§ "That a Supplementary sum not exceeding £2,250 be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in of course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1914, for Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland, including a Grant in relief of certain Expenses payable by Statute out of Local Rates."
§ Question again proposed. Debate resumed
§ Mr. SANDYS
It is sometimes thought that questions dealing with Irish matters exclusively concern the representatives of Ireland in this House, or, at any rate, those who can speak with authority on legal matters. I desire to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that this Estimate of £2,250 will eventually come out of the pockets of the British taxpayers, and, therefore, as the representative of an English constituency where they take great interest in these matters, and where they are seriously perturbed with regard to the conditions prevailing at the present time in certain parts of Ireland, I feel I am entitled to speak on this question and to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who comes over here with full knowledge, presumably, of the conditions in Ireland, to explain to us why we should be called upon to pay this large increase in the Estimate for law charges and criminal prosecutions. Unfortunately, I was not in the House yesterday evening when this Debate was initiated, but some rather remarkable statements were made—at least, they appeared so to me from a perusal of the Official Report this morning—and I have no doubt the right hon. Gentleman will, in the subsequent statements he will make this evening, elucidate these remarkable statements. One of the causes of my objection to this Vote is, as I understand, 2014 that he desires to put it to the Committee that the whole of this additional expenditure which he asks us to sanction is not to be regarded as spread over the financial year from 31st March, 1913, to 31st March, 1914. First of all, it does not deal with the current financial year, but with the Winter Assizes which took place at the end of 1912. This discloses a remarkable state of affairs, and a most unsatisfactory system, both of keeping and auditing accounts.
I was here when the Estimates were passed for 1913–1914, and I had not the slightest idea that at some subsequent date we should be called upon to face charges incurred in 1912. The right hon. Gentleman gave some explanation, but I think it was a most unsatisfactory one, and I hope that, before this Debate closes he will explain to us how it is that we are now called upon to deal with matters that occurred in a financial year which came to a conclusion long before the ordinary Estimates were submitted last year. How is it possible for this House to exercise any control whatever over the expenditure of the Government if matters are dealt with in that way? It is perfectly impossible, and I think that a most careful revision of all these matters is required in view of the extraordinary state of affairs with which we are brought face to face in this particular Vote. I am glad this matter has been brought to our notice, for it will make us careful to ascertain when we are called upon to vote money for a particular year that the amount covers all the expenditure for the year, and that we will not on a subsequent occasion be called upon to go back fourteen months. This is, of course, very convenient for the right hon. Gentleman, because it prevents what no doubt would have been very unpleasant for him and his Friends, namely, a general discussion on the condition of Ireland in relation to crime in various parts of the country. I think it is a pity when the original Estimates were drawn up that the right hon. Gentleman did not anticipate the situation, because I notice 2015 that under the head of charges for prosecutions at Quarter Sessions and Petty Sessions, and for other matters, there was no sub-division with regard to expenses which were expected to be incurred in respect of the various assizes. It was a large sum of money spread over all the assizes which were going to be held during the year under the supposition that if there were more cases at one assizes there would probably be less at another.
In the circumstances, I do not quite see how the right hon. Gentleman is entitled to confine the sum now asked to the particular Winter Assizes of 1912. He will no doubt explain that in the course of the discussion. The figures which appear in the original Estimate show what the position was, and what the trend was in Ireland in connection with these matters. The sum of £13,700 was considered necessary in 1912–13; and £14,000 in 1913–14, but that was not sufficient, and now we have this enormous Supplementary Estimate. It shows a huge increase. It represents a 24 per cent, increase. I wish to emphasise that. When the right hon. Gentleman says that this is to be regarded as dealing purely with the Winter Assizes of 1912, so far from improving his position, he makes it very much worse. I want to ascertain why the right hon. Gentleman did not make his Estimate more generous for these particular charges from the start. What reason had he to suppose that there would not be that continued increase of crime in Ireland, which is bound to go on, in my view, so long as he remains at the head of Irish affairs. The right hon. Gentleman from past statistics had every reason to believe that that increase would continue, and that it would be larger than that for which he provided in the original Estimate. Take cases of indictable offences. There were 9,831 in 1911; and 9,870 in 1910; but in 1912 there were 9,931. The number of persons tried for non-indictable offences was 185,345 in 1911, and 195,246 in 1912. The offences against property with violence which were reported to the police were 867 in 1911, and 960 in 1912. Of course, from such a condition of affairs the right hon. Gentleman might have anticipated that they would continue so long as we had this weak, effete, and cowardly administration in Dublin.
§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maclean)
The hon. Gentleman is, I think, aware that on this Supplementary Esti- 2016 mate it would not be in order to discuss a matter of policy.
§ Mr. SANDYS
I am going to deal now with the details given to us yesterday by the right hon. Gentleman in his statement with regard to this particular Estimate. He told us that in the Winter Assize of 1912 there were 329 prisoners returned for trial as compared with 217 in the corresponding assize of 1911. The number of days occupied in the trials in 1911 was thirty-five days. This went up in 1912 to fifty-two days. In 1911 there were eight murder cases; in 1912 there were sixteen. In 1911 there were four cases of attempted murder, but, fortunately, in 1912 there was a reduction to only one. But what throws a very curious light upon the conditions in Ireland is that, whilst in 1911 there were only two riots and affrays, in 1912 the number had gone up to nine, and unlawful assemblies had increased. Of these, the right hon. Gentleman did not give us figures. He stated that unlawful assemblies had also increased, but that he did not draw any particular inference from that. No doubt that is the position the right hon. Gentleman takes up on these matters; but I can assure him that the British taxpayer, who has to find the money, does draw an inference from the fact that unlawful assemblies have increased, and that riot is taking place. I would like to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention also to the statement which was made in connection with this very Winter Assize, about which the additional expenditure is necessary, and I hope he will be able to explain the matter to us as representing English electors who have to find the money. I hope he will explain to us whether everything possible is being done in Ireland to improve the condition of affairs in every part of the country.
§ Mr. SANDYS
I thought I should be in order in dealing with Mr. Justice Kenny s charge at this particular assize.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
It would not be in order to do so, unless the hon. Member's remarks had specific reference to the statements of the Chief Secretary as to items included under Sub-head D.
§ Mr. SANDYS
It docs deal with these matters, because the judge referred to those cases for which we have to find the money.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
It so obviously opens up the question of policy that I must ask the hon. Member to restrict his remarks to the items in the Supplementary Estimate.
§ Mr. J. H. CAMPBELL
On the point of Order. Surely this very item in respect of which extra expenses have been incurred refers to crimes dealt with in the charge of the judge to which the hon. Gentleman intends to call attention. Surely it is not only relevant, but directly pertinent.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I do not think so. You can only deal with the items in the Supplementary Estimate. This increase in the Vote does not entitle the hon. Member to discuss policy.
§ Mr. CAMPBELL
Surely it is our common right on the occasion of a Supplementary Estimate to discuss the purposes which made it necessary. Surely it is open to hon. Gentlemen behind me to show, if they can, that had a different course been taken by the right hon. Gentleman, and a differen policy pursued, he would not have come to this House to ask for this money.
§ The DEPUTY - CHAIRMAN
That raises the whole question of the administration of justice in Ireland, and that cannot be allowed on the Supplementary Estimate. The course which the Debate took last night was in connection with the expenses of witnesses, etc. The ground was not similar to that which is being opened to-night, and the discussion, therefore, on the general question cannot proceed.
§ Mr. SANDYS
The right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech in connection with the Estimate enumerated all the charges and crimes committed as a justification for the increase, and I am only dealing with the same matter with which the right hon. Gentleman dealt when I ask to make some observations. The right hon. Gentleman in his speech dealt with a large number of very serious crimes which had come up at the Winter Session. He owned to the fact that there was a greater number than he had anticipated, and that had made this additional sum necessary. What are those crimes to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and in respect to which we are now asked to vote money? Speaking as an English Member, I want the right hon. Gentleman when he makes his reply, to give us some 2018 explanation, with especial reference to the county of Limerick, of why we are being asked to vote this additional sum of money. I find that at this assize the expenses of which we are asked to pay, the judge referred to the report of crimes in that county, and in Roscommon and Galway.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
It is quite obvious that the hon. Member is going beyond my ruling, and I must ask him to deal with the Question before the Committee.
§ Lord HUGH CECIL
I think it is desirable, Sir, that we should understand the principle on which we discuss the Estimates. The other day, for example, we had a discussion of great interest on Somaliland, and I understand that that Debate was in order, because the money included in the Supplementary Estimate had been spent on proceedings in Somali-land which were criticised. I think by parity of reason, this discussion is on similar grounds, for the money in this Supplementary Estimate has already been spent, and it would appear should equally be open to discussion, as were the proceedings on which money was spent in Somaliland. I do not understand, at present, why we are not able to discuss these matters, in view of the fact of the discussion which took place in regard to Somaliland under circumstances similar.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
These matters are frequently as difficult for the Chair as for hon. Members, and it is the duty of the occupant of the Chair to take what he deems to be a sensible line. As I understand, when there is a very large increase of the Estimate, as there was in the case of Somaliland, there you do raise-the whole question of policy. The question in the Debate to which the Noble Lord refers was as to fresh military proceedings in Somaliland, and therefore it was clearly obvious that in that instance the whole question of policy arose. But, as in this case, where the increase is not of such overwhelming proportions, and where the grounds for the increase have already been explained by the Chief Secretary as Witnesses' Expenses and other incidental charges of that kind at the Limerick Assizes in 1912, I am quite clear about my ruling, and I adhere to it—that the increase here is not of a character which would allow of raising-the general question of the administration of justice in Ireland.
§ Mr. CAMPBELL
As I understand, the hon. Gentleman behind me was not referring to the question of general policy for the whole of Ireland.
§ Mr. CAMPBELL
I think, with all respect, Sir, that you are labouring under a mistake. The hon. Gentleman was dealing with the observations of the judge in reference to the charges for trial at the Assizes, and in respect of which this additional sum is asked for. He was speaking of the specific cases which had formed both the subject matter of the right hon. Gentleman's speech and of this increased Estimate. Surely, if we are at liberty to discuss anything—unless we are prepared to keep our mouths closed—we should be permitted to debate that which was the subject matter of the right hon. Gentleman's observations in regard to the very cases for which the increased Estimate is put down!
