§ Mr. DEVLIN
I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
I am sorry that once again we are compelled to take such advantages as the Rules of the House afford, to call attention to the affairs in Ireland that are not only of vital importance to the country itself, but to the principles of universal liberty everywhere. We have had in Ireland freedom of speech destroyed; trial by jury has disappeared; the right of public meeting no longer exists; curfew orders the conduct of citizens, and every vestige of real freedom has disappeared from the soil of the country. I regret to say that, however impressive may be the story which Irish Members have to tell in this House, and however powerful and unanswerable is their indictment of Government policy, it does not seem to affect the conscience or the opinion of this House. Fortunately for myself, however, I have neither respect for the opinion nor for the conscience of this House of Commons. There is a larger public feeling, a more conscientious national conviction, outside the portals of Parliament, and I am very glad to say that already the work which a few of us are doing in this House is piercing its way into the great centres of population throughout the country; and the recent manifestations which we have had of aroused and passionate indignation in England are at all events some reward for our labours in a hostile Assembly.
The question which I desire to raise in the House this evening is the most recent and most indefensible of all the things that have occurred in Ireland in recent months. It is bad enough to wage war upon public opinion, to drag peasants before secret military tribunals, to shoot women on countrysides, and to carry on a policy of universal havoc and destruction 2017 every where throughout the land. There was left to us, at all events, the freedom of the Press; but now that seems to have gone, with all the other constitutional rights that have disappeared during the régime of the present Government. The "Freeman's Journal" is the great organ of national opinion in Ireland. It has a long and historic record. It has been the mouthpiece of constitutional opinion for Dearly half a century in Ireland, and men and women looked to it to express their views on all the things that were vital to their lives and liberties. It has, of course, like all great journals that speak the truth in England, been subjected to persecution at the hands of the Government. I know that the Government hate the "Freeman's Journal," because the Government hates everything in Ireland with which it disagrees. The "Freeman's Journal," for some months, has passed from being a peaceful and constitutional organ, to be the natural and articulate exponent of the deep-felt convictions and indignation of the people, and it has written strongly. It has spoken even violently against the Government, but I do not think that that ought to be considered a crime, because everyone in Ireland speaks violently against the Government. At the moment, however, when peace is in the air, when there seems to be a passionate longing for a cessation of all these hostilities in Ireland, when men of good will of all parties, not only in Ireland, but here in England, are with almost agonised hearts asking, "How long is this to go on?"— the "Freeman's Journal" comes out as one of the great apostles of peace, and pleads to the Irish people for peace, and pleads for peace to the Government. Here is an extract that has appeared in that journal within the last few days:If Ireland is to be saved, a halt must be called, and the Government must try and find their way back to the road of bright reason and Christian principle. The Irish people, too, must pull all their forces together, and endeavour unitedly to find a way out. Men of extreme views are especially bound to take stock of the position and of its possibilities of good and evil. They should bring their statesmanship, as well as their courage and their readiness for self-sacrifice, to bear upon the issue. They must put their courage at the service of their wisdom. The people do not expect miracles; they would welcome peace with honour, peace with full freedom in those affairs that are their own. Again we ask every lover of Ireland and England, where will it end? Patience, not rebellion, should 2018 be the words of the people during the days of Advent; and, if Cardinal Logue's call is answered, the birth of the Prince of Peace may prove to be the birthday of Irish peace and freedom.At the time when this holy gospel of goodwill is being preached in this Journal, that has spoken with the passionate and indignant voice of Ireland, the Government drag the directors, and the able and brilliant editor of Ireland's most conspicuous journal before a court-martial.
Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER (Mr. Whitley)
I must point out to the hon. Member that by the terms of his own Motion, on which he obtained the leave of the House to move the adjournment, he does not claim to call attention to the prosecution, but only deals with matter's that are said to have happened after the trial by court-martial; and that, according to all our rules the discussion is confined to the Motion on which leave has been obtained.
§ Mr. DEVLIN
That is quite right, and I am now coming to the question as it is presented in the Motion on which I secured leave to move the adjournment to-day. What is the crime that the "Freeman's Journal" has committed? A Mr. Quirke was arrested and taken to prison, and, as he alleged, was flogged by the uniformed officers of the Crown. It does not concern me in the least degree whether he was flogged or not, although before I sit down I shall hope to prove to the House that he was flogged. That, however, does not concern me. What does concern me is the case of these two directors of the newspaper, one of whom is a gentleman highly honoured in this country. I think he is a Welshman who went to live in Ireland, and, like many who have gone to live in Ireland, he became more Irish than the Irish themselves. He loved the people; he was attached to them, and he entered into the spirit of their aspirations and their hopes; and, when he went to Ireland, he became so indignant with the follies, the stupidities, the malignities, and the tyrannies of the Government, that he, with another public-spirited citizen in Dublin, bought the "Freeman's Journal." You cannot say that he was inspired by any insensate hate of this country, in which he amassed his fortune, and of which he was a very prominent citizen. He was a man who had a heart to feel. He was a Welshman and a Celt, and he 2019 could feel for Ireland. He bought this paper, and his companion in the purchase of the paper was a leading Dublin merchant. They bought the paper and held the paper, and these two gentlemen were dragged like common criminals before a court-martial and indicted for the publication of a photograph of this man, who alleged that he was flogged, and who, I think I can prove from the evidence of doctors, was flogged. It does not concern me whether he was flogged or not— that is not the question involved. The question involved is this: Here is a journal which did not publish an ordinary statement as it might have done in the pursuit of its ordinary journalistic functions, but, when it heard the allegation, proceeded not to publish the statement, but to investigate the allegation made by the man.
They got a signed statement from Mr. Quirke. They brought in doctors to examine Mr. Quirke. They got a photographer to take a photograph of the wounds that were on the back of Mr. Quirke. They did everything that was possible, and took every precaution to ensure that the statements were accurate. They got the evidence of Dr. McDonnell, of Dr. Louis Byrne, the Coroner for Dublin, and of Dr. McArdle, one of the most brilliant surgeons in Europe; a man so distinguished in his profession that he is even called to America to perform operations. They had the evidence of these three men, and they proceeded to publish a photograph of this flogged citizen, but not because he complained, and not because he made an allegation against those who tortured him. They went to all this expense in order to test the accuracy of the man's statement, and for that they were indicted before a court-martial and brought for trial before a court-martial. I may say in this connection that the "Freeman's Journal" was summoned before another court-martial on another charge. What happened? Because the charge which the "Freeman's Journal" had made against the military of shooting a young, innocent man was true, they withdrew the charge against the "Freeman's Journal." They knew that even before a military tribunal the "Freeman's Journal" could prove its case. Therefore they withdrew the charge made against the "Freeman's Journal," without a single word of apo- 2020 logy. What they said to themselves was this, "we cannot prove this charge against the ' Freeman's Journal,' but we will make another charge against the ' Freeman's Journal.'" Then they dragged the proprietors of this journal, and the editor, before a court-martial upon the charge which I have described to the House. Is there any newspaper in the United Kingdom that would have taken the precautions which the "Freeman's Journal ' took to test the accuracy of its information before they published it to the degree that the "Freeman's Journal" did in this case?
