§ "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £2,500, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1908, for Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Charges in Ireland."
§ Resolution read a second time.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG moved to reduce the Vote by £100 in order to strive to elicit from the law officers of the Crown in Ireland, some explanation of how it was that, after the statement made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland in this House on taking up the reins of office that he found Ireland more peaceful than it had been for the past 600 years, he had found it necessary to come to the House of Commons and ask for an additional sum of £2,500 over the original Estimate for criminal prosecutions and other law charges in Ireland. Those who had lived in Ireland during the past year had often wondered why the law officers of the Crown took any action at all when it was done in the manner in which they 458 did it. He had frequently had occasion to complain that measures might have been taken which would have largely prevented the Irish Department asking for a supplementary grant, but whilst those measures might have been taken early in the Chief Secretary's regime they were postponed from day to day and month to month, with the result that in the end troubles had arisen which at first were only slight and to which those sitting on the Opposition Benches had called the attention of the Chief Secretary ad nauseam, pointing out from day to day by Questions the dangerous path upon which he and the law officers of the Crown were treading. The law officers allowed turbulence and all classes of troubles which were preventible to go on increasing, with the result that they had been put to this extraordinary expense at the close of the past year. He and his friends looked with alarm on the course which events had taken, and no one in the House who had ever heard any of the hon. Members for Ulster speak on the situation would for a moment hesitate to say that the prognostications which they made earlier in the year had been not only fulfilled, but very greatly exceeded. There was an item on the Paper for £13,000 for prosecutions, etc., which included the expenses of witnesses, and so on, and fees to the law officers for contentious business. He would not be in order in raising the whole question of what the contentious business was, but he thought on the broad lines of the fact that they were asked to-day to put their sign and seal to a still further augmented grant to those who took over Ireland as they admitted in a more peaceful condition than it had been for the last 600 years, and they were entitled to a very lengthy and clear explanation as to what had given rise to this extraordinary charge. He did not desire to throw any aspersions on the law officers of the Crown, nor did he think that was the opportunity to do it. He thought, however, that they had signally failed in their duty through a mistaken idea and the mistaken policy which they had followed. Although during the latter end of their tenure they had begun to throw more and more of the blame for the state of chaos which had been arrived at on the 459 Chief Secretary, he thought that even then they might have shown what the law officers of the Crown in Ireland for generations had always been renowned for showing, viz., that they were prepared to accept the responsibility of their high office, irrespective altogether of who happened to be temporarily the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It had been mainly by subordinating themselves to the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the Attorney-General and the law officers of the Crown had found it necessary to ask for further grants. He and his friends had been blamed on more than one occasion for making it necessary for the Attorney-General and the Solicitor-General to attend when it would not have been necessary but for the manner in which they had dealt with subjects on the Unionist Benches. They had continually repudiated that charge; they had always said that any action they took in this House was to assist the Chief Secretary and the law officers in maintaining law and order. What profit would it be to them to stir up trouble and turmoil among the poor peasants of the south and west of Ireland? He had always said that while the House was sitting those who lived in distant parts of Ireland were freer from tyranny and outrage than when the House was not sitting. He attributed that to the fact that they had weak-kneed administrators in Dublin Castle who would not prosecute when they ought to prosecute and who prosecuted after a lot of damage was done, and that it was only by Questions in the House they could protect the poor people who were tyrannised in the south and west and who had no other protection. They had had to take the law so far as that was concerned into their own hands, and he conscientiously believed they had done an immense amount of good even since this session began by calling attention to the outrages which had occurred and by showing evil doers that they had eagle eyes upon them in the House of Commons. In that way the police had been urged to a certain amount of activity where the law officers of the Crown had entirely failed. There would be no