§ Sir F. BANBURY
As this is a, very important point, and the ruling of the Chairman may be taken as a precedent, I want to know quite clearly where we are. Am I to understand, Sir, that your ruling is that we may discuss more widely matters connected with the Supplementary Estimate if the excess asked for is large. How are we to know what the largeness of that excess is to be, whether it is to be 20 per cent, or 25 per cent., or whatever the nominal amount is? This Estimate shows an increase of something like 24 per cent.—practically a quarter of the whole amount—and surely that is a very large increase! That is the first question I should like to ask, for it raises a very important point. The next question is this: As I understand, my hon. and gallant Friend was replying to a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman. I have understood that it has always been open to any hon. Member to reply to a statement made by a Minister. If a Minister makes a statement which is out of order the Chairman—I have heard it over and over again—warns the hon. Gentleman that if he takes that line he will open the discussion to any hon. Member who likes to reply to him. I should wish to know whether you make a new ruling upon that point?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
I do not think I am making any new ruling at all. 2020 However, whether it be new or not, as I understand it, my ruling is following strictly the precedents which have already been laid down and constantly accepted. It is a very proper question to discuss how the increase in the sum estimated is caused, but as regards the policy connected with that increase, the proper time for the discussion of that issue is on the original Estimate itself. This is merely a question of what caused the increase, and not a question of the character of the policy pursued, which is a subject for the original Estimate.
§ Mr. SANDYS
I do not want to deal further with the matter. I only referred to it because the right hon. Gentleman himself had enumerated all the serious crimes which were tried at the Assizes in connection with which this Estimate was required, and I thought that it would be in order for me to make some reply to the right hon. Gentleman in this matter. As you have ruled that it is not in order, I will not proceed with it. I only desire to say to the right hon. Gentleman, who has some advantage, as I am not permitted to refer to the very serious and weighty remarks which were made by the judge at the Winter Assizes at Limerick, that I hope the right hon. Gentleman himself this afternoon will give us an explanation of the state of affairs in Ireland, and especially in that part of the country, because we British taxpayers, who have to find the money, are extremely dissatisfied with existing conditions, which we regard not only as a serious expense to us, but also as a most discreditable stain upon the administration of justice in what is still, I am glad to say, the United Kingdom.
§ Mr. MOORE
I beg to move, "That Item D (Prosecutions, etc.) be reduced by £250."
I hope I shall not be against any of the rulings, but I want to say a few words with the best intentions on the matter to which the Chief Secretary, though he did not limit it on the Paper, verbally limited this discussion last night. We are told now that this Supplementary Estimate is entirely for the cost of the Winter Assizes in 1912. I am interested at what happened at the Derry Assizes in 1912. Those were the Winter Assizes for Ulster province, and I intend to make my position clear at the start. I wish to show what an absolute waste there was of this money, which might just as well have been thrown into the sea, owing to the way in which 2021 the expenses of these Assizes were swelled by the machinery which the Chief Secretary chose to set in motion. The Committee is probably aware that there is one Winter Assize county for each of the four different provinces in Ireland, and that that particular Assize county is an artificial creation. There is only one Assize town to which, in winter, the criminals are brought from the adjoining four or five centres, and, in the theory of the law, it is the county for each of them. It so happened that in 1912 the Derry Assizes, which were unduly prolonged, had for trial certain people from the city of Belfast. My submission is that the Committee ought not to vote this Estimate, because those people ought not to have been tried there at all—and in these circumstances: There was some little trouble in Belfast, and, of course, the police, as these men were Unionists, took them in charge, and they were brought up in the ordinary way before the resident magistrate or stipendiary, and returned for trial to the Quartet Sessions in Belfast. I make no complaint about that myself. The arrests were made in the month of August, and they would have been tried at Quarter Sessions at Belfast in the following October. The learned Recorder of Belfast, who was appointed to his present situation by the present Government, commands the very highest respect, and there could be no possible suggestion that the Recorder of Belfast at Quarter Sessions could not have disposed of these cases.
That did not suit the Government at all. They were not anxious that these men should have a fair trial, and they did not care how they slighted the Recorder. They sent down a young Nationalist barrister from Dublin to the Recorder's Court to ask him calmly to transfer these cases from his own Court, as if he were not competent to try them, and to send them to the Winter Assizes in Derry. Such an application was absolutely unprecedented in the history of the law in Ireland. It had never been made before. No one had ever gone down to a judge of competent jurisdiction, who was going to try people, and said to him that he was not fit to try these cases, and that he should send them to the Winter Assizes. The Recorder of Belfast very properly said, that as the law stood he was competent to try these people who had come to him in the ordinary course, and he intended to do so. The Crown began the prosecutions at the ensuing Autumn 2022 Quarter Sessions. The cases were trumped up cases, and the jury acquitted in the first and acquitted or disagreed in the second case. Thereupon the Crown took a most extraordinary course. They entered nolle prosequis against all the prisoners because they would not have them tried in the Quarter Sessions Court, and these men were discharged. Accordingly they went home. Inside a week they were arrested afresh, and brought before a magistrate of the hon. Gentleman's creation. Other magistrates of Belfast with equal rights were excluded from the Court, and this magistrate of theirs went through the form of returning the identical men against whom nolle prosequis had been entered for trial at Derry Assizes, and put these people to the expense of going off a 100 miles away, instructing solicitors and bringing their witnesses, and all than, because the high and mighty feelings of the Crown were slighted when the Recorder of Belfast would not return these men for trial at the Derry Assizes.
That is the sort of thing that brings the law into contempt. The right hon. Gentleman opposite had loaded the dice against the prisoners. Before the cases came on there was a writ of certiorari taken in the Court of King's Bench to quash the proceedings. It came before the judges of the High Court, and the Chief Baron and Mr. Justice Gibson expressed themselves as astonished at the unfair course that had been taken by the Law Officers. Mr. Justice Gibson said that he had never known such a thing, and that in future if the Attorney-General of the day entered a nolle prosequi before a jury he would see that the jury acquitted the prisoner, so that the man would not be brought up again under the old charge; because it is a maxim of British law which the Government ought to observe that a man ought not to be tried a second time for the same offence. These people were brought to Derry, and I am glad to say that the Derry jury, though the Government had selected the venue, investigated the facts, and they were all acquitted. Look at the extra expense of bringing these men and their witnesses to the Derry Assizes. If they had been tried in the ordinary venue, the Quarter Sessions, the Committee would not now be asked to put its hands in its pockets for a Supplementary Estimate for Winter Assizes. That is the sort of thing that the Chief Secretary tries to burke. We have never had a chance of raising it 2023 in Debate in the House since it happened, and if it was not that the Chief Secretary sprang an explanation upon us before the House proceeded to other matters at a quarter-past eight last night, we should not have had the opportunity. I want the Chief Secretary now to justify his action in taking these men to Derry Assizes, an action which was unfair to the prisoners, and was declared by the King's Bench to be unfair.
§ Mr. MOORE
The Kings Bench said that it was unprecedented, and said in terms that it was practically unfair, and the Committee will recognise how unfair it was. It is doubly unfair when you ask the Committee to pay for it. That is the position. I hope we will have some justification now for the expense necessitated by sending these men to Derry. Why was not the Recorder of Belfast competent to try the cases in his Court, and why were these men put to the hardship of a trial 100 miles away, to satisfy a mere political end—men who were innocent, because the jury cleared them, and men who would not have stood before a jury if the wheels were not clogged, and the dice were not loaded against them?
§ Mr. BIRRELL
I wish that the proceedings had not been suspended as they were yesterday evening at a quarter-past eight o'clock, because it necessitates my repeating some of my observations which I made then, and I am speaking to what is largely a different audience now. What I did say was, that this was a Supplementary Estimate to make up for what was, if you like so to call it, bad budgeting on the part of those for whom I am responsible. When they were making their original Estimates they fell short by rather more than the sum which we are now seeking to obtain by way of a Supplementary Estimate, The reason was because we had underestimated the cost of the Winter Assizes in the four provinces to which reference has been made, and when you come to look at the history of those Assizes, you will find that there was at the Winter Assizes an unprecedented number of prisoners. The Assizes consequently lasted an unusual length of time. There was an increase practically of 50 per cent, in the number of prisoners, and of 50 per cent. in the number of days. In reference to 2024 the cost of prosecutions and witnesses, the hon. Gentleman pointed out properly, yesterday, that in Ireland private prosecutions are of very rare occurrence, and that they are all taken up by the Crown; but, even though that is the fact, when prosecutions are taken up by the Crown, the prosecutors receive their expenses, both personal and travelling, according to the scale. Therefore there are costs connected with prosecutors, as well as costs connected with witnesses, in all these classes of cases.
The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin, who is not here now, asked some very pertinent questions. He seemed to think that this Estimate was very extraordinary. He did not seem to understand how it could be accounted for, by the costs of prosecutors and witnesses. But I do not think that there is anything very extraordinary in it. Turning to the scales in Ireland, the maximum allowance is—Labourers, 5s. per day and 2s. 6d. per night; farmers, shopkeepers, and assistants, 6s. per day and 5s. per night; merchants and bank officials, 10s.; county surveyors, 10s.; and doctors and solicitors, 2 guineas, and so on. I do not say it is-extravagant at all, but it is a highish rate of payment, and if we felt that that is the reason—I do not go into the question whether it was in order or not—it was essential for my case to point out that, there was at these Winter Assizes an unusual number of cases of difficulty and expense, and I am sorry to say there was also an unusual number of cases connected with indecent assault. Those were cases which involved medical witnesses, analysts and the most expensive kind of evidence, and that was the reason I enumerated those crimes. Hon. Members opposite will quite readily turn and say, "You are responsible for all the crime in Ireland, and if you were not there, and if your Government disappeared, and if we took their places, there would not be these cases, and the expenses of Assizes would dwindle down." That raises the whole question of the administration of justice and the history of crime during the last seven or eight years in Ireland. That is a question on which I cannot now treat. I should not be in order were I to attempt to do so and to argue it piecemeal on a Supplementary Estimate. I am not, however, frightened of it in the very least. I have here the judge's addresses to the grand juries in the several counties in Ireland.
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
It would be out of order for the right hon. Gentleman to refer to those mutters on a Supplementary Vote.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
I take it I am not in order in referring to the general position of crime in Ireland. All I can say is that this arises because we had to pay the costs of witnesses. The more prisoners there are the more evidence there always is, and the longer the Assizes last, the greater the cost of keeping those witnesses in attendance. This was really due to bad budgeting if you like. We had supposed that the Winter Assizes of 1912 would have been of no greater dimensions than the earlier Assizes of that year, whereas, for reasons over which I have no control, they were. I hardly suppose that any hon. Member is going to say that from the Spring Assizes to the Winter Assizes crime went up owing to my greater and growing iniquity. Those crimes were unconnected, except in the case of a few riots, with politics. They were the ebullition of a natural sinfulness of man in a way which you will see has occurred if you look at the history of Assizes. Occasionally, you will find these spasmodic increases which put everybody out and which necessitate a Supplementary Estimate of such a character as this. That is really the whole history of Sub-head D, which bears the cost of witnesses, and also a proportion of the expense incurred in connection with the conveyance of magistrates or other officials, and payments in respect of Crown witnesses. They amount to £2,000 out of the total of £14,000. If you consider that in regard to the 50 per cent, increase in the number of prisoners and in the length of the Assizes, I do not think it is a very extraordinary or unreasonable amount, although I regret very much this item, which we would have avoided if we could by budgeting. I see the hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury) is on the pounce. He knows perfectly well that there is no more difficult matter than making a Budget when you are acting on averages. As a rule we may be perfectly safe, and as a rule we are, but now and again cases like these occur which add enormously to the cost of our proceedings.