The hon. Member is going beyond the terms of his notice, which I hold in my hand. His whole motion is covered by the words "after the trial by court-martial." The question of the justice or otherwise of the trial does not now arise. Will the hon. Member keep within the terms of his Motion as to what happened after the trial by court-martial?
§ Mr. DEVLIN
Yes, I am doing that now. Even within the narrow limits of the Motion on which I secured the adjournment of the House, I think this matter is of such vital importance, not only to Ireland, but to the whole Press of the three kingdoms, that I am entitled without going into details upon the question to discuss this matter to the extent to which I have ventured to deal with it.
Not beyond the strict terms of the hon. Member's own Motion. That was the notice on which hon. Members have voted and on which the Government have prepared their reply.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY
As I hope to take part in the Debate, may I ask this question? Would it not be in order to show that there was good ground for doubt in the case brought forward and that, therefore, these two gentlemen, the proprietors of the "Freeman's Journal," should have been released on bail and not have had to undergo the indignity of incarceration in prison? Would it, therefore, not be in order, briefly, to outline the charge made against them and the evidence brought against them and their evidence repudiating it?
Certainly not. That raises the whole question of the trial. If that had been the purpose of the Motion, it ought to have been included in 2021 the notice. That might have affected Mr. Speaker's judgment. I do not know. We must confine ourselves within the limits of the notice which the hon. Member moved.
§ Mr. DEVLIN
What I want to impress upon the House is this: Have we reached that stage in the conduct of our public affairs that a newspaper which publishes a statement, and which goes beyond what any newspaper has ever gone in vindicating the accuracy of its statement, as was done in this case, should be punished? Was there ever so cruel an attempt to crush a great newspaper and to punish journalists than this transaction, which I am exposing this evening? You ask me to come to the question of what happened at the court-martial. That is what I am coming to.
§ Mr. DEVLIN
Yes, after the trial. What happened after the trial? [Laughter.] Intense merriment from the Coalition! Their hearts rejoice that we are not allowed to tell the whole story. If we are not allowed to tell the whole story in this House there is a larger constituency outside this House. They think they are free from the influences of public opinion outside this House, but there never was a Government on those benches that could ultimately afford to despise public opinion based on humanity in England or elsewhere. These men were indicted on six counts. They were found not guilty on four counts and guilty on two counts. The counts on which they were found guilty were not that the allegation made was untrue, but that the publication might tend to create disaffection amongst law-abiding citizens. After the court-martial had stated its view, and before it promulgated its decision, these three gentlemen were dragged by the military and put into a military lorry and taken to Mountjoy Prison. They had attended the court every day. They were not even asked to give bail. They were not men who would run away from any charge made against them. They had nothing to defend but the honest action which they took in exposing an infamy which, if I were allowed to go on, I think I could prove. Before sentence was delivered, before even the decision of the court-martial finding them guilty was submitted to whatever tri 2022 bunal ultimately determines the final decision, they were put into a military lorry, brought off to prison, and were not allowed even to apply for bail; and most extraordinary of all, the Judge Advocate-General who, I understand, is the prosecutor in these cases—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—a member of the Court —actually went with the legal represen tatives of the defendants to the military headquarters—
§ Major O'NEILL
May I correct a misapprehension. The hon. Member says that the Judge Advocate-General went somewhere. There is only one Judge Advocate-General. He is in London. The gentleman to whom the hon. Member refers is the Judge Advocate, who was present in the Court.
§ Mr. DEVLIN
My hon. and gallant Friend knows these military terms better than I, but the Judge Advocate, the representative of the military, went with the defendants' Counsel. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not find this a source of amusement.
§ The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Sir Hamar Greenwood)
I find nothing a source of amusement in these matters.
§ Mr. DEVLIN
He can very well understand that I am not as competent to describe these functions as he is, but he understands perfectly whom I mean. This gentleman accompanied the lawyers for the defence to military headquarters to appeal to allow these gentlemen to stand out until sentence, if any, was imposed on them, and yet they were subject to this indignity of being dragged along on this military lorry by uniformed officers of the Crown and put in prison before any sentence was imposed on them. According to your ruling, Sir, and I confess it is an extraordinary ruling, because—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order, order!"]
The ruling is only based on the hon. Member's own writing. I have it here in front of me.
§ Mr. DEVLIN
I do not question your right to give that ruling. I only say that this case has aroused tremendous public interest. Eminent doctors swore before this court-martial that this man was flogged, and for mentioning that fact and publishing his photograph the of this paper, men of distinction in the 2023 literary and commercial life of Ireland, and the distinguished editor, are dragged before a court-martial, after all they had done to secure accuracy in the report, and are then found guilty, and after they are found guilty, before they are sentenced, they are dragged away to prison in this motor lorry by the military. The incident stands by itself as a striking example of the sort of tortuous performance that is being carried on in Ireland to-day. I beg hon. Members of this House, apart altogether from politics, to realise what all this means. It may be an Irish newspaper to-day. It may be an English newspaper to-morrow. I have heard the right hon. Gentleman declare that many of the statements upon which we based our questions in this House were false. We took these statements from English newspapers. Not one of these newspapers has ever been prosecuted, although they have never attempted to inquire into the accuracy or otherwise of the statements. Here is a paper that goes to enormous trouble to prove the accuracy of its statements, and its two directors and editor are dragged into the dock and then taken to prison.