necessity for much of the hard work that fell to the Ulster representatives in Parliament if those hon. and 460 right hon. Gentlemen would only do half their duty. They shirked their duty and did not do even a tenth of what they might do in the interests of the country. The effect of that was to show evil-doers that, so far as the law officers were concerned, they were able to shelter themselves behind the skirts of a timid Government in Dublin Castle. He would ask whether it was not a fact that members of the Government themselves by speeches made in Parliament and elsewhere had contributed very largely to those very cases for which this extra amount appeared on the Paper. The way in which the new terroism which had arisen in Ireland had been dealt with by the Irish Executive was, in his opinion, simply disgraceful. The only occasions on which the Chief Secretary had striven to warn the people of the South and West of Ireland were when he delivered speeches at Southampton and Belfast. These were the two centres where the Chief Secretary in a flippant manner drew attention to serious crime raging through large districts in the South and West of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that after all these particular disturbances and crimes could only be called the higgle of the market for land hunger. In the event of the Government remaining in power for a number of years—though that was not probable—was the country to be asked to pay year after year in this way? If the Government did not stiffen their backs and adopt some more strenuous methods of showing that they intended to maintain law in Ireland the House would be face to face with a growing sum of money on the Estimates each year. He asked for some assurance that the Government would prevent this, and that they would strive to turn over a new leaf to do justice as between man and man in Ireland, and to see that people who wished to live at peace and harmony with their neighbours were not terrorised. Now was the opportunity of the Government for making a pronouncement in the House that as far as lay in their power they would not come down again and ask for an additional £2,500 to pay for weakness and bungling on their part. Another point was that the law officers had chosen the most expensive way of conducting their 461 cases. Men who ought to have been tried in Belfast had at considerable expense been taken to Dublin for trial. Why should the country at large be compelled to pay the extra expenses consequent on the Attorney-General changing the venue? Everybody knew that Belfast juries gave just and straightforward judgments in any case brought before them. That had been admitted not only by eminent lawyers, but by people of all classes and creeds in Ireland from time immemorial. The fact remained that in the case he had in his mind those who happened to differ from the Attorney-General were allowed to be tried in Belfast, while others charged in almost the same kind of cases were transferred to Dublin for trial. The right hon. Gentleman had lowered the dignity of his office by his action, and at the same time placed on the Estimates a portion of the £2,500 increase. He would not trouble the House with many cases which he could mention where money might have been saved but for the action of the law officers. The Attorney-General had seen fit to bring a large number of cattle-raiding cases to Dublin, but he would ask whether value was got for the money which had been spent. He did not refer to the sentences which might or might not have been passed, but to the effect on the country. After all, in these cases where poor ignorant people were made the dupes of those who were in the closest possible touch with Dublin Castle and its officials, he held that they were entitled to ask whether the proceedings that took place at great expense to the country as a whole left the impression on them that the majesty of the law had been upheld, and that the law officers had really and sincerely done their best to bring the accused persons to justice? The only impression left on the country after these expensive trials was one of disgust at the futility of the attempts of the right hon. Gentleman. It would take many years to restore the law to the dignity it enjoyed before the present staff took office in Dublin Castle. They approached matters in a light and airy way. They clung tenaciously to the coat-tails of the Nationalist Party in the vain hope that by currying favour with them they 462 might be able to govern Ireland by other methods than the proper maintenance of law and order. And the Nationalist Party had failed as they always did when they entered into a bargain with the Government. He had charged the Government, and he repeated the charge now, with having made a bargain with hon. Members below the Gangway to the effect that if hon. Members would only assist them in their impossible task of attempting to govern Ireland in this way, later in the session they would be rewarded with legislation that should not only satisfy the land hunger, but also Irish aspirations in the direction of higher education. He hoped something might be said in the course of this debate by hon. or right hon. Gentlemen opposite which would clear the air of many of the charges made against the Government. But it was significant that only recently