That is the whole history and secret of this Supplementary Estimate. It is no part of my business now to go into the history of crime and say, supposing we had all been wise and sensible, and everything else, we could by different arrangements have secured that these Assizes 2026 would not have lasted so long, and that there would not have been so many prisoners, and that some ought to be tried at Quarter Sessions. That may or may not be the case. Every Government is open to criticism in that manner. I was criticised on the last Estimate in reference to introducing police into Dublin. Some said there ought to have been a great many more, and some said there ought to have been less, and some said there ought to have been no police at all there. You also can criticise these Estimates in that sense. The Winter Assizes have been held. They were exceptionally heavy and protracted, and the cost of the witnesses and other persons named in the Memorandum have occasioned the increase to the amount stated. I shall be very much surprised if the House of Commons does not agree that this is a Supplementary Estimate which we could hardly be expected to provide against.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON
Members of the Committee on both sides will have noticed one remarkable omission from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and that is that he failed entirely to deal with the speech my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Armagh (Mr. Moore). We now have had two explanations from the Chief Secretary of the way in which this increased Vote was made up, and an explanation from the hon. and learned Member for North Armagh. I must say that after three explanations that of my hon. and learned Friend appears to be the more probable. The Chief Secretary knows perfectly well, and, in fact, his silence is a tacit admission, that the greater part of this expenditure has been caused by bringing the men, against whom a nolle prosequi was entered at Quarter Sessions, to the Assizes with all the paraphernalia of justice. The increase, as my hon. and learned Friend said, has very largely arisen from, as he called it, that travesty of justice. I noted a distinction between the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman to-night and that which he made last night. His statement last night was that this sub-head included no expenses for prosecutors and only included expenses for witnesses. I now understand, and it is perfectly apparent, that it does include, not fees to counsel, but the expenses of prosecutors.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
The hon. and learned Member called attention to, and wanted to know, what the cost of prosecutions 2027 meant. In reply I pointed out that, although there were no private prosecutions, nevertheless private prosecutors in cases taken up by the Crown had their expenses paid the same as witnesses.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON
I understand that this sub-head refers to the expenses of prosecutors and witnesses. Then I agree with the remark that it would have been very much better if that were clearly stated oh the face of the sub-head, instead of leaving it to be inferred or gleaned by explanations by the Chief Secretary. I now take the Chief Secretary's explanation. He says the cost of these witnesses is sometimes very high, and ranges from 5s. to 6s. and 10s., and even, in some rare cases, to two guineas. If you take the cost of the witnesses as a pound, that involves 2,250 witnesses. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, no!"]
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON
Seventeen days was the extra duration of the Assizes. The total extra amount is £3,380, and a simple calculation shows that £200 a day approximately has been the increase caused by the witnesses and others. I confess, I think, that wants a little more explanation. I now come to the form in which this is presented. The amount of the extra expenditure is given as £3,380, and we are told that £1,130 of that will be met by savings on other subheads. I think that is a most unsatisfactory way of setting out the true figures. In the first place, it conceals from the Committee the fact that the real increase is not £2,225, but £3,380, and, in the second place, it says nothing whatever about the sub-head on which those savings have been effected. If the right, hon. Gentleman and the Committee will contrast the way in which every detail of saving and every sub-head is given in the Navy Supplementary Estimates, which we will have on Monday, they will see there the proper way.
There is a further point, and this is a matter really of some importance to this House. This money was spent rightly or wrongly in December 1912. The Estimates for 1913–14, dated, of course, to the end of the financial year, the 31st of March, and this is a Supplementary Estimate to the Estimates for 1913–14. What has happened? The year 1913–14 went past, 2028 and the Estimates were duly prepared, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General has now reported that there was actually an excess in hand at the end of the year. The Grant was £65,410, and the expenditure £62,696 17s. 4d., leaving a surplus of £2,713 2s. 8d. That surplus was surrendered, and here is a note by the Comptroller and Auditor-General to say that the accounts were closed, and that the surplus had been surrendered. What happens after that is all over. In the beginning of March, 1914, the Chief Secretary and the Government come down to the House and ask this Committee to grant a further sum of money dealing with 1912. Look at the effect of that! These Supplementary Estimates we are now asked to pass will not be reported on by the Comptroller and Auditor-General until the middle of next year. From what I know of the practice of the Public Accounts Committee, it will be June, or possibly July, 1915, before that body deals with that particular account. What does, that mean? Here is an expenditure made in December, 1912, which will not be brought under the ken of this House, through the Public Accounts Committee, and the matter finally disposed of until June, 1915. That is really ridiculous. The right hon. Gentleman and his Department must have known perfectly well by the 1st January, 1913, that this charge had been incurred. I presume that the witnesses were paid on the spot; they had not to wait for their money. I suggest that the proper way of dealing with a case of this kind is to put the extra expenditure in the Estimates for the succeeding year at once. We are now being asked to grant money for an exepnditure which took place in December, 1912. That is making a fool of the House of Commons as a financial controlling authority. It is a hopelessly sloppy method of finance. I do not say that in any party spirit. It is a criticism which ought to be made whichever party was to blame. The system is radically unsound.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
I suppose the hon. Member is aware that these payments were not made by the Treasury? They are made by the counties, and after the counties have made out their case to be refunded the accounts are audited by the Local Government Board. That is a proceeding which necessitates throwing the accounts over for a considerable time.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON
I am fully cognisant of that. I still think it ought to be within the bounds of financial possibility to complete the transaction in such a period that the sum can be taken in the next Estimate. At all events, if the exact sum could not be taken the right hon. Gentleman could take a sum sufficient to cover the expenditure. He knows within a comparatively small amount what the expenditure is.
§ Mr. MITCHELL-THOMSON
Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that when the Assizes last seventeen extra days, he does not know that there is to be any extra expenditure? He could perfectly easily safeguard himself. The method of finance is altogether unsound, and I hope that such a case will not recur.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
On a point of Order. We have just ascertained that this money has already been spent.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
The Manual of Procedure, in paragraph 226, says:—An excess Grant is needed when a Department has by means of advances from the Civil Contingencies Fund, or the Treasury Chest Fund, or out of funds derived from 'extra receipts,' or otherwise spent money on any service during any financial year in excess of the amount granted to that service and for that year.In addition to that, when that had been done, the first, proceeding necessary is to go before the Committee of Public Accounts, obtain their authority, and then submit a Resolution to this House. I submit, therefore, that the whole of this proceeding is out of order. The right hon. Gentleman ought to have gone to the Public Accounts Committee, obtained their consent, and then brought in a Resolution to authorise the expenditure. That the right hon. Gentleman has not done.
§ The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Whitley)
I do not think the hon. Baronet's point is a sound one. I have taken the trouble to examine the Estimate, and I find it is in a form which has obtained for a great many years past. In the case of refunds, where money has to go through two hands, it is not possible always to present the accounts in the year in which the expendi- 2030 ture occurs. It seems to me that the correct course has been followed in bringing the matter forward now.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
The Question put from the Chair stated that the money was to meet the charge which "will come in course of payment." That is not right, because it has already come in course of payment, and the money has been expended. Therefore, the very way in which the Question is put shows that the procedure is not right. In Erskine May, 554–5, it is stated:—A proposal for an excess Grant must be first brought before the Committee of Public Accounts, and then presented to the Committee of Supply in the form of a Resolution which includes all the excess expenditure on the branch of the public service to which the Resolution applies.It will further be seen that Erskine May states that these excess Grants rarely occur in connection with the Army and Navy, but they are occasionally required for the Civil Services.
§ The CHAIRMAN
This Vote is not of that nature. It is not what is technically known as an excess Grant.
§ Mr. ASHLEY
The explanation of the Chief Secretary seems to me very unsatisfactory. We are now, in February, 1914, asked to vote money for an expenditure incurred in 1912. The Chief Secretary says that the money was paid first of all by the counties, that then the accounts had to go to the Local Government Board for audit, and that finally the claim was-made on the Treasury. Surely it ought not to take three months for that not very elaborate process to be carried out! These Winter Assizes were held in December, 1912. The Estimates for the financial year are usually presented in the middle or towards the end of March. Therefore there were from two and a half to three months for the counties, the Local Government Board, and the Treasury to make up their minds what money had been spent, and how much they were going to ask this Committee to vote. This is not treating the House of Commons as it should be treated. The matter could easily have been dealt with at the proper time, if due care and expedition had obtained. I shall certainly vote for the reduction as a protest against the way in which the House of Commons is treated. By such a system we absolutely lose all control over expenditure. Although that is a very important point from the book-keeping point of view, and from the point of view of our duty as guardians of the public exchequer, 2031 the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North Armagh, which the Chief Secretary did not attempt to answer, is still more important. My hon. Friend pointed out that the chief reason why we are asked to sanction this extra expenditure is that, owing to the extraordinary and unprecedented action of the Irish Government, more prisoners than usual were, tried at the Winter Assizes at Derry, that consequently more prosecutors had to be paid, that a vast number of witnesses had to be taken long railway journeys from their own towns, and that, as a result, the work was increased by 50 per cent. That is a very serious charge, and one which, if true, accounts for nearly all the extra money required. The charge is not one to be tightly passed over. It is a charge, not of actual illegality, but of creating a most undesirable precedent. The Government withdraw from a prosecution, rearrest the prisoners, take them from the jurisdiction of the judge who ought, in the ordinary course, to deal with them, send them to another Assize, where, I suppose, they hope to have a judge and jury more favourable to the prosecution, and then put all the cost on the English, and not on the Irish Exchequer. Before we pass the Vote we must beg the Chief Secretary to say a few words in explanation of this extraordinary procedure.