I do not know what is to be the result of it if you are going to tolerate these things in Ireland. It is our day to-day. It may be your day to-morrow. Trial by jury has been destroyed, the right of public meeting has disappeared, secret military tribunals have been requisitioned instead of the ordinary constitutional methods of administration and justice. There is no law in the country except the law of the military lorries. If you are satisfied with it, then maybe your day will come soon. I read at the commencement a declaration of policy in the "Freeman's Journal." It was an eloquent plea for peace, an impressive appeal not only to the Government but to Irishmen in Ireland. I hope that that is not a crime. There are many forces to-day at work to destroy that hope of peace. I believe that to bring about peace in Ireland between the two nations would be one of the highest and most beneficent tasks to which patriotic men could set their minds. But if you are going to watch and stealthily seize the writers of these eloquent pleas for goodwill and amity between nations, if you are lying in wait to watch every chance thing that may occur, in order to indict 2024 and place in the dock men who plead for goodwill and friendship between the two nations, then your task to bring about peace will be just as difficult as your path to create and maintain and foster war. Therefore I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman immediately to release these gentlemen as missionaries of peace and goodwill and prove to the House of Commons that, instead of trying to create fresh difficulties and impregnate the body politic in Ireland with new poison, he is determined to encourage every decent attempt that is made to bring about unity and goodwill between the two nations.
§ Captain REDMOND
I beg to second the Motion. At the outset, I desire to ask whether by your ruling no allusion is to be made to the proceedings during the court-martial? If that is your ruling, I fail to see how one can argue about the subsequent events without going into matters which led up to those events. What took place was this: The Dublin newspaper—
The hon. and gallant Member asked me a question. I thought I had already answered it. The limited discussion is not due to any action of mine, but to the action of the hon. Member (Mr. Devlin) in placing a question before the House this afternoon. In that question the hon. Member said nothing about the prosecution. The question deals solely with certain incidents after the trial by court-martial. I allowed the hon. Member a reasonable latitude. We must not raise the whole question of the right or wrong of the prosecution or the conduct of the trial.
§ Major O'NEILL
With regard to your ruling, is it not the fact that this case is really still sub judice. In the case of a court-martial, the finding, whatever it may be, is not a finding at all until it has been confirmed by the proper military authority. In this particular case the proceedings have never been confirmed, so that, as a matter of fact, the whole of this discussion is a discussion upon a prosecution which is at this moment sub judice.
On that point, I am not familiar with these courts in Ireland or in this country, and I could not answer that question; but leave has been given to move the 2025 Adjournment, and therefore the House may proceed to debate within the terms of the Motion on which leave was given.
§ Captain REDMOND
I am largely in agreement with the hon. and gallant Member (Major O'Neill) in what he has said. I wish to put a definite question to the Chief Secretary and to the Attorney-General for Ireland. By what authority are these two gentlemen detained in custody pending the promulgation of the decision of the court-martial? I do not pretend to be an expert on military law, but I happen to have had occasion to look up the Army Act and the King's Regulations, and I challenge the Chief Secretary to quote to this House any authority either from the Army Act or from King's Regulations whereby a person charged before a court-martial, who has not previously held in custody, shall be placed in custody pending the promulgation of the sentence of that court-martial. Here we have not only a case of the Government outstepping the ordinary law of the land by instituting courts-martial instead of the common Courts, but they have out-Heroded Herod by outstepping the rules and regulations of courts-martial themselves. These two newspaper proprietors were eminent citizens of Dublin. The Government or the authorities at General Headquarters, whoever and whatever they may be, permitted these two gentlemen during the trial to go about as ordinary citizens, but before the case had concluded they were suddenly seized; their bodies were snatched and they were escorted to gaol. Why did the authorities take that course seeing that they had not even asked for bail before, and had allowed the two gentlemen to go at large? We know pretty well in Ireland that anything can be done in the name of law and order. I would like to see the same treatment meted out to the proprietors of an English journal in this country. The Government dare not take such a course here.
The counts upon which these Gentlemen were found guilty were "spreading disaffection in Ireland." I am not going to question the finding of the Court. Suppose that a similar prosecution had been instituted in this country against the "Daily News," which has been publishing for a considerable time statements 2026 as to acts of murder in Ireland; and suppose that the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has in vehement and in uncompromising terms denounced reprisals, were prosecuted and brought before a court-martial. Suppose they had been acquitted on four out of six counts and had been found guilty on two counts, would the Minister responsible to this House act in the way that the Minister responsible to this House has acted in relation to the proprietors of the "Freeman's Journal?" He would not dare to take such a course. Every honest thinking Englishman views with horror and disgust the methods employed by the Dublin Castle or other authorities in Ireland. The "Freeman's Journal" was found guilty of publishing a statement which at the court-martial subsequently was sworn to by the person who originally made it. It was not contradicted there, except for the Officers of the Crown. The journal took every precaution; it went out of its way to obtain medical testimony as to the accuracy of this young man's statement, and it bonâ fide published what it regarded as a fact. What other course could the "Freeman's Journal" adopt? How could the "Freeman's Journal" be held up for publishing a statement which has since been sworn to be accurate by the maker of that statement? I do not believe that in the whole course of coercive or repressive measures in either England or in Ireland there is any precedent for the course taken in regard to the "Freeman's Journal." I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to produce a single precedent where a newspaper published a statement and where the proprietors and editors were arrainged before a court martial and where, before the promulgation of the sentence or before the court-martial was over, the defendants were seized by armed forces of the Crown and held in custody.
Why should the "Freeman's Journal" be penalised for throwing light according to its own information and after making exhaustive inquiries, very exhaustive indeed, upon the Irish situation any more than English newspapers, such as the "Manchester Guardian" or even the "Daily Mail" which have been doing so in this country. What authority is there under the Army Act or King's Regulations, and on whose initiative was this special course taken. We have been told 2027 that the Judge-Advocate, who is not counsel for prosecution or defence, himself accompanied the defendants' counsel to G.H.Q. and pleaded with G.H.Q. in Dublin that they should be allowed their liberty now as during the trial, and that they should not be placed in custody before the sentence was pronounced. What do we understand by G.H.Q.? Who is G.H.Q. in Ireland? Who is the final arbiter? Who is the gentleman sitting in Dublin Castle or elsewhere who decided with a wave of his hand to do away with all previous King's Regulations and Army Acts, and that pending the promulgation of the decision of the Court that these estimable gentlemen should be placed in gaol as common criminals. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will now see the error that was committed, and not only a political error but a legal one. From what I can understand the seizure of these gentlemen was strictly illegal, impolitic I am certain, and another instance of the gross, if not mischievous, blundering of the present Government in their attitude towards the general peace and welfare of Ireland. We were led to hope that negotiations were about to take place or were taking place. The Prime Minister did not go out of his way to deny that they were taking place or that he wanted them to take place to bring about peace in Ireland and peace between Ireland and this country. That is what we are working for, and that is what you should be working for. But I am afraid the attitude of the Government in regard to this particular instance only goes to show the Irish people once more that the present British Government does not want peace but war in Ireland.
§ 9.0 P.M.
