I take that instance because it is the case of hon. Members opposite. In the case of a self-governing Colony, however vindictive or predatory the taxation of the Colony would appear to be, it would be contrary to the custom and practice—
§ Mr. LEES SMITH
I said there was, but that it broke down in cases of difficulty. It would be contrary to the practice and recognised position of a Colonial Governor for him to intervene in that case. Does the right hon. Gentleman then say that if the Irish Parliament were to attempt to pay back old scores to Ulster by trying to ruin her industries we should instruct the Lord Lieutenant to simply assent without question or debate?
§ Mr. LEES SMITH
There is nothing about discrimination, except with regard to religion. You say yourselves that the Bill allows them to discriminate against us. I think that very argument goes to prove that the position of the Lord Lieutenant is not identical, and would not necessarily be always identical with that of a Governor of an Overseas Dominion. What would it lead to in times of difficulty if you instructed him always to follow the practice? Hon. Members have spoken as if the recognised position in these Overseas Dominions were something which was fixed and unalterable and could be put into a Bill. As a matter of fact, it is always changing, and it is not going to cease to change on the day that this Bill is passed. In that class of legislation which indirectly affects Imperial interests the practice of Colonial Governors is still developing. Do hon. Members really mean to say that the practice of the Lord Lieutenant is to change because the practice of the Governors of New Zealand or Canada is changing? I do hope the Government will not give way on this point. It all shows that the proper line of policy to pursue is the line which has been such a great success in the self-governing Colonies, and that is to let the practice of the Lord Lieutenant develop by fitting itself to the special circumstances as they arise, and not to tie him down by all these vague and semi-meaningless contentious terms written down in an Act of Parliament.
§ 10.0 P.M.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON
The hon. Member who has just spoken has taken a most remarkable view of what was said by the Prime Minister. The matter is one of some importance, not only as it affects the Lord Lieutenant, but as it affects the position of the Prime Minister and his promise in this House. Let me recall the circumstances under which this particular proposal came up. It so happened that on the afternoon of the day on which this came up we had moved an Amendment which proposed to entrust certain powers and duties to the Lord Lieutenant. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in resisting the Amendment, did so on the ground that 1515 he thought it was not a good thing that these duties should be entrusted to the Lord Lieutenant, because, to use his own words, the Lord Lieutenant might, and probably would, be a partisan. If that is challenged I have the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman here, because I took the trouble to get the quotation before I made the statement. Here is what he actually said:—The only difference between the right hon. and learned Gentleman and ourselves is this. He says. 'Brush aside the Irish Courts, ignore them and get to the Privy Council through the Lord Lieutenant.'Then the right hon. Gentleman goes on:—But he may be a partisan. The right hon. Gentleman assumes all the partisanship is in Ireland, but you may have a partisan Lord Lieutenant.That was the position when we reached the Amendment that night. It appeared to us to be a serious state of affairs, and we have, therefore, brought forward this Amendment in order to ensure that the Lord Lieutenant shall not be a partisan, and shall not interfere in current matters of political controversy in Ireland. The Prime Minister received that proposition with considerable favour, not only in regard to general principles, but in relation to particular words. May I remind the House again that the words now used are the very words suggested by the Prime Minister in Committee? Of course, the right hon. Gentleman did not bind himself to particular words, but I think I can show that some such words as these are wanted in order to carry out the undertaking of the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member opposite said it was of no use to compare the Lord Lieutenant with the Governor of one of His Majesty's Dominions, because the case was not on all fours; but there he is in direct conflict with what the Prime Minister said in Committee, so far as this particular matter is concerned. As to the position of the Lord Lieutenant, the right hon. Gentleman said:—It does not appear to me that his duties and responsibilities ought to differ from those of a Governor in one of our Dominions.He went on at some length to develop that argument in order to show that the position of the Governor in one of His Majesty's Dominions ought to be the position and conduct of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. The Chief Secretary, I believe, took the view that the Prime Minister did not pledge himself to any particular form of words. But he did go so far as to suggest a form of words, and 1516 they were embodied in the closing words of his speech. If I may I will read them to the House in order that the House may see how they conflict. The Prime Minister said:—Therefore I think the temptation, if I may use the expression to the Lord Lieutenant in these altered circumstances, to interfere as a partisan either in Irish or - British politics is a temptation which ought not to exist, and which certainly, we are all agreed, he ought not to yield to, and I think that sufficient, having regard to the dignity of the office. We will insert words in this Clause to make it clear that in this respect he has to conform to what is now the well-established practice, never violated in many years past, by those entrusted by the Crown with the performance of analogous duties in other portions of the British Empire."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th December, 1912, cols. 2405-G, Vol. XLIV.]Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously state that the words of his Amendment carry out that pledge of the Prime Minister? I do not believe they do, and I say it is incumbent on the Government, in view of the Prime Minister's promise, and in view of the pledge on the face of which we withdrew from the position we had taken up—that it is incumbent on the Government, and incumbent on the House, to insist that the Government shall take some steps to carry out the pledge they gave.