at Southampton the Chief Secretary had asked in a more or less despairing manner how he could be expected to do what he intended to do for the amelioration of the condition of the people of Ireland unless hon. Members backed him up in maintaining that law and order which he should have maintained without their assistance. He had placed this reduction on the Paper in the hope of drawing from the responsible Ministers for Ireland some explanation of their attitude during the past few months. He perceived that part of the charge was for the expenses of prosecutors and witnesses. What had been the reason for this increase in the expenses for witnesses? For all the good that had come out of the prosecutions he would have thought the witnesses would not have been worth £100, let alone £1,000. There was no justification for this sum of £1,000 for expenses of prosecutors and witnesses. If the trials had taken place in the places where the crimes had been committed all these expenses would have been saved. It was a farce to suppose that law and order could not be maintained in Ireland with the weapons that lay at the right hand of the Executive, yet because they would not make use of the Crimes Act it became necessary to rake up an ancient statute from the waste-paper basket 463 in order that the Government might save their face, and make some attempt to put down lawlessness and disorder. The House would have excused the Chief Secretary for having made these fantastic statements, if he had also said that it was his duty and the duty of his colleagues to govern Ireland, not according to Nationalist ideas, but with a firm hand, as it ought to be governed. The right hon. Gentleman would find that the firmer he was the more respected he would be in Ireland. There was nothing the Irish people disliked so much in a Government as weakness. He begged to move that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £100.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETT
said he had great pleasure in seconding the Amendment. Here was a proposal for a supplementary sum of £2,500, £1,500 of which was to go into the pockets of the two learned Gentlemen opposite, and yet there was not a single protest from the Nationalist or the Labour Party, not a single word from them in support of practical economy. He made no complaint of the salaries of the two law officers which were, he believed, £5,000 and £2,500, but what he wished to know was, was the extra £1,500 for extra work done by them. After the admissions made by the Chief Secretary and the two law officers in reply to questions about the number of prosecutions in Ireland, amounting to many hundreds, in which they had been able to effect only some half-dozen convictions, their efforts did not appear to have been very successful. He entirely and heartily agreed with the mover of the reduction that there had been an absolute breakdown in the administration of the law in Ireland, and that the law officers had signally failed in their duty. He also agreed that their failure was largely due to the spirit infused into the Government of Ireland by the Chief Secretary. No one in the House would forget that night when the Chief Secretary brought his fist down on the table with a bang saying he would do nothing, after cases had been brought home to him which were absolutely unanswerable as to the lawless state of Ireland. He (Mr. Corbett) did not think that the 464 policy of doing nothing carried out most effectively by the law officers required extra pay, and it was a scandal that the House should be asked to vote this money to law officers who had failed in their duty.
To leave out '£2,500,' and insert '£2,400.'—(Captain Craig)—instead thereof.
§ Question proposed, "That '£2,500' stand part of the said Resolution."
§ MR. TOMKINSON (Cheshire, Crewe)
said the hon. and gallant Gentleman who moved this reduction had dwelt at great length on the real or imaginary increase of crime in Ireland during the last few months, and had charged the Government with grave dereliction of duty. But if they took the whole of the crime, real or imaginary, in Ireland and in England, and considered it in proportion to the population of the two countries they would find there was considerably less crime in Ireland than in England. And when one read such documents as the depositions of the inspecting officer sent down in the first instance to investigate the Glenahiry outrage he had considerable doubt whether any outrage at all was perpetrated.
§ MR. T. L. CORBETT
The law officers have taken an entirely different view from the, hon. Gentleman.
§ MR. TOMKINSON
said the officer on that occasion stated that Lord Ashtown himself, whom he saw the next day, seemed to treat the matter as a hugh joke. There had recently been a special kind of lawlessness in Ireland in the form of cattle-driving, but apparently great misapprehension existed in connection with that form of lawlessness. There was no cattle stealing in the country; there was no cattle maiming, no wilful injury done to cattle. This cattle-driving was done as a protest against the action of people guilty in the past of a far worse crime than that of cattle driving, namely, the driving of men and women off the land.
asked whether he understood from the hon. Member's observations that he was in favour of cattle-driving.