§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
Let me, first of all, say a word of explanation with reference to a remark which fell from the hon. Member for the Falls Division (Mr. Devlin). I see nothing amusing in the condition of Ireland, or in the condition of Ireland since I became Chief Secretary, and I hope I have never made, from this Box or elsewhere, any remarks which could be at all regarded as flippant. Both hon. Gentlemen who addressed the House made an appeal for peace. Nobody is more anxious than the Chief Secretary and His Majesty's Government for peace—
§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
But before we can have peace, murders must cease, murderers must be tried, and arms must be surrendered—
I must again remind the House that we must confine ourselves strictly to the terms of the notice on which leave was given, and not refer to wide generalisation.
§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
I was tempted to the remarks I made by the appeal of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The issue raised to-night is a very simple one, namely, whether a certain court-martial in Ireland was justified in remanding in custody, pending the confirmation and promulgation of the sentence of that court-martial, the two proprietors of the "Freeman's Journal" and the editor of that journal. That is the whole question. The court-martial came to its conclusion after seven days' trial, extending over a period of nearly two weeks, and, on coming to the conclusion of the trial, it followed the normal procedure and remanded the defendants in custody.
§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
Yes, normal procedure. Every hon. and gallant Gentleman who has been a member of a court-martial will know that what I am saying is perfectly in order, and strictly in accordance with the facts. I will state it again. Where an accused person, on the conclusion of his trial, may be sentenced to imprisonment, he is detained in custody pending the confirmation and promulgation of his sentence. That is an accurate statement of the procedure of courts-martial.
§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
I was quoting shortly, and I hope clearly, the procedure. I can refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to Article 648 of the King's Regulations, and to Regulation 68, Sub-section (6) under the Restoration of Order (Ireland) Act. The hon. and gallant Member for Waterford (Captain Redmond) was successful in passing an 2029 examination on the King's Regulations at one time.
§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
None at all—Commitment for safe custody. A detention barrack or barrack detention-room may be used for the safe custody of a soldier who is remanded for trial by court-martial.Let me remind the House that under the Restoration of Order (Ireland) Act the House has brought into existence these courts-martial in Ireland.
§ Captain REDMOND
May I point out that none of these gentlemen is a soldier, and in the second place they have not been remanded previously, but were allowed out, not even on bail. They were absolutely free, and my point is that then they were suddenly pounced upon, and put into custody without any authority whatever.
§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
I will finish the article, and let me point out that the word "soldier" here includes everybody who now comes before a court-martial in Ireland.
§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
Yes, in Ireland they are all soldiers if they come before a court-martial. I will continue—for the safe custody of a soldier who has been remanded for trial by court-martial or who has been tried and is awaiting promulgation of the findings and sentence of the court-martial.It goes on to deal with the accommodation to be provided, and so forth, but there is nothing further in it that deals with the legal question. The authority of the court, therefore, cannot be questioned. The procedure of the court is strictly normal and in order, and I do not think can be questioned by anybody who knows anything about courts-martial. The authority in the matter is the convening officer, and the convening officer in this case is the Commander-in-Chief of the Forces in Ireland. It is not accurate to say that the Judge-Advocate appealed for the release from custody of the defendants. He made no such appeal. The appeal was made by the learned and distinguished counsel who represented the defendants, who was one of the most dis- 2030 tinguished Members of this House for many years, Mr. Tim Healy.
§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
I am glad to see the spirit of comradeship developing in Ireland. The Judge-Advocate went with counsel to the defendants to the headquarters of the Irish Office as a matter of courtesy, in order to show clearly and to convince the learned counsel for the defence that the Court of which the Judge-Advocate is the adviser acted within its powers and with proper authority.
§ Mr. DEVLIN
On a point of Order. Is it not the custom of this House, when a document is quoted and a challenge is made to produce it, that it should be produced?
I did not hear the Chief Secretary quote from any document. He referred to the general purport of a telegram.
§ Mr. A. WILLIAMS
The purport of the telegram was given in the statement that generally he agreed with what my right hon. Friend had said. In those circumstances, is it not in order to ask for the exact words to be read to the House?
Certainly it is in order to ask for it. I thought the point put to me was whether I should order it to be produced, and that is the point on which I said "No." Hon. Members are perfectly entitled to ask for it.
Does it not go a little further, and has it not been always ruled by everybody who has presided over this House that no Minister of the Crown shall be entitled to quote from or give the substance or the general purport of any public document without producing the 2031 whole public document before the House? I can give 50 instances in which a quotation by a Minister of the Crown of a document or the purport of a public document has been ruled as requiring its production.
The hon. Member is correct so far as "quoting" is concerned, but not in regard to "stating the general purport." That is the difference, and all the precedents have been cases in which a quotation was made.
§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
I would as courteously as I can insist on putting the case in the way I think best.
§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
In the way in which I can best inform the House. This court has been criticised to-day, but I must confess it is something novel in the history of the House of Commons to criticise any court, more especially as the matter that has been raised by this Ad journment Motion is still, as my hon. Friend behind me has pointed out, sub judice. This Adjournment is moved to discuss the action of the judiciary in Ireland—
§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
To discuss the action of the judiciary in Ireland in the course of the administration of the law, and while the particular case referred to is still sub judice. These courts were constituted by this House, and are composed of British officers. At least five members are required for such a court. This trial and the whole of the proceedings of the trial were held in public. Widespread interest has been taken in the proceedings, and there was a big array of Pressmen present representing Irish, English and Continental newspapers, so that there was no hole-and-corner proceeding about this, nor indeed is there about any of the courts-martial that sit under the Restoration of Order (Ireland) Act.
§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
In reference to some general remarks as to the liberty of the Press, I have not, while Chief Secretary for Ireland, suppressed a single newspaper.
§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
Although very serious charges were made against newspapers, and were the subject of questions in this House, the initiative of bringing those newspaper proprietors and editor before a court-martial were taken, as all these proceedings must be taken, by the military authority of the district in which the court-martial is held. Newspaper proprietors and editors are not above the law in Ireland. The law in Ireland, I can say confidently, is impartially administered, and there has been no serious criticism upon the fairness of these courts-martial that were set up a few months ago by this honourable House.
I am bound to apply the same rule to the right hon. Gentleman as I applied at the initiation of this discussion. The right or wrong of these trials does not arise. It is not within the terms of the Motion.
§ Sir H. GREENWOOD
May I say, in conclusion—and this is my last sentence, and I hope it will be considered in order—the House of Commons is a branch of the Legislature. Courts-martial in Ireland are parts of the Judiciary of the Realm, and I always thought, and think still, that it is outside the functions of Parliament to interfere with the judiciary, especially when cases are sub-judice.