Sir GILBERT PARKER
I remember taking part in the debate from which my hon. Friend has just quoted, and I remember appealing to the Prime Minister's speech and commenting on it after in debate. The Prime Minister seemed to me to be perfectly explicit in his reply to the objection raised on this side of the House, and as my hon. Friend has said, he went so far as to declare that the Governor of Ireland should conform to the usual practice, the traditional practice, the well-established practice of the Governors of our Overseas Dominions. I do not think hon. Members opposite should quibble on this matter, because the sense of the Prime Minister's speech sunk deeply into the minds of every hon. Member present at the time. The right hon. Gentleman wrote it down. Can it be suggested that the Government has fulfilled their pledge and promise by the Amendment which has been brought forward by the Chief Secretary for Ireland? If pledges mean anything at all in this House, if honour means anything, the Amendment set down by the right hon. Gentleman should be entirely different. The hon. Member for Northampton is, no doubt, an authority on many things, but having listened to his speeches on this and other constitutional questions I am not absolutely 1517 certain that he has mastered the procedure of constitutional government in our Overseas Dominions. The Governor in an Oversea Dominion, whether the Governor of a province or of a federal Constitution, is strictly bound by the Constitution itself.
There is no such thing, as the hon. Member suggests, as development of practice or custom in our Oversea Dominions. The Governor of the Dominion, be it Canada or Australia, is tied and bound by the authority given to him at the time the Constitution is granted, and he cannot depart from it. That is very strictly laid down. The Governor of a province—and here is where the confusion comes in in the mind of the hon. Gentleman—may reserve a Bill, for instance, in Canada, and may send it back to the provincial Government and ask it to reconsider it, not from the standpoint of policy, but from the standpoint of constitutional procedure. The Government may have overstepped the bounds of constitutional procedure in their Bill. They may have crossed the line of federal legislation. Then the Governor is strictly bound by constitutional authority to make the comment which is justified, and which he is bound to make, since the Constitution tells him that no Bill which comes before him which crosses the line of federal legislation shall receive his consent but shall be referred back again to the provincial Government.
The same thing applies to a federal Government. There the Governor is strictly bound, and it is folly to talk about the development of practice. I have never seen anything of it, and I have studied the development of Oversea Constitutions with very great care. I remember a case in which the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was concerned, where he had to take action when a Ministry was leaving office and were about to appoint a great number of partisan members to the Senate. He, according to the constitutional practice to which he was committed as a servant of His Majesty, was bound to intervene, and he did so. But it was accustomed practice. There was no development of any new traditions, nor the making of any new precedents. What I want to come to is this: that in the case of Ireland you have a far more difficult position for the Lord Lieutenant or the Governor of Ireland than exists in the case of any federal Constitution, or in the case of any provincial Governor throughout the Oversea Dominions, because you have the 1518 reserved services. The Governor of Ireland is in a very delicate position. He has to act for the Imperial Government in regard to the Imperial services, and he also has to act, within the Constitution, for the provincial Government, the Government of Ireland itself. That is all the more reason why the position of the Governor should be made perfectly clear, and that, as the Prime Minister said, he should conform to the usual practice, that is to say, never interfere in any question of local policy, never, indeed, to express an opinion upon local policy, but only in the case where the Irish Government may have exceeded its rights, as he thinks, under the Constitution, or has traversed the relations which constitutionally should exist between the Irish Government and the Imperial Government, only then to intervene.
I repeat that every Governor-General, every Governor and every Lieutenant-Governor throughout the Oversea Dominions has before him always an established practice. That established practice we want followed in Ireland. As I ventured to say in the last Debate, the position in Ireland is a very difficult one. You are trying an experiment for the first time with a provincial Government in Ireland. That is all the more reason why the Government should take express care to see that there should be established throughout the United Kingdom and throughout Ireland itself a feeling of confidence that no longer should the Governor of Ireland have that partisan position which the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has at the present time. He has been a Member of the Cabinet in past Governments. The Chief Secretary is a Member of the Government, and the Lord Lieutenant is controlled in his actions very largely by partisan directions. If that is the case, we want to be able to say that the Governor of Ireland is controlled in no sense by any partisan directions or by any partisan practice which has grown up in the course of the history of the Government of Ireland since the Treaty of Union. I sincerely hope that the House will be able to recognise to-night that the Prime Minister, through the Chief Secretary, has redeemed an honourable pledge to this House, which not to redeem is to bring the Government into contempt at a time when it can least afford to be brought into contempt, namely, towards the close of the Debates on this Home Rule Bill.