§ MR. TOMKINSON
said that all he said was that the crime had been much exaggerated and made out to be far more serious than it actually was. Much worse than cattle-driving had been done in the past by the people who owned the land, because they had driven the men and women off that land on to the bogs and rocks, and on the good lands only cattle and sheep were allowed. An Act had been passed for England and Wales for the purpose of restoring the people to the laud and, if necessary, compulsorily acquiring the land for that purpose. That was all the Irish people asked for. Hon. Members could not know what was done in the shape of evictions after the great famine of 1848. One noble Lord told a high official that he had evicted 1,800 of these people, and when that noble Lord was asked where those people had gone to, the answer was so bitter and cynical that it would not bear repetition. He believed that a more conciliatory and reasonable treatment would do more to make the Irish people contented than such coercion as was advocated by hon. Members opposite. As an illustration of the conciliation which he suggested, he might refer to a case which had been brought to his knowledge by one of the Land Commissioners—Mr. Bailey. In the case of that particular estate, the owner and the occupiers were at daggers drawn. The owner was informed that his life was not safe and he thought of getting out of the country and going to live in the South of France. Mr. Bailey hearing this went down to see if he could be of any service in the matter. He saw the landlord, who told him that he was willing to sell his land, but that he could not take less than twenty-five years purchase, whilst great pressure was being put upon him to accept twenty-one-and-a-half years purchase. Mr. Bailey said that he sat down with the owner and went into figures, and in a quarter of an hour convinced him that if he got twenty-three years purchase he would be quite satisfied with it. Mr. Bailey then went round and saw the Tenants Committee. 466 He got at that Committee through the priest. He found them most reasonable men, and when he put the facts before them they agreed to increase their offer and give twenty-three years purchase, provided that included in the purchase were 2,000 acres of grass land for which they were willing to give whatever was asked. In that conciliatory way the whole difficulty on that estate was settled, and the next that Mr. Bailey heard was that they had elected the landlord to be the chairman of their Local District Board and had all agreed to preserve the game on the land for him. He submitted that such action as that did more good for Ireland than the coercion suggested by hon. Members opposite.
§ MR. BARRIE (Londonderry, N.)
said that after the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe the Chief Secretary and the law officers might well exclaim: "Save us from our friends." It was very interesting to learn from the hon. Member that a well-paid official in the Government of Ireland, Mr. Bailey, considered it within the scope of his duty to have a casual conversation with the hon. Member regarding the action of a certain landlord in Ireland. The hon. Member said that Mr. Bailey told him he had persuaded this landlord to come to terms with his tenants and accept twenty-three years purchase for the land. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: "Too much."] There was a telling answer to that, namely, that the Leader of the Nationalist Party got twenty-four and-a-half years purchase for land he sold.
MR. STANLEY WILSON
asked whether it was in order for an hon. Member to say a statement by another hon. Member was not true.
§ MR. BARRIE
said he did not object to the interruption, but he could not accept the correction of the hon. Member until the figures were placed before the House. So far as the question 467 of the outrage at the house of Lord Ashtown was concerned he was not quite sure——
§ *MR. SPEAKER
said that since the hon. Member had spoken he had ascertained that there was no charge in this Vote for any proceedings in connection with Lord Ashtown's matter, and therefore the hon. Member would not be in order in going into that.
§ MR. BARRIE
said that that being so, he would pass from that item and deal at once with the Vote before the House. This was a Vote of £2,500 for special legal expenses incurred during the last six months. The additional revenue which went into the pockets of the law officers was £1,500, which was at the rate of £3,000 a year. He complained that this was the third Supplementary Vote asked for since the session began and a fourth would be coming before the House for the constabulary. Those four Votes combined meant a total increase of the law charges for Ireland of something like £20,000, due to the existence of a weak Government. The question was: Had any effective service been rendered to the country for this expenditure; had respect for the law been restored, and were peaceful citizens in the south and west of Ireland allowed to pursue their callings without molestation? The fact was that in Ireland last year there were 381 cases of cattle-driving, and proceedings were taken in only eighty-one cases, and out of 572 persons prosecuted in connection with these drives only five were imprisoned. In 1907 372 agrarian outrages were reported, or 138 more than in 1906, being the greatest number since 1903. Proceedings were taken in forty-two cases, and there were only five convictions. In 367 cases no one was made responsible for the outrages. It was clear that since the dropping of the Peace Preservation Act in 1906 the number of shooting outrages had been four times as numerous as in the previous year. In 1886 the then Chief Secretary found over 4,800 boycotted persons in Ireland. In 1892 that number was reduced to fifteen, and it was only since the Government came into power that boycotting had become rampant. As to cattle-driving, if the Chief Secretary had 468 directed prosecutions against the cowards who instigated the people to commit the crime it would never have assumed such large proportions. The action of the right hon. Gentleman in Ireland was very different from the action of his colleague the Secretary of State for India in India, where there had been disturbances which they all regretted and where peremptory measures had been instituted in the interests of that country and in the name of duty and common-sense.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BIRRELL,) Bristol, N.