In three sentences, I want to ask the Chief Secretary, above all, not to allow this Debate, or the circumstances leading up to the Debate, to prevent the Government taking advantage of the opportunity that is now offered. I do not know how many Members of this House read the "Freeman's Journal," but they will have observed the efforts made lately for a real understanding between England and Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Mr. Deputy Speaker will determine when I am out of Order. The Motion for the Adjournment deals with the arrest of certain people controlling the "Freeman's Journal." I am merely indicating 2033 to the House that those who were arrested, those who were punished, those who are the subject of this Debate, have recently contributed much towards a settlement of the Irish Question, and, therefore, it is obvious to the House that the incident which we are now discussing must of necessity have affected their policy. All I want to urge upon the House, and upon the Chief Secretary, is that, notwithstanding the bitterness that must be engendered by this action, by this prosecution, by the treatment received by those who are anxious for peace, the Government, at least, will not allow these incidents to prevent them exploring every avenue of peace that is open.
§ Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR
I am quite disposed to give credit to the Chief Secretary for wishing to treat this matter in a spirit of courtesy. It is not his courtesy that is wanted. My hon. and gallant Friend puts the word "candour" into my mouth. I will not say that, but I say that the Chief Secretary is the slave of conditions over which he has no control. It is all very fine for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is the ruler of Ireland. Socrates was the ruler of the philosophy of Greece, but Xantippe was the ruler of Socrates. In the same way, with his good intentions and good sense of his own dignity and responsibilities, let me tell the Chief Secretary I was never more convinced, from his lame, his apologetic, and, in some respects, his not quite Parliamentary speech of this evening, that he is the creature of forces more powerful than himself. I have used the word "unparliamentary." As you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, were kind enough to confirm the statement I made, after some years' of experience in this House, that there never had been an example where a document was quoted by a Minister that the House has not insisted on the production of the document, I need not labour that point any more. But supposing that the somewhat narrow line which you, Sir, made between the quotation of the exact words of a public document and an allusion to its general purport, was, as I am bound to assume, a good point, I want to put it to the Chief Secretary, was it candid, was it dealing fairly with the House and with us, who are inquiring into the matter, to give the general purport of a telegram from one of his subordinates without producing the 2034 telegram? I do not want to draw any violent conclusion, still less to say anything unnecessarily acrimonious, but I am driven to the conviction, from the fact that the Chief Secretary quoted the purport of that telegram, and refused to give the whole telegram, that the telegram would justify our conclusion that the Judge-Advocate was against the proceedings taken by the court-martial.
I come to the action of the court-martial. I know the Chief Secretary's task is difficult, and I assure him I do not want to make it more difficult, so far as he is trying to do it righteously and in the proper spirit; but I could gather from every word the Chief Secretary said, and from every word he left unsaid, that he does not approve of these proceedings. He is bound to make the best defence he can, and, if he will allow me to say so, I think he takes a false conception of his duties to this House and to himself. I think that if he feels the military authorities in Ireland have done wrong, he ought to say so, and he ought to correct their proceedings, and I warn the right hon. Gentleman, in the most serious spirit, that if he allows the guidance of affairs in Ireland, especially at the stage they now have apparently reached, to pass out of his hands, and out of the hands of the civil representatives of the Crown into the hands of militarists and military men, then every effort of his to produce goodwill and reconciliation between the people of England and Ireland will fail. One might judge of the real opinion of the right hon. Gentleman by the defence he put up. What was his defence? He read out an extract from the King's Regulations. I am not a lawyer, still less am I a military lawyer. I am not able to say that the subtle interpretation put upon it by the right hon. Gentleman would coincide with that of a trained lawyer with military experience. I can put my own rough interpretation on that Article. To my mind it dealt with the case of a soldier on trial before a court-martial in the ordinary way, possibly at the front —a disciplined soldier. I put it to the House that rules which are necessary and inevitable to deal with a soldier under discipline at the front in the middle of a campaign are inapplicable to the cases of well-known civilians, whose character I will refer to later on. The case dealt with according to my interpretation of this Article of the "King's Regulations is that of a soldier who might desert or disappear 2035 when the court has decided against him, and who when sentence came to be passed, might not be in his place. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman's extremely elocutionary reading of the Article was interrupted, but I heard enough to gather from it that the Article went into particulars as to the particular barrack room or quarters in which, for the moment, the soldier might be imprisoned. He could be put into a guard room or a mess room, or any other room. All that shows that the Article contemplated contingencies that might arise on the battlefield, and was not intended to apply to civilians put on their trial for more or less civilian offences.
The right hon. Gentleman in the stress of his servitude to the military authorities in Dublin was compelled to justify the application of an Article dealing with the necessities of the battle front to the case of civilians. He also fell back on another argument. He said that this Article must apply to the case of these two gentlemen because—and I do not think I ever heard a more astounding doctrine laid down by anyone in my experience—"soldier" includes everybody who comes before a court-martial.
§ Mr. O'CONNOR
Ah, in Ireland! "I thank thee, Jew, for that word." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I am not making any racial statement. That is a quotation from Shakespeare, and I mention it for the information of hon. Members opposite. "Soldier" includes everybody who comes before a court-martial! That is the original statement. Since which an Amendment has been carried "in Ireland." And that is the reason that the writers in the "Manchester Guardian" and the "Daily News," who made statements quite as strong as those contained in the "Freeman's Journal," against the conduct of the soldiery and the Government stand free to-day, without the right hon. Gentleman daring to take action either civil or military. "'Soldier' includes everybody who comes before a court-martial—in Ireland." 2036 That is a new doctrine of Liberalism preached by the right hon Gentleman.
§ Mr. O'CONNOR
What is the ground on which a man or woman is refused bail in any Court of Law? It is usually that the court does not feel certain of the accused's appearance to receive sentence. Does the right hon. Gentleman pretend that that apprehension applies to these two gentlemen? I saw Mr. Hamilton Edwards one day last week. He is a very old friend of mine. He is not an Irishman, but a Welshman. I am sorry that that statement of nationality seems to excite some horror among hon. Members opposite. I should have thought that it would have appealed to their respect and admiration. He is a Welshman.