§ Mr. SANDERSON
I know nothing about the incident raised by my hon. Friend, but I wish to speak from some practical experience in these matters. I have never had the pleasure of practising in Ireland, but I know a good deal about Assizes in this country. That no less than £3,380 has been spent on the expenses of witnesses alone during seventeen days is an astonishing statement to me. There must be some other reason. It has been suggested that the witnesses might have to be at the Assizes for many days. They have to be at the Assizes for some days. I suppose that the Assizes in Ireland are carried on very much as they are in this country. The witnesses have to go to the Assizes for the first day or two for the purpose of going before the grand jury, but they are not detained throughout the duration of the Assizes; they go home again, and are brought to the Assizes when wanted. It is misleading to say that all the witnesses have to be there every day of the Assizes. Therefore, you have the astonishing fact that, although 2032 there were only seventeen extra days, £3,380 were spent upon witnesses. The nature of the crime with which the judges were engaged was not in the least degree out of the ordinary. The Chief Secretary was at pains to explain that it was ordinary crime, and he gave us in some detail a description of the cases concerned. The great majority of the witnesses would get probably 5s. or 6s. a day. Those who receive two guineas a day—doctors and other professional people, would be a very small minority. When you have an expenditure of £3,380 upon witnesses, a large majority of whom are getting only 5s. or 6s. a day, I am led to the conclusion that there must be some other reason for the expenditure, and the only reason that has been brought forward is that suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh. I join in the appeal to the Chief Secretary to give us an answer, "Aye" or "No," to the question whether this expenditure has been incurred in the manner suggested. If it has, I shall certainly vote against it.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
I will not detain the House a moment longer than necessary to give an answer to the question which has been put to me, and which seems to arise out of the Estimate itself. The allegation, the assertion, is, that this large sum of money has been swollen—and undoubtedly it has been increased—although the suggestion that the whole of it, or even the larger part of it, is due to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has suggested—
§ Mr. BIRRELL
No doubt this Estimate has been increased by the fact that a certain number of persons were taken from Belfast to have their case tried at Derry. There can be no doubt of that. But it is quite a mistake to suppose, as the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down supposes, that the whole of this, or the most of it, is due to this particular cause. The hon. and learned Gentleman is mistaken in supposing that this question has never been debated or discussed in this House. I certainly have a recollection of it having been made the subject-matter of remark here. [An HON. MEMBER: "A question."] At all events, it has been discussed considerably somehow or another. I have certainly not refreshed my memory about the thing. It is a matter for the Law Officers, whose services, unfortunately, I am deprived of, and I cannot take upon myself to give such a reply as 2033 I am sure they would give. Therefore, I would much sooner say nothing about it, except that, in the opinion of the Law Officers, the course taken was a right and proper course. I am sure that the Law Officers will agree with me when I say that there was no reflection upon the learned Recorder of Belfast, who undoubtedly presides over his Court in a most learned and suitable manner. I suppose it was the opinion of the Crown that these persons would not be tried impartially by a Belfast jury in the Recorder's Court, and that, therefore, it was desirable and proper, having regard to the nature of the case that they should not be proceeded with any further in that court, but that a nolle prosequi should be entered against them, and that they should be tried elsewhere. I am not a lawyer. It is a very long time since I practised law, and probably the hon. and learned Gentleman would agree with me that my law has become rather rusty. At all events, I have rather got into the attitude, I confess, of regarding the advice of my legal friends with just a little suspicion, and I do not always associate myself, as I once was proud to do, with the legal profession. Therefore, I am very sorry that they are not here, and that they are not in a position to give their view of the case, as they have done. I can only suppose that it was that they felt that justice required a change of venue. The right hon. Gentleman himself would be the last person to assert that in no part of Ireland was there any kind of case where a change of venue was not desirable in the interests of justice. The law officers wore of opinion that the change of venue—
§ Mr. BIRRELL
Oh, no. They wanted to have them tried elsewhere. They advised the proceedings, the entering of a nolle prosequi, and that the men should be re-arrested and tried elsewhere. These are the proceedings the legality of which was challenged. I am not surprised that they should be challenged. The legality of many things may be challenged. Certainly there was, primâ facie, some sort of case for challenging them. Their legality was established.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
Pardon me; I do not think I have to defend the unfairness of it at all. These expenses have been incurred, and the Supplementary Estimate covers them. I am no more bound to defend the fairness of these proceedings than I am bound to vindicate the character of Ireland from the aspersions I or the criticisms which have been passed upon it. Some hon. Gentlemen opposite have wished to raise with this question the policy and administration of the present Government. I am not prepared to do more than I have done. All I can say, as a matter of fact, is that these persons were tried at Derry, and these expenses were no doubt incurred in travelling and in other ways during their stay in Derry. That is really all that I have to say on the matter. I cannot think it was an unfair or improper proceeding. It was a proceeding which was well considered by the legal authorities in Ireland who have direct responsibility in this matter. They took that course. Its legality was established. Whatever criticism hon. Gentlemen opposite or other people, perhaps, may pass, it is not one that can now be challenged.
§ Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL
I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman, if he will allow me to say so, that he ought not to be expected to enter into a very full and elaborate defence of the proceedings in Belfast that were dealt with by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Armagh. Possibly the right hon. Gentleman did not anticipate even that this question would come up, though I think that one question which I took the opportunity of putting to him ought perhaps to have satisfied him of the great probability that this matter would turn up. The question I put to him was whether the proceedings taken in Belfast, and the consequent removal of these men and their trial in Derry did not add at least the whole of this Supplementary Estimate? Let there be no mistake as to what I mean. You may have an Estimate increased, and you can come forward and put the whole of that Supplementary Estimate under one head. That is not my point. The right hon. Gentleman is in possession of figures on which he could inform the House as to what was the additional expense rendered necessary by the transfer of these men from the place in which they ought to have been 2035 tried, namely, the City of Belfast, taking them their witnesses, prosecuting counsel, and others, to Derry. I am absolutely convinced that the extra expense amounted at least to an entire sum equivalent to this Supplementary Estimate. Therefore, while I do not tell the House that the right hon. Gentleman is attempting in any way to deceive hon. Members, it was entirely wrong to give an entirely erroneous impression, and to suggest that this is wholly and solely due to the expenses of the witnesses. It was an extraordinary thing, certainly not least in Ireland—that home of extraordinary results—but I do not think even Ireland has happened to attain to that degree of excellence by which we can take for seventeen days at a trial the enormous sum of £3,300 out of the pockets of the taxpayer solely for witnesses' expenses.
It is quite a mistake to imagine that witnesses are kept at Assizes for anything like seventeen days. What happens is this: These cases are disposed of from day to day, and the very instant a case is over the Crown Solicitor pays off the witnesses and sends them home, and they do not come back again. In cases in which it is known that they will not be reached for several days, the witnesses are given notice that they will not be required until a certain day, and, therefore, it is ridiculous and an exaggeration to suggest that this sum represents the attendance of the witnesses throughout the entire Assizes. It does nothing of the kind. The right hon. Gentleman has certainly not attempted to defend with any success—certainly I do not think with any great heart—the action of his Law Officers in regard to these unfortunate men in Belfast. I agree with him that it is unfortunate, when these questions are raised, that he has not got the advantage of having his Law Officers by his side. If they were here, I would much rather attack them, for though the right hon. Gentleman is technically responsible, the probability is that he was never consulted in the matter at all. He doubtless left the matter to the responsible Law Officers. It is useless for him to seek to get out of the position in which they have placed him by saying that this is a change of venue. In these criminal cases, as is well known in Ireland, the change of venue is a most wholesome provision that has been utilised by successive Governments on both sides. It is utilised in this country too. It is very valuable in the administration of the 2036 criminal law that when a particular crime has excited either animosity or has excited sympathy in a neighbourhood that the representative of the Crown, who is responsible for the administration of the law, should seek to take the criminal to some place where the venue will be impartial.
The extraordinary thing about the case we are discussing was that, instead of taking that course, which was open; instead of putting these men on trial before the Recorder of Belfast; instead of going up to the King's Bench, Dublin, and applying there in a constitutional way for a change of venue upon an affidavit that you could not get a fair trial in Belfast, those concerned deliberately neglected that course. They waited until these men were actually upon their trial before the Recorder, a gentleman to whose ability and integrity the right hon. Gentleman has borne testimony in this House. I happen to have known him for very many years. Ho is a gentleman beyond all reproach or suspicion for fairness and integrity. They take the case after two of these men have been tried—the jury either acquitted them or disagreed, I care not which—I believe they acquitted in one case, and disagreed in another—and then this extraordinary thing took place. The right hon. Gentleman has himself described it as unprecedented, and the Lord Chief Baron, in a most elaborate and well-considered judgment, denounced it as unconstitutional and unfair. They took this extraordinary course, and then wonder why it is that feelings have been aroused in Belfast and the neighbourhood. Let them themselves realise what would be the state of indignation in their City if such things as I am now narrating which are beyond dispute, controversy, or doubt occurred amongst their people. These men, including the man's case in which the jury disagreed, were no sooner discharged and out of the dock, as a result, it appeared, of the action of the Crown in entering what is called a nolle prosequi—that is, "We do not intend to prosecute"—an old technical expression, meaning "We have determined not to prosecute, and there is an end of it"—these men were set at liberty, and walked out of the dock, and they no sooner got out into the street and hardly, I believe, reached their homes when they were rearrested under fresh proceedings on precisely the same charge. They were brought, not before the ordinary 2037 magistrates, but before a single justice of well-known Nationalist proclivities, who excluded—the Court of King's Bench decided illegally excluded—the whole of the magistrates from the Bench, and insisted on taking this preliminary inquiry by himself and without the assistance of others. That was done.
When this magistrate had returned these men for trial a second time on precisely the same charges, they were not even then allowed to remain to be tried at the assizes at Belfast. They were haled away at this enormous expense and cost to Derry. Again I venture to say, and I challenge contradiction, I have no exact figures, but I have had a long experience of assizes, and the conduct of prosecutions and the defence of prisoners in Ireland extending over nearly thirty-five years, and I am well within the mark when I say that a sum equivalent to the entire Supplementary Estimate would not account or pay for the extra cost of taking these men to Derry. There is no justification for that. The right hon. Gentleman should have told us fairly, squarely, and candidly what it was that brought about this extra expense. There is another matter that has rankled very deeply and will always rankle in the minds of these men in Belfast. That was that a gentleman was deliberately selected to carry out these unconstitutional and novel methods of prosecution who, a few months before, had signalised himself by defending others in connection with the Cork election petition, winch was the subject-matter of a very grave scandal and comment. That was the gentleman who was selected to go down to do this dirty work at Belfast, and he did it in the way I have described. There is nothing in the whole course of the right hon. Gentleman's administration—though I acquit him frankly from personal participation in it—that has done more to exasperate and arouse feeling in the North of Ireland than the conduct of this prosecution. All I can say is that I do think it would have been treating the Committee more fairly and with more frankness if he had at the outset told us what had caused this extra expense, and not here lead the Committee to believe that it was some ordinary and incidental increase due to what he called a sporadic outbreak of indecent offences.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
We have at last heard the real explanation. My hon. Friend beside me says, there is some more to come, but I think there is enough to 2038 show that the Chief Secretary has not been quite as frank as usual.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
I was going to say to the hon. Gentleman that it is perfect news to me to hear that the figure for the Derry trial was anything like that.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
I have not got the figures. I stated everything fairly and frankly that I knew as the ground and justification of this Estimate. I had not got the Derry case in my mind at all. I did not know that this Winter Assize, of which I have been speaking so much, was the assize at which the Derry trial occurred. It was not in my mind at all. My attention was not called to it. I was sure, and I am sure, although I have no doubt now from what I have heard that the Estimate must have been swollen by the expenses of the witnesses at Deny. I had not the figures, I do not know how many there were, and I have no means of checking the figures.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
We have heard now the explanation of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Campbell), and, of course, I accept at once the statement that the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary, was not acquainted with this particular case.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
You must not expect that I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite that the Derry figures would represent the whole of this Estimate.