§ Sir J. SIMON
I do not doubt that the view I take of this matter will be shared by every hon. Member, that is, that this is a serious matter. It is a serious matter from the point of view of those who sit on this side, not because we believe we are doing anything but fulfilling the pledge the head of the Government gave, but it is serious from our point of view because, although we have done what we thought to be right, it is plain that some hon. Gentlemen opposite think we have failed. Therefore, because we think it is no good discussing who is right or wrong about that, but because we want to discharge an undertaking which hon. Gentlemen opposite think is not being discharged, that we take the view that the matter is one which the Government ought to take into consideration with a view to revision. It is in that spirit that I approach the matter. The hon. Member who spoke last will forgive me if I do not follow him. I do not wish to make any comment on the somewhat strong language with which he concluded his speech. That being my object, how do we stand? The Prime Minister expressed in very clear terms what the hon. Gentleman has just expressed again as the object he has in view, the object that we have in view, and which I believe the House has in view, namely, of making provision in the Bill as to the status and conduct of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. I confess, as I said on an earlier Amendment, that I believe that the Clause as it stands in the Bill at this moment, properly construed, has the effect desired. That was certainly the view taken by a great authority like Mr. Gladstone in 1893, when he said that the words as they stand printed in the Bill now would effect the object and prevent the Lord Lieutenant from having a partisan character.
Be that as it may, it was certainly the undertaking given that we would propose additional words which would make that doubly sure. We believed, and we still believe that that is done by the Amendment in the name of the Chief Secretary, but so long as we can get over a difficulty which is sincerely felt, but which is a pure matter of language, it is our most earnest desire to propose, if necessary, additional or alternative words which will allow this matter to drop, without there being the slightest reason for suspicion or doubt as to bona fides on one side or the other. The suggestion I would make to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment is this. 1520 We do feel a difficulty, in spite of the very learned and interesting explanation we have just had from the hon. Gentleman who proceeded me, in referring in terms to the Governors of His Majesty's Overseas Dominions. For myself, I am not at all prepared to subscribe to the hon. Gentleman's view that the extent to which different Governors have at different times acted has always been precisely defined. Probably the view of the hon. Gentleman will be thoroughly met if we do something of this sort. If hon. Members will look at the Amendment which is now before the House, it reads in this way—and thatplainly the word "that" must come in—and that the Lord Lieutenant shall in relation to matters of political controversy in the discharge of the duties of his office conform to the accustomed practice of those discharging analogous duties under the Crown.It occurs to us that there is a real danger in introducing the expression "Oversea Dominions." There may be in time to come some change in their Constitution or in their number. Newfoundland may take a different position in connection with Canada or we may have further Dominions created here, and we have to proceed here on the basis that we are framing a Constitution not for to-day or to-morrow, but it may be for many years to come, and if hon. Members opposite think these words fairly discharge, as we most earnestly desire, not only to do, but to do in the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, the undertaking which the Prime Minister gave, I ask that this Amendment be withdrawn, and I will undertake to move mine.
§ Sir E. CARSON
This Amendment, which has been admitted to be an important one, I think demonstrates once more to the House the great difficulties under which we are carrying on this discussion, because we have had a considerable Debate before we could extract anything like the pledge which the Prime Minister gave for the Government, and there has been a good deal of controversy, and there is even now, as to what it was exactly the Prime Minister meant, and still here we are discussing this important question, and the one Gentleman who can tell us what he did mean has taken no part in the discussion at all. That is the way in which these Debates are generally carried on, and a good deal of the limited 1521 time that is given is devoted to finding out something that someone else has said when that someone else will not be here to tell us the meaning of what he said. In my opinion, at all events, what the Prime Minister meant was perfectly clear. He said he wished to make the office of Lord Lieutenant in Ireland exactly analagous to the office of the Governor-General in any of our Colonies. This was not a haphazard statement of the Prime Minister. He is as well able to draft as anyone else, and he not only suggested the words, but he said he wrote them down.
§ Sir J. SIMON
The right hon. Gentleman has not been here in the early part of the Debate or he would know that the subject has several times been referred to, with this distinction, that hon. Members opposite have referred to it very fairly and candidly and pointed out that the Prime Minister went on to say he was not wedded to the words, and he was warned that the expression was a dangerous one.