§ Mr. O'CONNOR
And none the worse. He is a Welshman. He was formerly member of a Conservative Club in the City. He went over to Ireland, and, instead of going from light to darkness, from the National Liberal Club to the Constitutional or the Junior Carlton, he fell into the hospitable embraces of the national cause in Ireland, and, like many Englishmen who have gone over there, he has become more Irish than the Irish themselves. He was here last week. I asked him to stop the evening with me. He replied that he was going to travel back that night, in order to be present at the court-martial the following morning. Has there been any occasion when the court-martial was sitting when he has been one second late? Does the right hon. Gentleman seriously think of Mr. Hamilton Edwards, a courageous man, a man with property which could be seized— there was the smallest risk of his running away? He does not. He is silent. The hon. Gentlemen below the gangway opposite—including the Orangemen from the suburbs of Kensington—they do not treat this question in the serious spirit of the Secretary of State. All these moon-faced individuals find nothing but a joke in this tragedy of Ireland! Does the right hon. Gentleman think that Mr. Hamilton Edwards might have run away? He does not. Does he suppose that Mr. Martin Fitzgerald might have run away? His home, his family, his property, are in 2037 Dublin! Of course the right hon. Gentleman does not. Then what was the reason for sending them to gaol? The reason was to humiliate them, to terrorise them, as the rest of the people of Ireland are terrorised. And at what a time is this done? At a moment when everybody is looking for a way out of the horrible, tragic picture that Ireland and England present to the world to-day.
I can speak freely on this matter. I negotiated with the British Government in Ireland for the last time three years ago. I have never negotiated with the Government since and never will. That task must be taken up by men whom Ireland has chosen to be their representatives and by the Government itself. I look on, but I do so with sympathy and with hope. Is there a man in this House that does not look with sympathy, at least, if not with hope, to any attempt to bring to an end this hideous, bloody, and terrible state of affairs which makes something like a Corsican vendetta between your race and mine; and at the very moment when the Prime Minister seems honestly to be doing—so far as I can gather from his public utterances—the Prime Minister, and everybody else, is seeking to explore some ground of hope and reconciliation—that is the very moment chosen to strike down, insult, and put into gaol the two men who, according to the quotations made by my hon. Friends from their newspapers, are amongst the most powerful and eloquent in their appeal to the good sense and the heart of Ireland to hold out to England something like the olive branch of reconciliation.
§ Major O'NEILL
May I be allowed to congratulate the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down upon the extraordinary ability with which for a quarter of an hour he has succeeded in keeping strictly within your ruling, Sir, and yet referred to such matters as Welshmen going to the Constitutioned Club and quotations from Shakespeare. This is remarkable, even in view of his long Parliamentary experience. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas), I think, strayed a little bit near to the bounds of Order. I do not propose to do so. I shall keep strictly within the ruling you have laid down to keep discussion to the question at issue. I do not 2038 rise to-night as an Irish Member. In my judgment it is not really an Irish question at all. The Resolution before the House is a Resolution aimed at the administration of military law, whether in Ireland, Mesopotamia, Egypt, or any other part of the world, because at this time under the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act these trials in that country are held under the military code of law. I have had considerable experience in the administration of military law, and that is really the sole reason why I am intervening. The Chief Secretary explained that every trial by court-martial has to be confirmed by the proper military authority, and until the sentence of that Court is so confirmed there is no finding and no sentence at all. If I may say so with respect, I think that perhaps had you, Sir, more fully appreciated this point of military law you might have felt less inclined to accede to the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork. The full meaning of military law unquestionably is a very difficult matter for those who have not been intimately associated with it. But this matter, as it is, is now absolutely sub judice. This trial is just as much sub judice as is the case of a man who is on his trial for a crime and who, when the jury have retired to consider their verdict, goes into the cells below. The court-martial is no more over in this case than would be the trial of the criminal while the jury were deliberating. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Captain Redmond) knows that is so.
§ Captain REDMOND
I quite agree with what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has just said about the trial not being concluded. Where I disagree with him is in his parallel between the case of the criminal going back to the cells and the case of these gentlemen who were never detained before, and who in the middle of the trial were pounced upon and brought in by armed forces and placed in custody. That is the difference between the two cases.
§ Major O'NEILL
May I give this analogy? Take a person who has been tried under the criminal law, and who is awaiting the decision of the jury, and who before the trial began was on bail, would he be let out while the jury were considering their verdict? Of course he would not. That man is on bail. He is free just as much as these men are free until trial. [HON. MEMBERS: "No, 2039 no!"] I think my analogy is perfectly correct—the man who is neither free or who is on bail before trial begins, and then before its conclusion: is it seriously said that any court would allow that man to go free? That is the exact legal position in regard to these gentlemen who are to-day in custody in Dublin. I condole with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Devlin) in having found so tame a Motion to bring forward. I daresay he thought that he would be able to raise great questions of Irish policy and Irish disorder. I am glad that this Debate, as it was bound to do, has merely turned upon the legal technicalities on this issue, and on
§ that question there is no doubt whatsoever but that the court-martial that tried these people is strictly within its right in keeping them in custody until their sentences are confirmed and their trial, therefore, completed.