§ Sir F. BANBURY
I accept the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, either that he was not acquainted with the Derry case, or that it had passed out of his mind, but I draw attention to this, that half an hour ago he gave us the reason for this Estimate, and referring to me her said that the hon. Baronet, the Member for the City, had experience of budgeting—he was mistaken, as I never had—and he said it was very difficult when you have to average to give an accurate average, because there were times when there were more outbreaks of crime or lesser outbreaks, and at the present time, unfortunately, in averaging there was an increase in the average of crime and indecent assaults. The great part of this Estimate is evidently owing to something quite different. Further, I might point out this was budgeting for something, the cost of 2039 which was already ascertained, because the expenditure was in December, 1912, and the Estimates were not presented until somewhere about April, 1913. Therefore, it would not be bad budgeting or underestimating, it was not a mistake. I do not say that this is a deliberate attempt to conceal from the House of Commons what was going on, but if it is postponed for better budgeting, it will enable the right hon. Gentleman to put this amount into the ordinary Estimates, when we can discuss it without any difficulty or without any hampering. Therefore, in view of the fact that we have just had the admission from the right hon. Gentleman that he was not acquainted with the Derry case, or had forgotten it, and in order that he may acquaint himself with the details of this Supplementary Estimate, I beg to move, Mr. Whitley, that you report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
§ Mr. WATSON RUTHERFORD
I think a stronger reason for asking to report Progress is that when we come to look at the original Estimate and compare it with
§ this Supplementary Estimate, we find that the original Estimate was for £65,488. If you look at the items of that original Estimate, you find that there is £7,100; for Law Officers, £18,208 for Crown solicitors—I will not read the rest of the items; we are not discussing them—but prosecutors, etc., which includes witnesses, figure in this Estimate to the extent of £14,000 It is on this £3,380 that information is now withheld. But there is another feature, and that is that £1,130 has been saved under other sub-heads.
§ Mr. RUTHERFORD
One moment! I think there is more reason for reporting Progress and asking leave to sit again, because we want to know upon which of the sub-heads the saving was made, and if we sit again there probably will be somebody here to give the information we are struggling to get at.
§ Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 135; Noes, 254.
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Glanville, Harold James||Nolan, Joseph|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Norton, Captain Cecil W.|
|Adamson, William||Goldstone, Frank||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard|
|Addisen, Dr. Christopher||Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Greig, Colonel James William||O'Conner, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Alden, Percy||Hackett, John||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)||Hancock, J. G.||O'Donnell, Thomas|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||O'Dowd, John|
|Arnold, Sydney||Hardie, J. Keir||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||O'Malley, William|
|Barnes, George N.||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Barran, Sir J. N. (Hawick Burghs)||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||O'Shaughnessy, P, J.|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||O'Shee, James John|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Hayden, John Patrick||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)||Hazleton, Richard||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Bentham, George Jackson||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Higham, John Sharp||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Black, Arthur W.||Hodge, John||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)|
|Boland, John Pius||Hogge, James Myles||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Holmes, Daniel Turner||Pirie, Duncan Vernon|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Pratt, J. W.|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Hudson, Walter||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Brocklehurst, William B.||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Brunner, John F. L.||Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)||Radford, G. H.|
|Bryce, J. Annan||John, Edward Thomas||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Reddy, Michael|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Jones, William (Carnarvonshire)||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Jones, William S. Glyn. (Stepney)||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Joyce, Michael||Richardson, Albion (Peckham)|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Lancs., Heywood)||Kellaway, Frederick George||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Chancellor, Henry George||Kelly, Edward||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Kenyon, Barnet||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Clough, William||Kilbride, Denis||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)|
|Clynes, John R.||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Robinson, Sidney|
|Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Lardner, James C. R.||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)||Roche, Augustine (Louth)|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Leach, Charles||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Levy, Sir Maurice||Rowlands, James|
|Cotton, William Francis||Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert||Rowntree, Arnold|
|Crooks, William||Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.|
|Crumley, Patrick||Lundon, Thomas||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Cullinan, John||Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)||Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Macdonald, John M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeten)|
|Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Sheehy, David|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Macpherson, James Ian||Sherwell, Arthur James|
|Dawes, James Arthur||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Shortt, Edward|
|Delany, William||M'Callum, Sir John M.||Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||M'Kean, John||Smith, H. B. Lees (Northampton)|
|Devlin, Joseph||M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)|
|Dewar, Sir J. A.||M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)|
|Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Willoughby H.||Manfield, Harry||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)|
|Dillon, John||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Sutton, John E,|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Marshall, Arthur Harold||Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.|
|Doris, William||Mason, David M. (Coventry)||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Duffy, William J.||Meagher, Michael||Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)||Tennant, Harold John|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)||Thomas, J. H.|
|Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Millar, James Duncan||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)|
|Elverston, Sir Harold||Molloy, Michael||Thorne, William (West Ham)|
|Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Molteno, Percy Alport||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||Money, L. G. Chiozza||Verney, Sir Harry|
|Essex, Sir Richard Walter||Montagu, Hon. E. S.||Walton, Sir Joseph|
|Falconer, James||Mooney, John J.||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Morrell, Philip||Wardle, George J.|
|Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||Morison, Hector||Waring, Walter|
|Ffrench, Peter||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Field, William||Muldoon, John||Watt, Henry A.|
|Fitzgibbon, John||Murphy, Martin J.||Webb, H.|
|Flavin, Michael Joseph||Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.||Wedgwood, Josiah C.|
|Gelder, Sir W. A.||Nannetti, Joseph P.||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Gill, A. H.||Needham, Christopher T.||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Ginnell, Laurence||Neilson, Francis||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Gladstone, W. G. C.||Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster)||Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)|
|Wilkie, Alexander||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)||Winfrey, Sir Richard|
|Williams, John (Glamorgan)||Wing, Thomas Edward||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr|
|Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen)||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnen (Glasgow)||Illingworth and Mr. Gulland.|
|Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)||Young, William (Perthshire, East)|
§ Sir EDWARD CARSON
I had no intention whatsoever of taking part in this discussion, but it was really impossible to find out from the way the Vote was put on the Paper what it was that caused this excess of the original Estimate for law prosecutions in Ireland. We now find ourselves in a very peculiar position. The Government took what was admittedly an absolutely unprecedented step in relation to these men, against whom charges were made in Belfast. They would not have dared to take that same step down in the South or West of Ireland against cattle o drivers or moonlighters, but they took them against men who were alleged to have committed crime arising out of the excitement the Government have caused by their own policy. Having done that, we are now in the position, although we are discussing this absolutely unprecedented matter, that the Chief Secretary cannot even tell us what it costs. That is the way business is transacted in this House. This is a constitutional Government, and they say: "We will do anything we like against our opponents, because they are our opponents, however unprecedented, and we decline to tell the House of Commons what it costs, and our obedient majority are quite satisfied with the way we conduct our business."
The whole of this prosecution was a lamentable partisan business from beginning to end. Whether the Chief Secretary knew of it, I do not know, but I hope he did not know for his own sake. The case in which the Government took procedure of this kind arose out of the present condition of Belfast, which has been brought about by the Government—[An. HON. MEMBER: "By you."]—who have not even yet made up their minds what they are going to do. One would have thought that proceedings of this kind would have required, before this House voted the money, a defence for every incident in every step that they took. But what does the right hon. Gentleman say. He says he knows nothing about the merits, and cares less. These men, as I understand the case, were at first brought up in the ordinary way before the ordinary tribunal, and then the Crown tried to do by a side wind what they could not do directly by the 2044 Crimes Act, which they say they always adhere to, and are always trying to bring into play—by unprecedented action; they wanted to remove these men from Belfast 100 miles away, and bring them from their work and their homes 100 miles there and 100 miles back, and yet they had not the courage to go to the King's Bench in Dublin and make a case before the judges there, and ask upon any grounds they had for change of venue. They had not the courage to do that, but they invented a procedure of their own, which has never happened before, and which was denounced by the Lord Chief Baron as a most unconstitutional method of dealing with the Courts of Law.
They adopted this procedure by which these men were taken away from their work and put into the dock to be tried before the authorised tribunal, and then the Crown Counsel gets up—I suppose upon the instructions of the Attorney-General—and he enters a nolle prosequi against these men, which meant that the Government were not going on with the ease, and the moment these men walked out of the Court they were re-arrested on exactly the same charge for which they had been put into the dock before, in order that they might be taken one hundred miles away to Derry, to prosecute them there without having gone to the King's Bench to get the ordinary order to change the venue. I say that that is a prostitution of the law which would not have been allowed in this country for one moment. You may search the annals of the law of this country, and you will find nothing to equal it in the tyranny of the Executive to try and override the Courts that have been set up in Ireland. I go further and say that if resistance had occurred, and if there had been a disturbance, as there might very well have been in Belfast, the Executive would have been accountable for that disturbance, and nobody else. There are many places in Ireland and England where if such an attempt to override the law had been attempted, there probably would have been disturbances. I am very glad there was not a disturbance in Belfast in this matter, and that the people kept their tempers. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Somebody says "Oh!" but they are the advocates of law and order. Go and cut the tails off your cattle.
§ Sir E. CARSON
But there is something more. [Interruption.] I am not in an Irish Parliament now. Not only were these men re-arrested, but the Committee will scarcely believe that a special Nationalist magistrate—these men being of the other party—was selected to go into a private room, and he was given directions not to allow any other magistrate to sit with him in order that he might return these men for trial. And now Liberals in this House are asked to approve of this action, vote money for it, and pay for the whole prostitution of law by the present Executive.