§ Sir E. CARSON
I heard the whole of the hon. Member's speech, and I have before me exactly what the Prime Minister said. His meaning was perfectly plain, and he says he wrote it down. He said he was not wedded to the exact words, but these were the words he thought were the best at the time. I really do not know what the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words mean. I do not know what he means, if he means to leave out "or in relation to the Colonics or the Dominions." What docs he mean by analogous duties under the Crown? Does he mean Canada or Australia or South Africa? That seems to me to be very far more indefinite than what the Prime Minister said. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said "the accustomed practice under the Crown in His Majesty's self-governing Dominions" I could understand what he means. That would be a perfectly explicit statement. When he says "under the Crown," he must have some reason for barring a reference to the Colonies, and if you leave out the Colonies what other position is there under the Crown which can be held to be analogous to the position the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland is to occupy under this Bill? They must put in words defining what they mean by analogous offices under the Crown in some way or other in reference to the Colonies, and that ought to be all the more easy for them if they have nothing else in their mind which is to be 1522 brought into the construction of the duties of the office.
§ Mr. RONALD M'NEILL
I wish to ask the Government if they propose any other words to meet the objection of my right hon. Friend?
§ Mr. BUTCHER
I hope the Solicitor-General will give some answer to the speech of my right hon. Friend. I have exactly the same objection as he put forward. The Government are using words which can only produce ambiguity and difficulty when they come to be construed. To whom do the Government refer when they suggest persons discharging analogous duties to those which the Lord Lieutenant will discharge under the Crown. I agree that the Governors of the Dominions do discharge duties in some senses similar, and in some senses dissimilar. If they mean that the Lord Lieutenant is to follow the established practice of Colonial Governors, or Governors of the Dominions, is it not possible to accept some such words as "the accustomed practice of those discharging analogous duties under the Crown in His Majesty's Overseas Dominions?" The right hon. and learned Gentleman must have something in his mind as to what is meant by "discharging analogous duties." If he does not mean the Governors of Dominions, what does he mean? If he means something else, would it not conduce to clearness if he were to introduce words showing what is meant? I appeal to him to put in some words to avoid, if I may use a somewhat rude expression, the almost studied and deliberate ambiguity involved in the words he has proposed.
§ Mr. BONAR LAW
I am at the same disadvantage as my right hon. Friend, inasmuch as I did not hear the earlier part of the Debate. But after listening to the speech of the Solicitor-General and the reply of my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Carson) I am at a loss to understand what is the objection to saying exactly what the Government means. The Solicitor-General said that there might be some change in the self-governing Dominions, and he instanced the case of Canada. That is perfectly true, and that would be a valid objection if you were going to name the Governor-General of a self-governing Dominion. We do not mean anything of the kind. The Solicitor-General has made 1523 it perfectly plain that the Lord Lieutenant should be in the same position as the Governor-General of one of the Colonies, and he says that will be obtained by putting in the words "discharging analogous duties under the Crown." What is the objection to saying "analogous duties under the Crown in the Overseas Dominions." It is perfectly plain that is what the Prime Minister meant. It is perfectly plain that is what the right hon. Gentleman says the Government still means. Then, why should the right hon. Gentleman object to put in the words?
§ Sir J. SIMON
Really the Prime Minister pointed out in his speech perfectly plainly that upon reflection he saw himself an objection to the word "Governor." We think that we have already abundantly discharged the Prime Minister's pledge, whether right hon. Gentlemen opposite think so or not. I have made an offer which hon. Gentlemen were at perfect liberty to accept, if they chose, not to satisfy my conscience but in order that I might be able to feel that hon. Gentlemen opposite might only have themselves to blame if they did not accept it.
§ Mr. BONAR LAW
No, the Prime Minister made it perfectly clear that what he intended to do was to put in the Bill words to show that the Lord Lieutenant would be in precisely the same position as one of the Governors - General of our Colonies. Although I was not present at the Debate, I have looked at the words of the Prime Minister. Later on he said the objection had occurred to him that it was putting Ireland in the position of a self-governing Colony. We have so far never found that that was any objection to interfering with anything they were doing. If that is their objection, and we do not feel it, I do not understand why the right hon. Gentleman should say that there is a misunderstanding, and his object is to clear it up and satisfy us if he can. I cannot see any reason whatever why they should not do what was the obvious intention of the Prime Minister and put into the Bill now words which would carry out the promise
which the Prime Minister then gave. This is what the Prime Minister said:—
Therefore in all respects the position of the Lord Lieutenant as contemplated by this Bill, is analogous if not in substance identical.