The Secretary for India is one of my colleagues, and he is responsible for and approves of my action.
§ MR. BARRIE
said that that was one of the glaring inconsistencies which were not altogether unknown among the members of the present Cabinet. Nothing was to him more painful than to notice the growth of crime and want of respect for the law owing to the injudicious speeches of both the Chief Secretary and the Attorney-General. At the meeting at Belfast the Attorney-General had alluded to the Chief Secretary as "his dictator." Loose speeches in Ireland meant licence, and licence had brought the law into contempt. If the Government would use the weapons ready to their hand, and convince the people in the unsettled parts of Ireland that they had had enough of lawlessness, a very different state of affairs would prevail in a very few months.
§ *THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,) Liverpool, Exchange
I desire in the first place entirely to repudiate what has been attributed to me that I at any time endeavoured to place the responsibility for my actions on my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that I attempted in any way to throw blame upon him or to subordinate myself to him in any way that was not consonant to my position. As first law officer in Ireland I am responsible for the enforcement of the criminal law, and never have I attempted to throw the responsibility on the Chief Secretary. Reference has been made to the meeting I attended at Belfast last autumn, which seems 469 to have had an irritating effect on hon. Members for Ulster constituencies. It was one of the largest meetings I ever attended, and one of the most enthusiastic. Ever since hon. Members opposite have been seizing on certain expressions I used, and twisting and turning those statements into meanings they were never intended to bear.
asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he was aware that the Chief Secretary himself, on leaving the meeting, turned round to a friend and said—That was an enthusiastic meeting, but there were some people who were opposed——[Cries of "Order."]
§ *MR. CHERRY
That is another of what they call yarns in Ireland. There was an interruption during the course of the meeting by someone in the gallery, which led me to say that the assertion that I had been dictated to by my right hon. friend——
§ *MR. CHERRY
I was only explaining how I came to use the words. I did not for a moment say that I had been dictated to by anybody, but I said that I would not be dictated to by anybody save the Prime Minister or the Chief Secretary. I meant that the Chief Secretary, being a member of the Government, responsible for the government of Ireland, and a Member of the Cabinet, and the Prime Minister at the head of the Government, were the only persons to convey to me the decisions of the Government in regard to matters generally. I, not being a member of the Cabinet, had no power to determine any question of policy. But as regards the administration of the criminal law, that is my duty, and I never for one moment intended, nor do I intend, to repudiate responsibility for that. There has never been the slightest difference between my right hon. friend and myself as regards the prosecutions. He is quite familiar with everything that I have done, and he has agreed to everything that I have done and everything I have submitted to him. 470 Our object has been, whether right or wrong is for the House to determine, to enforce the ordinary law strictly and fairly, and not to go one inch outside the ordinary law. We have sought to be perfectly impartial, and we thought that if we persisted in that course we would cure what is a great evil in Ireland—distrust of the law. But it will take some time to do that. You cannot expect the sentiments of a nation to be changed in a day, and it needs that we should persist in the course we have adopted. We have persisted in it, and we have up to the present moment, I think, had very gratifying results; because as a matter of fact, as everyone knows who knows anything about affairs in Ireland, the disturbances which prevailed in Ireland during the autumn have died down very greatly, and the country is far and away quieter than it was in the months of October and November last. Cattle-driving has almost entirely disappeared; there are no outrages and very little serious crime, and I think that that is in great measure due to the policy of the Government in fairly administering the ordinary law and in no way seeking to use the much-disliked Crimes Act, or in packing juries, or by indirect means endeavouring to obtain convictions. We relied on a straightforward presentation of the case for the Crown to the jury. Although we have had obstacles, acquittals and disagreements, where we thought there ought to have been convictions, which I regret very much, yet I believe that the benefit to the country will be greater by our administering the law impartially than by any means that might be adopted to secure convictions in the way which I have indicated. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to Larkin's case, and said that the change of venue in that instance was due to me. He is completely under a misapprehension The application for a change of venue was made on behalf of Larkin himself, and I very carefully inquired into the matter before I assented to it. Affidavits were filed which showed that undoubtedly there was very great prejudice against Larkin in Belfast among the class from whom the jurors would have been drawn. It was asserted, I think, with some truth, that although Larkin was prosecuted for a very trivial assault, the 471 real attempt among the people of Belfast was to have him punished for being a leader of the strike. I assented to the change of venue to the County of Dublin, which, as everyone knows, is a county where the jurors are of the very highest character and before whom you can obtain a fair and impartial trial. I do not think that I was doing anything very irregular; I was endeavouring, as I always endeavour, to obtain a fair and impartial trial by a tribunal which would not only be fair but would have no suspicion of unfairness. There were other persons who were charged with assaults in Belfast during the riots which arose, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked why there had not been a change of venue in those cases. The venue was not changed because the accused did not ask for it. Now, as to cattle-driving, I have never said at any time anything in favour of it; I should be very sorry to do so. I have heard, however, a great deal of gross exaggeration as regards the seriousness of the evil. Cattle-driving is a crime if partaken in by a large number of people. But as a matter of fact, the cattle trade has never been more prosperous in Ireland than in the course of the last year. I have never suggested for one moment that there was anything excusable in it. I think it is a form of intimidation of a particularly bad kind, and it is a matter that ought to be stopped if it can be put a stop to. We prosecuted in every case in which there was evidence to bring before a jury. We have brought people before the magistrates and had them bound over to keep the peace—a far larger number than that mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. A large number of the persons brought before the magistrates declined to give bail, and, like the suffragettes in London, they went to gaol. I think that several hundreds went to gaol.
§ MR. BARRIE
A number of them were released immediately afterwards, and there was that distinction between their case and that of the suffragettes.
The hon. Member is completely mistaken. Not one person, so far as I know, was released, certainly not since last October.
§ *Mr. CHERRY
No, Sir; I am happy to say that there are none at present. Those offences I refer to were committed in the months of October and November, and the persons served out their sentences and were released. As far as I know there are no persons in prison at present on those charges.
§ MR. CAMERON CORBETT (Glasgow, Tradeston)
May I ask if they were treated as first-class or second-class misdemeanants?
§ *MR. CHERRY
I really cannot give the hon. Member the information for which he asks. The amount of the Vote has been referred to. We regret to come to the House with a Supplementary Vote, but it arises in a great measure from the prosecutions for cattle-driving. I would point out that the amount of the original Vote and the Supplementary Vote together is only £65,000, which is a good deal less than the average during the time the late Government was in office. There were only two years while that Government was in office in which the amount was less than this. In 1901 the Votes for the Departments of Agriculture were added to the law charges, and in 1899 the sum of £8,000 per annum were added to recoup the high sheriff the expenses of receiving at the general assizes. So if you compare the amounts in previous years, in fact from 1881 to the present year, you will find that, although the amount this year is slightly in excess of what it was last year, it is considerably less than what it was ten or fifteen years ago. If you go back only to 1901, the amount was nearly £70,000, and we are £5,000 to the good in 1907. It is quite true that we are £3,000 in excess of last year, but last year the amount was exceedingly small and the lowest it has ever been. I do not think that there are any other matters that the House would like me to explain.