§ Mr. EVELYN CECIL
I think we are entitled to hear something more by way of explanation in regard to this Vote. We have just been voted down upon moving to report Progress by a subservient majority, who have not heard the facts, and who do not know them. By whose advice was this unprecedent procedure adopted? If it was adopted on the advice of the Irish Law Officers, I think this House is entitled to have some explanation from them. It seems quite inadequate that we should be asked to rest content with a mere bald statement in regard to a matter which occurred so long ago, and in regard to which we have neither the figures nor the facts clearly before us, and we have no adequate official information as to why this unprecedented procedure was taken. I should have thought it would seem an outrage to most hon. Members of this House that two men should be put on their trial, a nolle prosequi entered, and the men allowed to go free, and afterwards to be rearrested on the same charge. That seems to me to be an outrage on English justice, and it is quite by chance that this matter has come before the House of Commons, because it was going to be buried in the depths of official pigeonholes. My right hon. Friend said that there was considerable risk of a disturbance, and he was glad that there was not a disturbance. All this seems to require more investigation, and I think that all impartial men in this House will agree that some further opportunity should be given of placing all the facts and figures before us. I do not think we should give a decision on the point at this moment.
§ Mr. MULDOON
I had no intention of taking part in this Debate, but after what 2046 has happened I think it is imperative that some remarks should be made on this question from these benches. The senior Member for Trinity College (Sir E. Carson) said this evening that he was not in an Irish Parliament. I think this ought to remind him more of the Woodford Court house in the old days. The circumstances of this case in Belfast are not in the least novel, and there was no element in those prosecutions which were not present in cases on many previous occasions in every part of Ireland. I challenge the Chief Secretary, or any other official of the Government, to say that on every single occasion since, in the city of Belfast itself, the same procedure has not been adopted. What were the circumstances which led to these prosecutions in Belfast? A series of the fiercest outrages that ever took place in that city occurred, and in the course of them over eighty persons were treated in the hospitals of Belfast; and to this hour not one single person has been brought to justice in reference to those outrages. These men were brought before the Belfast magistrates and were prosecuted by the Attorney-General for Ireland. The Attorney-General was represented by an Irish senior counsel (Mr. George McSweeney) whose reputation and honour at the Irish Bar is as high as that of the two right hon. Gentlemen who represent Trinity College in this House. Mr. McSweeney took no steps in those prosecutions which was not advised and directed by the then Attorney-General for Ireland, who is now the Lord Chancellor. Wat took place? One case was proceeded with before the Recorder of Belfast, and I have no hesitation in saying that that trial was a farce. Instead of charging the jury on the facts—
§ The CHAIRMAN
I cannot allow any reflection on the Court. What the hon. Member has said is a direct reflection on the judge, and I cannot allow it.
§ Mr. MULDOON
The charge to the jury was in reality an attack upon the Government. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"] I will not pursue that point. In the exercise of his discretion, and as advised by the Attorney-General, the prosecutor entered a nolle prosequi. I wonder how many times the senior Member for Trinity College did the same thing in the old days?
§ 8.0 P.M.
§ Mr. MULDOON
In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman always brought the 2047 accused before the resident magistrate, and had them returned for trial—a procedure which has been adopted in the county of Galway and every other county. The Attorney-General directed that this course should be taken. The case was appealed to the Court of King's Bench, and it was argued there for a whole week. The procedure adopted by the Attorney-General and his representative in Belfast was defended, and successfully defended, and a majority of the court decided that it was entirely in accordance with statutory requirements, and especially decided it on an English case decided about fifteen years ago. These were the circumstances under which that procedure was taken, a procedure followed in every instance since. I challenge the Chief Secretary to say whether the cattle driven cases for months before had not in every single instance been brought before a resident or two resident magistrates, and then returned for trial. I would just like to read two observations of the present Lord Chief Justice of Ireland upon this procedure. These men were brought for trial before him, and in every single case the jury refused to convict. This is what the Lord Chief Justice said:—It was a most disgraceful thing for the City of Belfast that a respectable workman should not be allowed to go home from his work without having these savage attacks made upon him. That was the important thing in this case. Was no person to be brought to justice in reference to it?He went on to say that it would be a still worse and a still more disgraceful thing if evidence of the clearest character were given as regarded who were the assailants, and a Belfast jury would not convict them. He told the jury that plump and plain, and in the cases before him there was evidence of identification in every single instance. There were eighty persons treated in hospital, and an attempt was made by the Attorney-General to bring their assailants to justice, but in no single case did he succeed, and not one single person has suffered one hour's imprisonment in reference to all those outrages. We hear a great deal about miscarriages of law and justice in Ireland, and I say that within the last fifty years there has not been a worse miscarriage of justice than took place in Belfast in July of 1912.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
I regret that I did not know that a legal matter of this sort, which I feel to be of the gravest importance, could be raised. I did not know that it 2048 was going to be raised, or that it could be raised on a Supplementary Estimate of this character. If I had known, I would have had the opportunity, which I have not had, of refreshing my memory and of acquainting my mind with all the facts of the case.
§ Mr. BIRRELL
No, because it has nothing whatever to do with a Supplementary Estimate of this nature. Whether the Law Officers took the course which recommends itself to hon. Members or not,, it was a course which has been found to be a legal course which they were perfectly entitled to take, and was a course which, when referred to the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, was proved as a course open to them to take. I say that, so far as the purpose of a Supplementary Estimate is concerned, when all I am asking for is an additional sum to meet the expenses of witnesses at the Winter Assizes of 1912, the fact that this course was a legal one. That it was challenged and was affirmed to be a legal one rules out the question as to whether or not it was a course which a wise Attorney-General or a prudent Attorney-General, or such wise and prudent Attorney-General as Ireland has had in the past, would have taken or not. They took a course, the legality of which was challenged, and which was affirmed to be legal. The result has been to increase the expenses of the Winter Assizes. Assuming always that they were tried at the Winter Assizes at Derry, the expenses may have been swollen by that fact, and that entitles us to come and say it is a sum which ought to be granted by way of a Supplemenatry Estimate. We have taken the ordinary course in the matter; the course which pays the expenses of the prosecutors and the witnesses at all these assizes. At these particular assizes there were certain witnesses brought there by a process of law which the Court of King's Bench declared to be legal. Their expenses were properly and legally paid, and we ask the Committee to say that this is a Supplementary Estimate that ought to be passed.
§ Mr. MOORE
I wish to say this about the question of notice. When I came down to the Committee yesterday, I was under the belief and your recollection, Mr. Chairman, will confirm me, and other Members of the Committee were under the belief, that we were going to discuss 2049 the proceedings at the Winter Assizes held in Ireland in 1913. That would have been.the natural supposition; but, when I got up to make my case about that and to attack the policy of the Government for arresting people for seditious speeches, imprisoning them and letting them out privately, the Chief Secretary got out of that by giving a verbal explanation that this referred to the Winter Assizes of 1912. Now he complains that we have raised matters without notice, when he has himself driven us back to 1912. I do not wish to refer to any other part of the Debate, except to say that the speech we have heard from the hon. Member from below the Gangway (Mr. Muldoon) is very typical of the love and toleration and treatment Belfast would be likely to get. It is not the ease that the Chief Justice of Ireland ever tried one of these men or ever had anything to say to one of them. They were arrested after the Belfast Assizes in the summer; they were tried before the Recorder in October, and sent to the Winter Assizes at Derry. Therefore, the Chief Justice had never anything to say about them whatever. That is typical of all the quotations we get from that quarter. As we are on this subject, hon. Members below the Gangway ought to be very grateful that we do not bring up the Castledawson affair which was tried at the Derry Assizes.
§ Mr. MOORE
I can bring it up still. The hon. Member says that no one has been brought to justice, but I consider that he has, if he is put on his trial fairly before a judge and jury and they acquit him. Hon. Members below the Gangway do not call that being brought to justice if the man happens to be a Unionist and a Protestant, and he is acquitted by his fellow countrymen.
§ Mr. MULDOON
None of the cases were sent to Derry at all; they were tried in July before Mr. Justice Cherry, now the Chief Justice of Ireland, and they were acquitted.
§ Lord HUGH CECIL
I cannot leave unnoticed the very surprising defence the Chief Secretary has made. He said that he did not know that the matter was going to be raised on this Supplementary Estimate, but I believe this is the only opportunity on which it can be raised under 2050 the forms of the House, because when the main Estimate comes up it will be so far in the past that it will not be relevant to the Estimate. Therefore, this is the only opportunity, and I think it extremely unusual that the Government should refuse an adjournment of the discussion of a matter about which the right hon. Gentleman admits that he cannot inform the Committee, and thereby prevents the Committee having a discussion when it would be properly informed by the representative of the Government. That is not the only thing he said. He said, the proceeding being legal, it was not necessary to consider whether it was proper or prudent. It is very proper for the Committee to criticise Ministers when they act imprudently and improperly. We do not wait for illegal action before we criticise the Members of the Government. That observation, indeed, almost amounts to an admission that he is unable to defend the action of the Attorney-General from the point of view of propriety and prudence. Observe the significance and the real importance of this episode. What a lesson to teach the future governors of Ireland! What an example to set them of the proper way to treat the Protestant minority! The right hon. Gentleman and his Government are always telling us that we ought to trust their guarantees for fair government and fair administration. What sort of fair government and fair administration do we get from him and his friends? He has set an example of unfairness by tyrannical usages which others may follow, and he has shown there is nothing like fair dealing contemplated under the auspices of his friends.
§ Mr. RUTHERFORD
We are apt to lose sight of the fact that what we are discussing is whether we should pass the payment of £3,380. It is perfectly evident that this is entirely for prosecutors and witnesses. What does that mean? It means that there has actually been a saving in each of the other heads of expense connected with the Assizes, or else you would not have £1,130 Grant-in-Aid. Therefore, the whole of this money has clearly gone in paying witnesses and prosecutors. A very simple calculation would show anybody in this Committee that if you have got £3,000 odd to deal with you can give sixty witnesses £50 apiece. I fail entirely to believe that sixty witnesses could possibly have been taken from Belfast. The prosecutors and witnesses, if there were sixty of them, have actually 2051 received £50 apiece. They were unsuccessful in that prosecution. One of the prisoners was acquitted, and with regard to the others the jury disagreed. Is this some sort of solatium for the Nationalists who were prosecuted? Have they had a present of £50 each from the Executive? I am asking the question. Here comes the Chief Secretary, and he says "Give me a Vote for £3,380." We say to him, "What for?" "Why," he says, "this is entirely for prosecutors and witnesses." It is quite clear it is not for any of the other heads; it is not for Law Officers; it is not for Crown solicitors, or for fees of the Law Offices, or counsel, or general law expenses. It might be general law expenses, because in that item would be included the taking of prisoners from one place to another. It was not; it was simply prosecutors and witnesses. I think we are entitled to know what has become of his £3,300 for prosecutors and witnesses? Some years ago, when I was in practice, I had some acquaintance with trials, but I do not remember a trial that possibly could be associated in any way with anything of this sort where £3,300 was paid for witnesses. It is a preposterous amount. Is it right we should vote this money to-night not knowing what the real facts are? The Chief Secretary suggests that the Vote may have been swollen by other items, and does not relate solely to the payments for witnesses. What in the name of Heaven does it refer to? Are we not entitled to know what we are voting the money for? Is the Government going to use its mechanical and obedient majority to prevent the House of Commons finding out where the money has gone? It is, I repeat, a preposterous Vote, especially when it is remembered that every other Department of the Administration has cost less money. This is the only swollen amount. What has become of it? If the Chief Secretary cannot tell us, he should send for someone who can. The Government, in common decency, should adjourn this Debate, until someone has given us an intelligible account of what has been done with the money.