§ Lord E. TALBOT (Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury)
rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 235; Noes, 62.2041
|Division No. 384.]||AYES.||[9.46 p.m.|
|Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.||Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)||Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.||Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)||Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Hurd, Percy A.|
|Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James||Dawes, James Arthur||Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.|
|Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.||Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)||Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert|
|Atkey, A. R.||Dewhurst. Lieut.-Commander Harry||Jephcott, A. R.|
|Bagley, Captain E. Ashton||Donald, Thompson||Jesson, C.|
|Baird, Sir John Lawrence||Edge, Captain William||Jodrell, Neville Paul|
|Baldwin, Rt Hon. Stanley||Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)||Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-||Elliott, Lt. Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)||Jones, J. T. Carmarthen, Lianelly)|
|Barnett, Major R. W.||Elveden, Viscount||Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George|
|Barnston, Major Harry||Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.||Kidd, James|
|Barrie, Charles Coupar||Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.||King. Captain Henry Douglas|
|Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Farquharson, Major A. C.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Flannery, Sir James Fortescue||Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Ford, Patrick Johnston||Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)|
|Betterton, Henry B.||Forrest, Walter||Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)|
|Bigland, Alfred||Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot||Lindsay, William Arthur|
|Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)||Fraser, Major Sir Keith||Lloyd, George Butler|
|Blades, Capt. Sir George Rowland||Frece, Sir Walter de||Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.|
|Blair, Reginald||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Lorden, John William|
|Blake, Sir Francis Douglas||Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.||Lort-Williams, J.|
|Borwick, Major G. O.||Gardiner, James||Loseby, Captain C. E.|
|Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.||Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham||Lowther, Lt.-Col. Claude (Lancaster)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.||Gilbert, James Daniel||Lyle, C. E. Leonard|
|Brassey, Major H. L. C.||Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John||Lyle-Samuel, Alexander|
|Breese, Major Charles E.||Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.||Lynn, R. J.|
|Bridgeman, William Clive||Grant, James A.||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.|
|Briggs, Harold||Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Broad, Thomas Tucker||Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)||Magnus, Sir Philip|
|Brown, Captain D. C.||Greenwood, Colonel Sir Hamar||Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)|
|Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.||Greenwood, William (Stockport)||Marks, Sir George Croydon|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Greer, Harry||Mitchell, William Lane|
|Burdett-Coutts, William||Greig, Colonel James William||Moles, Thomas|
|Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)||Gretton, Colonel John||Molson, Major John Elsdale|
|Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.|
|Butcher, Sir John George||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.|
|Campion. Lieut.-Colonel W. R.||Hailwood, Augustine||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.|
|Carr, W. Theodore||Hall, Captain Douglas Bernard||Morelng, Captain Algernon H.|
|Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Wlthngton)||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwlch)||Morrison, Hugh|
|Casey, T. W.||Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l,W.O'by)||Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert|
|Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin||Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar||Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Blrm., Aston)||Hamilton, Major C. G. C.||Murray, John (Leeds, West)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm.,W).||Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)||Nail, Major Joseph|
|Chamberlain, N. (Blrm., Ladywood)||Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.||Harris, Sir Henry Percy||Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward|
|Churchman. Sir Arthur||Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)||Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.|
|Clough, Robert||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)||Parker, James|
|Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank||Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry|
|Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale||Hills, Major John Waller||Pearce, Sir William|
|Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)||Hope, H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn'n, W.)||Pennefather, De Fonblanque|
|Coote, William (Tyrone, South)||Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Cope, Major Wm.||Hopkins, John W. W.||Perring, William George|
|Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)||Home, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)||Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)|
|Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid.)||Home, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)||Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emll W.|
|Curzon, Commander Viscount||Howard, Major S. G||Pollock, Sir Ernest M|
|Prescott, Major W. H.||Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)||Waddington, R.|
|Purchase. H. G.||Simm, M. T.||Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.|
|Ramsden, G. T.||Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander||Ward, William Dudley (Southampton)|
|Randles, Sir John S.||Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)||Watson, Captain John Bertrand|
|Rankin, Captain James S.||Stanton, Charles B.||White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)|
|Ratcliffe, Henry Butler||Starkey, Captain John R.||Whitla, Sir William|
|Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel||Steel, Major S. Strang||Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)|
|Reid, D. D.||Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.||Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)|
|Remer, J. R.||Stevens, Marshall||Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)|
|Remnant, Sir James||Stewart, Gershom||Winfrey, Sir Richard|
|Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Strettord)||Strauss, Edward Anthony||Wise, Frederick|
|Rodger, A. K.||Sugden, W. H.||Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)|
|Rogers, Sir Hallewell||Taylor, J.||Woolcock, William James U.|
|Roundell, Colonel R. F.||Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)||Worsfold, Dr. T. Cato|
|Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Thomas-Stanford, Charles||Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)|
|Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)||Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)|
|Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.||Thorpe, Captain John Henry||Younger, Sir George|
|Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Tryon, Major George Clement|
|Seager, Sir William||Turton, E. R.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Seddon, J. A.||Vickers, Douglas||Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.|
|Shaw, William T. (Forfar)|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Hayward, Major Evan||Shaw, Thomas (Preston)|
|Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Belt, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)||Hirst, G. H.||Sitch. Charles H.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Holmes, J. Stanley||Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)|
|Bramsdon. Sir Thomas||Irving, Dan||Spencer, George A.|
|Briant, Frank||Johnstone, Joseph||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Bromfield, William||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Sllvertown)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Cairns, John||Kenyon, Barnet||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)||Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)||Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)|
|Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)||Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)||White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)|
|Devlin, Joseph||Myers, Thomas||Wignall, James|
|Entwistle. Major C. F.||Newbould, Alfred Ernest||Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)|
|Finney, Samuel||O'Connor, Thomas P.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)|
|Galbraith, Samuel||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)|
|Glanville, Harold James||Rattan, Peter Wilson||Wintringham, T.|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Redmond, Captain William Archer||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Grundy, T. W.||Robertson, John|
|Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)||Rose, Frank H.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Royce, William Stapleton||Mr. MacVeagh and Lieut.-Com-|
|Hayday, Arthur||Sexton, James||mander Kenworthy.|
§ Question put accordingly, "That this House do now adjourn."2042