§ LORD B. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)
said that the right hon. Gentleman was entitled in one respect to the 473 sympathy of the House. He had been so unfortunate on more than one occasion recently as to make use of rather picturesque language in Ireland, and the brutal Saxon, taking the words to mean exactly what they said, were anxious to know why the Attorney-General for Ireland had committed himself in that way. Not long ago the right hon. Gentleman was explaining to the House that when he called his countrymen West African savages he desired it to be understood that the words were used in the Pickwickian sense.
§ *MR. CHERRY
I never called my fellow-countrymen West African savages. I said that cattle-driving might lead to a state of things worse than that among the West African savages.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said he understood that the right hon. Gentleman did not call them directly West African savages, but only conditionally West African savages. That afternoon the right hon. Gentleman had been asked something about the Chief Secretary being his dictator, and he said that that was only because some other people were not his dictators, and, therefore, only in that sense was the Chief Secretary his dictator. But later on he had disclaimed any responsibility in connection with policy in Ireland, and consequently all his acts were approved by the Chief Secretary, after discussion with him. Therefore, it seemed to be the fact, to the mere Saxon mind, that the Chief Secretary in truth did direct his action, and when the Attorney-General referred to the right hon. Gentleman as his dictator he was not very far out. What was it that the Government had said about this matter over and over again? They said that they had endeavoured to enforce the ordinary law. That was their perpetual statement. But they must again ask how it was that the hon. Member for North Westmeath was allowed to go about inciting these cattle-drivers week after week, and month after month, in the most open and unblushing way, and that the right hon. Gentleman was only able to obtain the assistance of the Judge of the Land Court and get the hon. Member shut up for contempt of Court.
§ MR. BIRRELL
The hon. Member must not say I obtained the assistance of the Judge. Mr. Justice Ross acted with the most perfect independence. The noble Lord must not say I got him.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said he owed the Chief Secretary an apology. He believed the right hon. Gentleman had always said that the Government had nothing to do with shutting up the hon. Member for Westmeath.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said that that made the case all the stronger against the right hon. Gentleman. He apologised for having suggested that the Chief Secretary had even indirectly desired to enforce the law against the hon. Member for North Westmeath. But the broad fact remained that cattle-driving went on until the hon. Member for North Westmeath was shut up, and when he was shut up cattle-driving began to come to an end. The Attorney-General for Ireland had the courage to say that the whole thing must be likened to the proceedings against the suffragettes. The suffragettes, who, whatever might be thought of their methods, had the sympathy of a large section of the House in the objects they had in view, had been treated not as first-class but as second-class misdemeanants. It was characteristic of the procedure of the Government that they treated cattle-driving, or appeared to treat it, as a matter of less importance than the rather foolish riots of the suffragettes in the streets of London, and it was because they had adopted that attitude that they had been compelled over and over again to protest against their action. The Attorney-General for Ireland had used a very striking phrase when he said he had never said a word in favour of cattle-driving. Let the House conceive its being necessary for a law officer of the Crown to say he had never said a word in favour of what he afterwards admitted to be a scandalous and outrageous proceeding! That unconcious observation displayed more of the mind of the Government than a great deal of their deliberate utterances. That had been the whole attitude of the Government—it 475 was unnecessary to quote again the statements that had been made by the various members of the Government—and the result had been failure of the law and a failure to obtain convictions. He had listened with the greatest possible regret to the speech of the hon. Member for Crewe who, though very widely respected in that House and whose utterances naturally carried great weight with the House, had committed himself to an elaborate minimising of the actual outrages that had occurred and a defence of such things as cattle-driving. Surely that was very unfortunate.