§ We have had that before. We are agreed about that. The only thing we are disagreed about is this, that the Government, while saying that they intend it to be the same as in the self-governing Dominions.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—they have said it—for some mysterious reason which they do not explain, decline to put in the Bill, words which imply what they say they intend.
§ Mr. PRINGLE
It is worth while that the House should realise the attitude of the Opposition. This afternoon we had a long Debate with regard to appeals, and the whole point of the Opposition then, was that by giving the appeal to the Judicial Committee we were putting Ireland in the position of the Colonies. Now, to-night, they are dissatisfied with the Government because the Government decline to treat Ireland as a Colony. That is the situation. It is only one further illustration of the inconsistency of the Unionist criticism of the Bill. There is no instance of a Colonial Constitution in which any such definition of a Colonial Governor's position is contained, and if these words were added here, they would be practically meaningless.
§ Lord HUGH CECIL
I rise to call attention to the extraordinary action of the Chief Secretary for Ireland who, not satisfied with having guillotined the Resolution, applies private pressure to his own supporters. We see how shamelessly these things are staged. They are anxious to try to get rid of the odium of the odious system, and therefore they make believe that the hon. Member has finished his speech when he has not finished it.
It being half-past Ten of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Orders of the House of the 14th October and the 30th December, 1912, to put forthwith the Questions on the Amendment already proposed from the Chair.
§ Question put, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 176; Noes, 288.1527
|Division No. 505.]||AYES.||[10.30 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Baldwin, Stanley||Barnston, Harry|
|Amery, L. C. M. S.||Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)||Barrie, H. T.|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)|
|Baird, J. L.||Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks|
|Balcarres, Lord||Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Beckett, Hon. Gervase|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Haddock, George Bahr||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.|
|Bigland, Alfred||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Bird, A.||Hall, Fred (Dulwich)||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)||Peel, Captain R. F.|
|Boyton, James||Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence||Perkins, Walter F.|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Harris, Henry Percy||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Pryce-Jones, Col. E.|
|Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Quilter, Sir William Eley C.|
|Campbell, Rt Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)||Hill-Wood, Samuel||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Campion, W. R.||Hoare, Samuel John Gurney||Rawson, Col. R. H.|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Cassel, Felix||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Cator, John||Home, E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Rolleston, Sir John|
|Cautley, H. S.||Horner, Andrew Long||Royds, Edmund|
|Cave, George||Houston, Robert Paterson||Rutherford, John (Darwen)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Hume-Williams, William Ellis||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Hunt, Rowland||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Ingleby, Holcombe||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Jessel, Captain H. M.||Sandys, G. J.|
|Chambers, J.||Joynson-Hicks, William||Sassoon, Sir Philip|
|Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Kerry, Earl of||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.)||Keswick, Henry||Stanier, Beville|
|Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)||Kimber, Sir Herry||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Larmor, Sir J.||Starkey, John R.|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Steel-Maitland, A. D.|
|Dairymple, Viscount||Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)||Stewart, Gershom|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Lewisham, Viscount||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott||Lloyd, G. A.||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Doughty, Sir George||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Duke, Henry Edward||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Terrell, H. (Gloucester)|
|Eyres-Monsell, B. M.||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)|
|Faber, George Denison (Clapham)||Lonsdale, Sir John Brownlee||Touche, George Alexander|
|Falle, Bertram Godfray||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover Sq.)||Tryon, Captain George Clement|
|Fell, Arthur||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich)||Valentla, Viscount|
|Fetherstonbaugh, Godfrey||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Fisher, Rt. Hon. W Hayes||M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)||Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Magnus, Sir Philip||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Fleming, Valentine||Malcolm, Ian||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Forster, Henry William||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Williams, Col. R. (Dorset, W.)|
|Gardner, Ernest||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Gibbs, G. A.||Mlldmay, Francis Bingham||Winterton, Earl|
|Gilmour, Captain John||Moore, William||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Goldsmith, Frank||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Cordon, John (Londonderry, South)||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)||Wright, Henry Fitzherbert|
|Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||Mount, William Arthur||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Goulding, Edward Alfred||Newdegate, F. A.||Yate, Col. Charles Edward|
|Grant, J. A.||Newman, John R. P.|
|Greene, W. R.||Newton, Harry Kottingham||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Sir|
|Gretton, John||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||H. Carlile and Mr. Butcher.|
|Gulnness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)||Norton-Griffiths, John|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Bryce, J. Annan||Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Burke, E. Haviland-||Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Dawes, James Arthur|