§ Mr. DILLON
We have for the last hour been discussing the improper use of this money for paying the expense of bringing men to Derry to be tried. But the men were never taken to Derry. The trial was in Belfast. It is a most refresh- 2052 ing and amusing thing to hear the two hon. and learned Members for Trinity College standing up in this House and denouncing methods of procedure which they and their Government invented and carried on for years, methods which we on these benches have frequently fallen victims to, methods by which they have earned large incomes. As for hauling men before a resident magistrate, or before a partisan magistrate, and preventing other magistrates acting, that was a plan invented by a Tory Government in the old days against Nationalism, and there is this difference that, in the old days, we did not get a jury: in those days a partisan magistrate tried us and sent us to gaol without the intervention of a jury.
§ Mr. DILLON
Does the hon. Member expect to secure the removal of right hon. Gentlemen for that trifle? Why that was only a flea-bite in the old days. Then we used to have Votes, not for £3,000, but for tens of thousands of pounds for Irish law expenses. Those were the days when the two Members for Trinity College were, responsible for the prosecutions; they constituted very expensive machinery to be put in motion in Ireland. In those days you packed your magistrates' bench; it was always partisan; you did not go to the trouble of committing us for trial, but a partisan magistrate disposed of our case in a peremptory and, to you, entirely satisfactory manner. I am astonished that the right hon. and learned Gentlemen who have now left the House were not, ashamed to bring up a case like this here, in view of the fact that in the city of Belfast there were the most brutal, cruel, and atrocious outrages that have been perpetrated for fifty years in any civilised city in the world. They were carried on in broad daylight, in the sight of hundreds of men, for a fortnight at a time, and, as a result of the prosecution, not a single man was punished.
§ Mr. JAMES HOPE
The hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) has introduced an element of prejudice in this discussion which is entirely uncalled for. Reference has been made to the Queen's Island case, and I may at once say there is not a man on these benches who does not deeply regret that case. The fact that there has been no recurrence of the outrage is due, however, to the magnificent discipline 2053 of my right hon. Friend. In the second place, I would like to call attention for one moment to the altered procedure of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. As a rule he darkens counsel with a multitude of vain jokes; on this occasion he has relied on pure technique. He has said that no criticisms should be levelled against his procedure because it is legal. I well remember hon. Members below the Gangway denouncing again and again action of the Executive based on an Act of Edward I. But do they think they are going to prevent a recurrence of such events as those deplorable troubles in Queen's Island by methods of legal chicane? The hon. Member who last spoke was careful not to make an attack on the two right hon. Gentlemen until after they had left the Front Bench; if they had not left the House he would soon have found that his indictment did not lie.
§ The CHAIRMAN
We are again getting wide of the discussion. We are discussing not only present, but past administration, and I must ask hon. Members to try and keep to the Supplementary Vote.
§ Mr. HOPE
I was following exactly the line taken by the last speaker. I think there is one precedent for the action the Chief Secretary has taken, and it goes back to the days of the prosecution of Titus Oates. That is an almost exact precedent. On one of those occasions the first prosecution by the Crown failed, but the moment the trial was over the defendant was rearrested and tried on another charge. In this case the trial was on the same charge. As long as these methods of chicane are used hon. Members below the Gangway will find it in vain to expect the natural and proper feeling against such outrages as those which occurred in Queen's Island.
§ Mr. NEWMAN
Hon. Members below the Gangway have trooped in to support the Government in spending thousands of pounds in trying to bring a certain number of people to justice in Ireland. The Chief Secretary said last night that in 1911 there were two riots and nine in 1912, and the number of cases of unlawful assemblies had also increased. I take it that it was to bring these people to justice that this money was expended. The right hon. Gentleman at the beginning of his speech told us he required this money on account of the extra expenses incurred during the Winter Assizes of 1912. It is for that purpose that hon. Members below the Gang- 2054 way are going to vote this money. But if we on these benches were sitting on the opposite side of the House, would hon. Members below the Gangway back us up in spending money to bring people to justice in Ireland? I do not think so. If it had not been for the question of Derry I would have been inclined on this occasion to vote against my party. I have been High Sheriff of the county of Cork, and I know that no money is better spent than that which is expended in bringing offenders to justice and in giving them a fair trial in places where the Crown cannot get a conviction in the ordinary way. I remember sitting in Court and watching men brought up for trial for comparatively petty offences from Limerick and Kerry, and they were brought to Cork because there was a bigger panel from which to obtain a jury, and it was possible to get a fair trial. I repeat that if it were not for the case of Derry I should on this occasion be inclined to vote with the Government and against my party.
§ Sir ARTHUR MARKHAM
I do not want to detain the Committee more than a few moments, but I must say that during the time I have been in this House I have never listened to a more amazing discussion than this one. What is the Estimate the Committee is asked to vote? It is to enable the law to be carried out.
§ Sir A. MARKHAM
It is to enable the law to be carried out, and the hon. Member, who is a lawyer, must know that in order to do that witnesses are necessary.
§ Sir A. MARKHAM
Be that as it may, here is a case where there is no dispute whatever that the Law Officers have not acted illegally. What is the condition of affairs that prevailed in Belfast? Is one body of His Majesty's subjects to be subjected to outrage and are the Law Officers of the Crown and His Majesty's Government not to see that these people get justice? For weeks at a time numbers of men in Belfast, because they happen to hold one religious belief, have been subjected to these gross outrages. His Majesty's Government would be degraded and unworthy of their position if they did not take every possible step to see that the majesty of the law is upheld. Then the 2055 hon. Member for Central Sheffield (Mr. James Hope) gets up and says that, but for his two right hon. Friends on the Front Bench opposite, the outrages would have increased. Are they the majesty of the law? The hon. Member is one of the constitutional party who have always proclaimed their regard for law and order, and he evidently regards his two right hon. Friends as the majesty of the law. Is the majesty of the law to give no protect-
|Division No. 36.]||AYES.||[8.28 p.m.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||Macpherson, James Ian|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah|
|Adamson, William||Essex, Sir Richard Walter||M'Callum, Sir John M.|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Falconer, James||M'Kean, John|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Farrell, James Patrick||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Charles||M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lines., Spalding)|
|Alden, Percy||Firench, Peter||M'Micking, Major Gilbert|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)||Field, William||Manfield, Harry|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Fitzgibbon, John||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil|
|Arnold, Sydney||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Marshall, Arthur Harold|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Gelder, Sir W. A.||Mason, David M. (Coventry)|
|Barnes, George N.||Gill, A. H.||Meagher, Michael|
|Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)||Ginnell, Laurence||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Millar, James Duncan|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Goldstone, Frank||Molloy, Michael|
|Benn, w. w. (T. Hamlets, St. George)||Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Bentham, George Jackson||Greig, Colonel James William||Money, L. C. Chiozza|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Gulland, John William||Montagu, Hon. E. S.|
|Boland, John Pius||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Mooney, John J.|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Hackett, John||Morison, Hector|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Hancock, John George||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Muldoon, John|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Hardie, J. Keir||Murphy, Martin J.|
|Brocklehurst, William B.||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.|
|Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Burke, E. Haviland-||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||Needham, Christopher T.|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||Neilson, Francis|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Nolan, Joseph|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Hayden, John Patrick||Norman, Sir Henry|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Hazleton, Richard||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard|
|Cawley, Harold T. (Lanes., Heywood)||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Brien, Patrick, (Kilkenny)|
|Chancellor, Henry George||Higham, John Sharp||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Chapple, Dr. William Allen||Hodge, John||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Hogge, James Myles||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Cough, William||Holmes, Daniel Turner||O'Donnell, Thomas|
|Clynes, John R.||Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)||O'Dowd, John|
|Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)||Hudson, Walter||O'Malley, William|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Cory, Sir Clifford John||John, Edward Thomas||O'Shee, James John|
|Cotton, William Francis||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Crooks, William||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Crumley, Patrick||Jones, William S. Glyn- (Stepney)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Cullinan, John||Jowett, Frederick William||Philipps, Colonel Ivor (Southampton)|
|Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)||Joyce, Michael||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Kellaway, Frederick George||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Kelly, Edward||Pratt, J. W.|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Kenyon, Barnet||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Delany, William||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Lardner, James C. R.||Radford, G. H.|
|Devlin, Joseph||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Dillon, John||Leach, Charles||Raphael, Sir Herbert H.|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Levy, Sir Maurice||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Doris, William||Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert||Reddy, Michael|
|Duffy, William J.||Lundon, Thomas||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||Macnamara, Rt Hon. Dr. T. J.||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Elverston, Sir Harold||MacNeill, J. G. Switt (Donegal, South)||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)|
§ tion whatever to the men who have been mercilessly hammered by the partisans of hon. Members opposite?