§ The House divided: Ayes, 62; Noes, 242.2043
|Division No. 385.]||AYES.||[9.55 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Hayday, Arthur||Shaw, Thomas (Preston)|
|Barnes, Major H. (Newcastle, E.)||Hayward, Major Evan||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Bell, James (Lancaster, Ormskirk)||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hirst, G. H.||Smith, W. R. (Wellingborough)|
|Bramsdon, Sir Thomas||Holmes, J. Stanley||Spencer, George A.|
|Briant, Frank||Irving, Dan||Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)|
|Bromfield, William||Johnstone, Joseph||Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)|
|Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)|
|Cairns, John||Kenyon, Barnet||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Carter, W. (Nottingham, Mansfield)||Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)||Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)|
|Davies, A. (Lancaster, Clitheroe)||Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)||White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)|
|Davies, Major D. (Montgomery)||Myers, Thomas||Wignall, James|
|Devlin, Joseph||Newbould, Alfred Ernest||Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)|
|Entwistle. Major C. F.||O'Connor, Thomas P.||Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Stourbridge)|
|Finney, Samuel||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Wilson, W. Tyson (Westhoughton)|
|Galbraith, Samuel||Raffan, Peter Wilson||Wintringham, T.|
|Glanville, Harold James||Redmond, Captain William Archer||Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)|
|Graham, R. (Nelson and Colne)||Robertson, John|
|Grundy, T. W.||Rose. Frank H.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Guest, J. (York, W. R., Hemsworth)||Royce, William Stapleton||Mr. MacVeagh and Lieut.-Com-|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Sexton, James||mander Kenworthy.|
|Adair, Rear-Admiral Thomas B. S.||Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Blades. Capt. Sir George Rowland|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. C.||Banner, Sir John S. Harmood-||Blair, Reginald|
|Adkins, Sir William Ryland Dent||Barnett, Major R. W.||Blake, Sir Francis Douglas|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Barnston, Major Harry||Borwick, Major G. O.|
|Allen, Lieut.-Colonel William James||Beauchamp, Sir Edward||Bowyer, Captain G. E. W.|
|Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.||Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.||Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.|
|Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.||Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Brassey, Major H. L. C.|
|Atkey, A. R.||Betterton, Henry B.||Breese, Major Charles E.|
|Bagley, Captain E. Ashton||Bigland, Alfred||Bridgeman, William Clive|
|Baird, Sir John Lawrence||Bird, Sir A. (Wolverhampton, West)||Briggs, Harold|
|Broad, Thomas Tucker||Hambro, Captain Angus Valdemar||O'Neill, Major Hon. Robert W. H.|
|Brown, Captain D. C.||Hamilton, Major C. G. C.||Parker, James|
|Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.||Harmsworth, C. B. (Bedford, Luton)||Parkinson, Albert L. (Blackpool)|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)||Parry, Lieut.-Colonel Thomas Henry|
|Burdett-Coutts, William||Harris, Sir Henry Percy||Pearce, Sir William|
|Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)||Henderson, Major V. L. (Tradeston)||Pennefather, De Fonblanque|
|Burn, T. H. (Belfast, St. Anne's)||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Perkins, Walter Frank|
|Butcher, Sir John George||Henry, Denis S. (Londonderry, S.)||Perring, William George|
|Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.||Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)||Philipps, Sir Owen C. (Chester, City)|
|Carr, W. Theodore||Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank||Pickering, Lieut.-Colonel Emil W.|
|Carter, R. A. D. (Man., Withlngton)||Hills, Major John Waller||Pollock, Sir Ernest M.|
|Casey, T. W.||Hope, Sir H. (Stirling & Cl'ckm'nn, W.)||Prescott, Major W. H.|
|Cayzer, Major Herbert Robin||Hope, James F. (Sheffield, Central)||Purchase, H. G.|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)||Hopkins, John W. W.||Ramsden, G. T.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm., W).||Horne, Edgar (Surrey, Guildford)||Randles, Sir John S|
|Chamberlain, N. (Birm., Ladywood)||Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)||Rankin, Captain James S.|
|Chilcot, Lieut.-Com. Harry W.||Howard, Major S. G.||Ratcliffe, Henry Butler|
|Child, Brigadier-General Sir Hill||Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)||Raw, Lieutenant-Colonel N.|
|Churchman, Sir Arthur||Hunter-Weston, Lieut.-Gen. Sir A. G.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Clough, Robert||Hurd, Percy A.||Reid, D. D.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hurst, Lieut.-Colonel Gerald B.||Remer, J. R.|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.||Remnant, Sir James|
|Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale||James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert||Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)|
|Coote, Colin Reith (Isle of Ely)||Jephcott, A. R.||Rodger, A. K.|
|Coote, William (Tyrone, South)||Jesson, C.||Rogers, Sir Hallewell|
|Cope, Major Wm.||Jodrell, Neville Paul||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Cory, Sir J. H. (Cardiff, South)||Jones, Sir Edgar R. (Merthyr Tydvll)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Craig, Colonel Sir J. (Down, Mid.)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Norwood)|
|Curzon, Commander Viscount||Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Llanelly)||Sanders, Colonel Sir Robert A.|
|Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)||Kellaway, Rt. Hon. Fredk. George||Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)|
|Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)||Kidd, James||Seager, Sir William|
|Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Seddon, J. A.|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Shaw, William T. (Forfar)|
|Dawes, James Arthur||Knight, Major E. A. (Kidderminster)||Shortt, Rt. Hon. E. (N'castle-on-T.)|
|Dean, Lieut.-Commander P. T.||Lane-Fox, G. R.||Simm, M. T.|
|Dennis, J. W. (Birmingham, Deritend)||Lewis, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Univ., Wales)||Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander|
|Denniss, Edmund R. B. (Oldham)||Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)||Stanley, Major Hon. G. (Preston)|
|Dewhurst, Lieut.-Commander Harry||Lindsay, William Arthur||Stanton, Charles B.|
|Edge, Captain William||Lloyd, George Butler||Starkey, Captain John R.|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)||Lloyd-Greame, Major Sir P.||Steel, Major S. Strang|
|Elliott, Lt.-Col. Sir G. (Islington, W.)||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Stevens, Marshall|
|Elveden, Viscount||Lorden, John William||Stewart, Gershom|
|Eyres-Monsell, Commander B. M.||Lort-Williams, J.||Strauss, Edward Anthony|
|Falle, Major Sir Bertram G.||Loseby, Captain C. E.||Sugden, W. H.|
|Farquharson, Major A. C.||Lowther, Lt.-Col. Claude (Lancaster)||Taylor, J.|
|Flannery, Sir James Fortescue||Lyle, C. E. Leonard||Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)|
|Ford, Patrick Johnston||Lyle-Samuel, Alexander||Thomas-Stanford, Charles|
|Forrest. Walter||Lynn, R. J.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot||McLaren, Hon. H. D. (Leicester)||Thorpe, Captain John Henry|
|Fraser, Major Sir Keith||M'Lean, Lieut.-Col. Charles W. W.||Tryon, Major George Clement|
|Frece, Sir Walter de||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Turton E. R.|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Macquisten, F. A.||Vickers, Douglas|
|Ganzoni, Captain Francis John C.||Magnus, Sir Philip||Waddington, R.|
|Gardiner. James||Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)||Ward-Jackson, Major C. L.|
|Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham||Marks, Sir George Croydon||Watson, Captain John Bertrand|
|Gilbert, James Daniel||Mitchell. William Lane||White, Lieut.-Col. G. D. (Southport)|
|Gilmour, Lieut.-Colonel John||Moles, Thomas||Whitla, Sir William|
|Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward A.||Molson, Major John Elsdale||Williams, Lt.-Com. C. (Tavistock)|
|Grant, James A.||Mond, Rt. Hon. Sir Alfred M.||Wills, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Gilbert|
|Grayson, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Henry||Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.||Wilson, Daniel M. (Down, West)|
|Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)||Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.||Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)|
|Greenwood, William (Stockport)||Moreing, Captain Algernon H.||Wise, Frederick|
|Greer, Harry||Morrison, Hugh||Wood, Sir J. (Stalybridge & Hyde)|
|Gregory, Holman||Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert||Woolcock, William James U.|
|Greig, Colonel James William||Murray, C. D. (Edinburgh)||Worslold, Dr. T. Cato|
|Gretton, Colonel John||Murray, John (Leeds, West)||Young, Lieut.-Com. E. H. (Norwich)|
|Gritten, W. G. Howard||Nail, Major Joseph||Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)|
|Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)||Younger, Sir George|
|Hailwood, Augustine||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Hall, Captain Sir Douglas Bernard||Nicholl, Commander Sir Edward||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Norris, Colonel Sir Henry G.||Lord E. Talbot and Captain Guest.|
|Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W.(Liv'p'l, W. D'by)|