|Alden, Percy||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||De Forest, Baron|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)||Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Delany, William|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)||Devlin, Joseph|
|Arnold, Sydney||Byles, Sir William Pollard||Dickinson, W. H.|
|Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Donelan, Captain A.|
|Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)||Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Doris, W.|
|Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark)||Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood)||Duffy, William J.|
|Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)||Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)|
|Barlow, Sir John Enwnott (Somerset)||Clancy, John Joseph||Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Clough, William||Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)|
|Barton, W.||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||Elverston, Sir Harold|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Condon, Thomas Joseph||Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)|
|Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)|
|Bentham, G. J.||Cotton, William Francis||Essex, Sir Richard Walter|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Esslemont, George Birnle|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Crawshay-Williams, Ellot||Falconer, J.|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Crean, Eugene||Farrell, James Patrick|
|Boyle, D. (Mayo, N.)||Crooks, William||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles|
|Brace, William||Crumley, Patrick||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson|
|Brady, P. J.||Cullinan, J.||Ffrench, Peter|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Field, William|
|Srunner, John F. L.||Davies, E. William (Elfion)||Fitzgibbon, John|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Lyell, Charles Henry||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)|
|Furness, Stephen||Lynch, A. A.||Rendal, Athelstan|
|George Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Richards, Thomas|
|Gilhooly, James||McGhee, Richard||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Gill, A. H.||Maclean, Donald||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Ginnell, L.||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Gladstone, W. G. C.||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Glanville, Harold James||Macpherson, James Ian||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Robertson, Sir G. S. (Bradford)|
|Goldstone, Frank||M'Callum, Sir John M.||Robinson, Sidney|
|Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough)||M'Kean, John||Roch, Walter F.|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Roche, Augustine (Louth)|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Manfield, Harry||Rose, Sir Charles Day|
|Gulney, P.||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Rowlands, James|
|Gulland, John William||Marks, Sir George Croydon||Rowntree, Arnold|
|Hackett, J.||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.|
|Hancock, John George||Martin, Joseph||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Meagher, Michael||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Hardie, J. Keir||Menzies, Sir Walter||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.|
|Harmsworth, R. L (Caithness-shire)||Middlebrook, William||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Millar, James Duncan||Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.|
|Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Molloy, M.||Sheehy, David|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook|
|Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||Worrell, Philip||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Hayden, John Patrick||Morison, Hector||Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)|
|Hayward, Evan||Morton, Alpheus Clcophas||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Hazleton, Richard||Munro, R.||Snowden, Philip|
|Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)||Murray, Capt. Hon. A. C.||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Helme, Sir Norval Watson||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Needham, Christopher T.||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Neilson, Francis||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Henry, Sir Charles||Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Nolan, Joseph||Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)|
|Higham, John Sharp||Norton, Captain Cecil W.||Tennant, Harold John|
|Hinds, John||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard||Thomas, J. H.|
|Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Hodge, John||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Hogge, James Myles||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Holmes, Daniel Turner||O'Doherty, Philip||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)||O'Donnell, Thomas||Wadsworth, J.|
|Hudson, Walter||O'Dowd, John||Walsh, Stephen (Lancs., Ince)|
|Hughes, S. L.||O'Grady, James||Walters, Sir John Tudor|
|Illinyworth, Percy H.||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|John, Edward Thomas||O'Malley, William||Wardle, George J.|
|Jones, Rt. Hon. Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||O'Neill, Dr. Chares (Armagh, S.)||Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)|
|Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Shaughnessy P. J.||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||O'Shee James John||Watt, Henry A.|
|Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||O'Sullivan. Timothy||Webb, H.|
|Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe)||Outhwaite, R. L||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Palmer, Godfrey Mark||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)||Parker, James (Halifax)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Joyce, Michael||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)|
|Keating, Matthew||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Wiles, Thomas|
|Kellaway, Frederick George||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph (Rotherham)||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)|
|Kilbride, Denis||Pointer, Joseph||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)|
|King, J.||Pollard, Sir George H.||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.||Williamson, Sir Archibald|
|Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)|
|Lardner, James Carrige Rushe||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)||Pringle, William M. R.||Wood, Rt. Hon T McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||Radford, G. H.||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Leach, Charles||Raffan, Peter Wilson||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Reddy, M.|
|Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Lundon, Thomas||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)||G. Howard and Captain Guest.|
§ Question put, "That the words 'and with the intent that the continuance in office of the Lord Lieutenant shall not be1528
§ affected by any change of Ministry.' be there inserted in the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 289; Noes, 174.1531
|Division No. 506.]||AYES.||[10.42 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbarton)||Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Balfour, Sir Robet (Lanark)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Arnold, Sydney||Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple)|
|Alden, Percy||Baker, H. T. (Accrington)||Barlow, Sir John Emmott (somerset)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Neilson, Francis|
|Barton, W.||Hardie, J. Keir||Nicholson, Sir C. N. (Doncaster)|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire)||Nolan, Joseph|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Norton, Captain Cecil W.|
|Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.)||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard|
|Bentham, George Jackson||Harvey, W. E. (Rerbyshire, N. E.)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Bowerman, C. W.||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Boyle, D. (Mayo, North)||Hayward, Evan||O'Donnell, Thomas|
|Brace, William||Hazleton, Richard||O'Down, John|
|Brady, P. J.||Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N. E.)||O'Grady, James|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Helme, Sir Norval Watson||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Kelly, James (Roscommon, N.)|
|Bryce, J. Annan||Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||O'Malley, William|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Henry, Sir Charles||O'Neill, Or. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Herbert, General Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Higham, John Sharp||O'Shee, James John|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk)||Hinds, John||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Buxton, Rt. Hon. Sydney C. (Poplar)||Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Charles E. H.||Outhwaite, R. L.|
|Byles, Sir William (Pollard||Hodge, John||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Hogge, James Myles||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Holmes, Daniel Turner||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Cawley, H. T. (Lancs., Heywood)||Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)||Pearce, William (Limehouse)|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Hudson, Walter||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Hughes, S. L.||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Clough, William||Illingworth, Percy H.||Pointer, Joseph|
|Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus||Pollard, Sir George H.|
|Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.||John, Edward Thomas||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Jones, Rt. Hon. sir D. Brynmor (Swansea)||price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Cotton, William Francis||Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)||Pringle, William R.|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||Radford, G. H.|
|Crawshay-Williams, Eliot||Jones, Leif Stratten (Rushcliffe)||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Crean, Eugene||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields)|
|Crooks, William||Jones, W. S. Glyn- (T. H'mts, Stepney)||Reddy, M.|
|Crumley, Patrick||Joyce, Michael||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Cullinan, J.||Keating, Matthew||Redmond, William (Clare, E.)|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Kellaway, Frederick George||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)|
|Davies, E. William (Eifion)||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Kilbride, Denis||Richards, Thomas|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||King, J.||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon, S. Molton)||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|De Forest, Baron||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Delany, William||Lardner, James||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Dickinson, W. H.||Lawson, Sir W. (Cumb'rld, Cockerm'th)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Leach, Charles||Robinson, Sidney|
|Doris, W.||Levy, Sir Maurice||Roch, Walter F.|
|Duffy, William J.||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Roche, Augustine (Louth, N.)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich)||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)||Lundon, Thomas||Rose, Sir Charles Day|
|Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor)||Lyell, Charles Henry||Rowlands, James|
|Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Lynch, A. A.||Rowntree, Arnold|
|Elverston, Sir Harold||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.)||Maclean, Donald||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Essex, Sir Richard Walter||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Esslemont, George Birnie||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, Smith)||Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir C. E.|
|Falconer, J.||Macpherson, James Ian||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Farrell, James Patrick||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B.|
|Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||M'Callum, Sir John M.||Sheehy, David|
|Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||M'Kean, John||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Ffrench, Peter||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Allsebrook|
|Field, William||M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)|
|Fitzgibbon, John||Manfield, Harry||Smith, H. B. L. (Northampton)|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Furness, Stephen||Marks, Sir George Croydon||Snowden, Philip|
|George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Soames, Arthur Wellesley|
|Gilhooly, James||Martin, Joseph||Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert|
|Gill, A. H.||Meagher, Michael||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Ginnell, L.||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Gladstone, W. G. C.||Menzies, Sir Walter||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Glanville, Harold James||Middlebrook, William||Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Millar, James Duncan||Tennant, Harold John|
|Goldstone, Frank||Molloy, M.||Thomas, J. H.|
|Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough||Molteno, Perey Alport||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward||Mond, Sir Alfred Moritz||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Griffith, Ellis J.||Morrell, Philip||Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander|
|Guest, Major Hon. C. H. C. (Pembroke)||Morison, Hector||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Gulney, Patrick||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Wadsworth, J.|
|Gulland, John William||Munro, R.||Walsh, Stephen (Lanes., Ince)|
|Hackett, J.||Murray, Captain Hon. A. C.||Walters, Sir John Tudor|
|Hancock, John George||Nannetti, Joseph P.||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale)||Needham, Christopher T.||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Wardle, George J.||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan)||Wiles, Thomas||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.)|
|Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Wilkle, Alexander||Young, Samuel (Cavan, East)|
|Watt, Henry A.||Williams, J. (Glamorgan)||Young, William (Perth, East)|
|Webb, H.||Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)||Williams, Penry (Middlesborough)|
|White, Patrick (Meath, North)||Williamson, Sir Archibald||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)||G. Howard and Captain Guest.|
|Agg-Gardner, James Tynte||Fleming, Valentine||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)|
|Amery, L. C. M. S.||Forster, Henry William||Mount, William Arthur|
|Anson, Rt. Hon. Sir William R.||Gardner, Ernest||Newdegate, F. A.|
|Baird, J. L.||Gibbs, George Abraham||Newman, John R. P.|
|Balcarres, Lord||Gilmour, Captain John||Newton, Harry Kottingham|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Goldsmith, Frank||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (City, Lond.)||Gordon, John (Londonderry, South)||Norton-Griffiths, John|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton)||O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Mid)|
|Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester)||Grant, J. A.||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Greene, W. R.||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William|
|Barnston, Harry||Gretton, John||Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)|
|Barrie, H. T.||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)||Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington)|
|Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton)||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Peel, Captain R. F. (Woodbridge)|
|Beach, Hon. Michael Hugh Hicks||Haddock, George Bahr||Perkins, Walter F.|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Hall, D. B. (Isle of Wight)||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Hall, Fred (Dulwich)||pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Bennett-Goldney, Francis||Hall, Marshall (E. Toxteth)||Pryce-Jones, Col. E.|
|Bigland, Alfred||Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)||Quilter, Sir William Eley C.|
|Bird, A.||Hardy, Rt. Hon. Laurence||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Harris, Henry Percy||Rawson, Col R. H.|
|Boyle, William (Norfolk, Mid)||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Rees, Sir J. D.|
|Boyton, James||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Rolleston, Sir John|
|Burdett-Coutts, W.||Hill-Wood, Samuel||Royds, Edmund|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Hoare, Samuel John Gurney||Rutherford, John (Lancs., Darwen)|
|Butcher, J. G.||Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian)||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)|
|Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. (Dublin Univ.)||Horne, W. E. (Surrey, Guildford)||Sanders, Robert A.|
|Campion, W. R.||Horner, Andrew Long||Sandys, G. J.|
|carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Houston, Robert Paterson||Sassoon, Sir Philip|
|Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward H.||Hume-Williams, William Ellis||Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)|
|Cassel, Felix||Hunt, Rowland||Spear, Sir John Ward|
|Cator, John||Ingleby, Holcombe||Stanier, Beville|
|Cautley, H. S.||Jessel, Captain H. M.||Stanley, Hon. Arthur (Ormskirk)|
|Cave, George||Joynson-Hicks, William||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr||Starkey, John R.|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Kerry, Earl of||Steel-Maitland, A. D|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitehin)||Keswick, Henry||Stewart, Gershom|
|Chaloner, Col. R. G. W.||Kimber, Sir Henry||Strauss, Arthur (Paddington, North)|
|Chambers, J.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Talbot, Lord E.|
|Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham||Larmor, Sir J.||Terrell, H. (Gloucester)|
|Cooper, Richard Ashmole||Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)|
|Craig, Charies (Antrim, S.)||Lawson, Hon. H. (T. H'mts, Mile End)||Touche, George Alexander|
|Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)||Lewisham, Viscount||Tryon, Captain George Clement|
|Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet)||Lloyd, G. A.||Valentia, Viscount|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)||Walrond, Hon. Lionel|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)|
|Dairymple, Viscount||Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R.||Warde, Col. C. E. (Kent, Mid)|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Lonsdale, Sir John Brown lee||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Dickson, Rt. Hon. C. Scott||Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (Hanover S.)||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Doughty, Sir George||Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droitwich)||Winterton, Earl|
|Duke, Henry Edward||MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh||Wolmer, Viscount|
|Eyres-Monsell, B. M.||M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)||Worthington-Evans, L.|
|Faber, George Denison (Clapham)||Malcolm, Ian||Wright, Henry Fitzherbert|
|Falle, Bertram Godfray||Mason, James F. (Windsor)||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Fell, Arthur||Meysey-Thompson, E. C.||Yate, Col. Charles Edward|
|Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey||Mildmay, Francis Bingham|
|Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes||Moore, William||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Colonel|
|Fitzroy, Hon. Edward A.||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)||Williams and Mr. A. Sykes,|
§ Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question on any Amendments moved by the Government of which notice had been given, as necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at half-past Ten of the clock at this day's sitting.