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 244; Noes, 96.
|Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbigh)||Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)|
|Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)||Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)||Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas P.|
|Robinson, Sidney||Sutton, John E.||Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)|
|Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)||Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.||Wilkie, Alexander|
|Roche, Augustine (Louth)||Taylor, Theordore C. (Radcliffe)||Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)|
|Roe, Sir Thomas||Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)||Williams, John (Glamorgan)|
|Rowlands, James||Thomas, James Henry||Williams, Penry (Middlesbropugh)|
|Rowntree, Arnold||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)||Williamson, Sir Archibald|
|Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)||Verney, Sir Harry||Winfrey, Sir Richard|
|Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)||Wing, Thomas Edward|
|Scanlan, Thomas||Wardie, George J.||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)|
|Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)||Waring, Walter||Young, William (Perthshire, East)|
|Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Sheehy, David||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Sherwell, Arthur James||Watt, Henry A.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Shortt, Edward||Webb, H.||Illingworth and Mr. W. Jones.|
|Smith, Albert (Lanes., Clitheroe)|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Fell, Arthur||Paget, Almeric Hugh|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert||Peel, Lieut-Colonel R. F.|
|Barlow, Montague (Salford, South)||Gardner, Ernest||Perkins, Walter F.|
|Barnston, Harry||Gibbs, George Abraham||Peto, Basil Edward|
|Barrie, H. T.||Gilmour, Captain John||Pollock, Ernest Murray|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.||pretyman, Ernest George|
|Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich)||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Ratcliff, R. F.|
|Bigland, Alfred||Greene, Walter Raymond||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Bird, Alfred||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)||Rawson, Colonel R. H.|
|Blair, Reginald||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)|
|Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue||Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby))|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith-||Hamilton, Lord C. J. (Kensington, S.)||Salter, Arthur Clavell|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Sanders, Robert Arthur|
|Bull, Sir William James||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)||Sanderson, Lancelot|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Hewins, William Albert Samuel||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)|
|Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Hibbert, Sir Henry F.||Swift, Rigby|
|Campion, W. R.||Hohler, G. F.||Sykes, Alan John (Ches., Knutsford)|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)||Talbot, Lord Edmund|
|Cassel, Felix||Houston, Robert Paterson||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, North)|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)||Thynne, Lord Alexander|
|Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)||Touche, George Alexander|
|Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's)||Tullibardine, Marquess of|
|Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.||Magnus, Sir Philip||Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford)|
|Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas||Weigall, Captain A. G.|
|Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)||Moore, William||Weston, Colonel J. W.|
|Craik, Sir Henry||Morrison-Bell, Capt, E. F. (Ashburton)||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord Nlnian||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)||White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport)|
|Denison-Pender, J. C.||Newdegate, F. A.||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Denniss, E. R. B.||Newman, John R. P.||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Doughty, Sir George||Newton, Harry Kottingham||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Nield, Herbert|
|Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Falle, Bertram Godfray||Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William||Evelyn Cecil and Mr. Ashley.|
§ Question put accordingly, "That Item D be reduced by £250."
|Division No. 27.]||AYES.||[8.36 p.m.|
|Ashley, Wilfrid W.||Cecil, Lord Hugh (Oxford University)||Greene, Walter Raymond|
|Baird, John Lawrence||Cecil, Lord R. (Herts, Hitchin)||Guinness, Hon. W. E. (Bury S. Edmunds)|
|Baldwin, Stanley||Chaloner, Colonel R. G. W.||Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne)|
|Barnston, Harry||Cooper, Sir Richard Ashmole||Hamilton, C. G. C. (Ches., Altrincham)|
|Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth)||Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe)||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.|
|Benn Ion Mamilton (Greenwich)||Craik, Sir Henry||Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon)|
|Bigland, Alfred||Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian||Hewins, William Albert Samuel|
|Bird, Alfred||Denison-Pender, J. C.||Hibbert, Sir Henry F.|
|Blair, Reginald||Denniss, E. R. B.||Hohler, G. F.|
|Boles, Lieut.-Colonel Dennis Fortescue||Doughty, Sir George||Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield)|
|Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith.||Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Houston, Robert Paterson|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M.||Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)|
|Bull, Sir William James||Falle, Bertram Godfray||Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey)|
|Burn, Colonel C. R.||Ferens, Rt. Hon. Thomas Robinson||M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's).|
|Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.)||Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Campion, W. R.||Gardner, Ernest||Mills, Hon. Charles Thomas|
|Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred||Gibbs, G. A.||Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton)|
|Cassel, Felix||Gilmour, Captain John||Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)|
|Cautley, Henry Strother||Glazebrook, Captain Philip K.||Newdegate, F. A.|
|Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)||Goulding, Edward Alfred||Newman, John R. P.|
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 95; Noes, 242.
|Newton, Harry Kottingham||Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)||Tullibardine, Marquess of|
|Nield, Herbert||Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby)||Ward, Arnold S. (Herts, Watford)|
|Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.||Salter, Arthur Clavell||Welgall, Captain A. G.|
|Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William||Sanders, Robert Arthur||Western, Colonel J. W.|
|Paget, Almeric Hugh||Sanderson, Lancelot||Wheler, Granville C. H.|
|Peel, Lieut.-Colonel R. F.||Stanley, Hon. G. F. (Preston)||White, Major G. D. (Lanes., Southport)|
|Perkins, Walter F.||Swift, Rigby||Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud|
|Peto, Basil Edward||Sykes, Allan John (Ches., Knutsford)||Wills, Sir Gilbert|
|Pollock, Ernest Murray||Talbot, Lord Edmund||Wood, John (Stalybridge)|
|Pretyman, Ernest George||Thomson, W. Mitchell- (Down, N.)|
|Ratcliff, R. F.||Thynne, Lord Alexander||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr.|
|Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Touche, G. A.||Moore and Mr. Barrie,|
|Rawson, Colonel R. H.|
|Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour)||Fenwick, Rt. Hon. Chafes||Mason, David M. (Coventry)|
|Acland, Francis Dyke||French, Peter||Meagher, Michael|
|Adamson, William||Field, William||Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.)|
|Addison, Dr. Christopher||Fitzgibbon, John||Meehan, Patrick J. (Queen's Co., Leix)|
|Agnew, Sir George William||Flavin, Michael Joseph||Millar, James Duncan|
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Gelder, Sir William Alfred||Molloy. Michael|
|Alden, Percy||Gill, A. H.||Molteno, Percy Alport|
|Allen, Arthur A. (Dumbartonshire)||Ginnell, L.||Money, L. G. Chiozza|
|Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles P. (Stroud)||Gladstone, W. G. C.||Montagu, Hon. E. S.|
|Arnold, Sydney||Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Mooney, John J.|
|Baker, Harold T. (Accrington)||Goldstone. Frank||Morison, Hector|
|Barnes, George N.||Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland)||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas|
|Barran, Sir John N. (Hawick Burghs)||Greig, Colonel James William||Muldoon, John|
|Beale, Sir William Phipson||Gulland, John William||Murphy, Martin J.|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway)||Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C.|
|Beck, Arthur Cecil||Hackett, John||Nannetti, Joseph P.|
|Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. George)||Hancock, John George||Needham, Christopher T.|
|Bentham, George Jackson||Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)||Neilson, Francis|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Hardie, J. Keir||Nolan, Joseph|
|Boland, John Pius||Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds)||Norton, Captain Cecil W.|
|Booth, Frederick Handel||Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)||Nugent, Sir Walter Richard|
|Bowerman, Charles W.||Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West)||O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)|
|Boyle, Daniel (Mayo, North)||Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N.E.)||O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)|
|Brady, Patrick Joseph||Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)|
|Brocklehurst, W. B.||Hayden, John Patrick||O'Doherty, Philip|
|Buckmaster, Sir Stanley O.||Hazleton, Richard||O'Donnell, Thomas|
|Burke, E. Haviland.||Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||O'Dowd, John|
|Burns, Rt. Hon. John||Higham, John Sharp||O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.)|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Hodge, John||O'Malley, William|
|Byles, Sir William Pollard||Hogge, James Myles||O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.)|
|Cawley, Sir Frederick (Prestwich)||Holmes, Daniel Turner||O'Shaughnessy, P. J.|
|Cawley, Harold (Lanes., Heywood)||Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich)||O'Shee, James John|
|Chancellor, Henry George||Hudson, Walter||O'Sullivan, Timothy|
|Chapple. Dr. William Allen||Hughes, Spencer Leigh||Palmer, Godfrey Mark|
|Clancy, John Joseph||Illingworth, Percy H.||Parker, James (Halifax)|
|Clough, William||Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh)||Pease, Rt. Hon. Joseph A. (Rotherham)|
|Clynes, J. R.||John, Edward Thomas||Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton)|
|Collins, Godfrey P. (Greenock)||Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil)||Phillips, John (Longford, S.)|
|Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)||Jones, H; Haydn (Merioneth)||Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H.|
|Condon, Thomas Joseph||Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East)||Pratt, J. W.|
|Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.||Jones William S. Glyn- (Stepney)||Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central)|
|Cotton, William Francis||Joyce, Michael||Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)|
|Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)||Kellaway, Frederick George||Pringle, William M. R.|
|Crooks, William||Kelly, Edward||Radford, G. H.|
|Crumley, Patrick||Kennedy, Vincent Paul||Raffan, Peter Wilson|
|Cullinan, John||Kenyon, Barnet||Raphael, Sir Herbert H.|
|Dalziel, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. (Kirkcaldy)||Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade)||Rea, Walter Russell (Scarborough)|
|Davies, David (Montgomery Co.)||Lardner, James C. R.||Reddy, Michael|
|Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth)||Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West)||Redmond, John E. (Waterford)|
|Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S.)||Leach, Charles||Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.)|
|Dawes, J. A.||Levy, Sir Maurice||Rendall, Athelstan|
|Delany, William||Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert||Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)|
|Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas||Lundon, Thomas||Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Lynch, Arthur Alfred||Roberts, George H. (Norwich)|
|Dillon, John||Macdonald, J. Ramsay (Leicester)||Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs)|
|Donelan, Captain A.||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs)||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford)|
|Doris, William||Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.||Robertson, John M. (Tyneside)|
|Duffy, William J.||MacNeill, J. G. Swift (Donegal, South)||Robinson, Sidney|
|Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness)||Macpherson, James Ian||Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke)|
|Duncan, J. Hastings (Yorks, Otley)||MacVeagh, Jeremiah||Roche, Augustine (Louth)|
|Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.)||M'Callum, Sir John M.||Roe, Sir Thomas|
|Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid)||M'Kean, John||Rowlands, James|
|Elverston, Sir Harold||McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald||Rowntree, Arnold|
|Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.)||M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs., Spalding)||Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W.|
|Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.)||M'Micking, Major Gilbert||Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland)|
|Essex, Sir Richard Walter||Manfield, Harry||Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Falconer, J.||Markham, Sir Arthur Basil||Scanlan, Thomas|
|Farrell, James Patrick||Marshall, Arthur H.||Scott, A. MacCallum (Glas., Bridgeton)|
|Seely, Rt. Hon. Colonel J. E. B.||Trevelyan, Charles Philips||Williams, Aneurin (Durham, N.W.)|
|Sheeny, David||Verney. Sir Harry||Williams, John (Glamorgan)|
|Sherwell, Arthur James||Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent)||Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough)|
|Shortt, Edward||Wardle, George J.||Williamson, Sir Archibald|
|Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe)||Waring, Walter||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)||Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay T.||Winfrey, Sir Richard|
|Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N.W.)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)||Wing, Thomas Edward|
|Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West)||Watt, Henry A.||Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow)|
|Sutton, John E.||Webb, H.||Young, William (Perthshire, East)|
|Swann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E.||White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston)||Yoxall, Sir James Henry|
|Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)||White, Patrick (Meath, North)|
|Taylor, Thomas (Bolton)||Whittaker, Rt. Hon. Sir T. P.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr.|
|Thomas, J. H.||Whyte, A. F. (Perth)||Wm. Jones and Mr. Geoffrey Howard.|
|Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)||Wilkie, Alexander|
§ Original Question put, and agreed to.