§ MR. TOMKINSON
said he had defended cattle-driving from the grossly unfair charges made against it in regard to cattle stealing and cattle maiming, such as Sheridan had perpetrated under the late Government and never been prosecuted for, and he had said that there was one thing worse than cattle-driving—the driving of men and women from the soil.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said the hon. Member had forgotten what appeared to him the most indefensible statement he had made, referring to an outrage which they were not allowed to discuss on that occasion, that the evidence in that case had made him doubt whether any outrages had taken place in Ireland at all. That was really a most unfortunate observation for any English Member to make. Outrages had taken place and very serious outrages. Men had been shot, many houses had been fired into, and even this cattle-driving for which they heard these apologies in the House had ended in outrage of a most serious character. It began as so many things seemed to begin in Ireland, in a comparatively mild and unimportant way, and it gradually grew, partly through the indifference of the Irish Government and partly, he must say, through the culpable language often used by English politicians in connection with outrages, until it became a very serious and terrible evil. What really was cattle-driving? The hon. Member said it was not cattle stealing. Nobody had ever said it was cattle stealing. Nor was it cattle maiming. That was sufficiently evident. If cattle were maimed they could not 476 be driven. But cattle-driving was none the less a very serious offence and operated very seriously to the injury of the cattle. The hon. Member represented a very wealthy constituency largely given up to dairy farming. What would his constituents think if their cattle were driven off their farm, sometimes all night long, and left to find their way back? It was a very serious offence, and it was no answer to say it was better than driving men. What the hon. Member meant exactly by driving men he did not know, but the only instance he had given was from the year 1848, and he really said to the House—and this was exceedingly characteristic of these Irish debates—that because an Irish landlord rightly or wrongly was alleged to have behaved in a brutal and unfeeling way in 1848, that was in some way which absolutely passed his comprehension a palliation for those who drove cattle in 1907. It really was a perfect scandal that arguments of that kind should be used. The truth was that if history could only be wiped off the face of the earth, if they could only forget everything that had happened in Ireland in the past, if they could start with a perfectly clean slate and deal with the thing as it now was, they would be very far along the road indeed towards the pacification of Ireland which they all desired. But these references to 1848, and sometimes further back still, did nothing but harm, and were perfectly irrelevant to the real issue. The real question that the House had to consider on this Vote was whether it was or was not right that the law should be enforced in Ireland. That was the only issue. It was not whether the law was or was not perfect. He did not believe there was any such thing as a perfect law. The question was whether they were going to submit to outrages against the law, to lawless attempts to put pressure on the Government in order to produce a change in the law, and to put pressure upon individuals in order to prevent them from exercising their legal rights. That was the only question before them, and that was the only reason why he desired to criticise the Government, because he did not think they had discharged what was after all the first 477 and by far the most important duty of a Government, namely, to preserve the law in all parts of His Majesty's dominions.
MR. STANLEY WILSON
said he should like to say one or two words in regard to the reduction his hon. and gallant friend had moved. He was glad that the Attorney-General had repudiated the views of the hon. Member for Crewe with regard to criminal offences in Ireland. After the brilliant speech of the noble Lord, and the severe castigation that he had administered to the hon. Member, it was unnecessary for anybody else to deal with him. He could not help expressing surprise at the absence of hon. Members below the Gangway on such an occasion when an important debate was going on with regard to the country from which they came. And where were the Labour Members who were always ready to protest against unnecessary expenditure, and where were those stringent economists many of whom had gained seats at the last general election by pledging themselves to economy? They were asked to pass a Vote of £2,500 for the bad administration of the present Government in Ireland in dealing with these prosecutions, money which had been absolutely wasted, and might just as well have been thrown into the sea. As everybody realised, never probably in the history of Ireland had the country been in a worse condition than during the last two or three months. He heard voices protesting against that statement, but he stuck to it, and he said moreover that that condition was due to the methods of His Majesty's Government. They were asked to pay this large increase, and he was there to make a strong protest against it. £1,500 of this money went into the pockets of the titular head of the legal profession in Ireland and his understudy. These hon. Gentlemen had absolutely failed to do their duty in Ireland. They had absolutely failed to gain convictions in any prosecutions they had brought about, even in cases where the guilt was obvious to anybody who heard the case as it was being tried. That was solely due to the administration of the Govern- 478 ment. Had they chosen to employ the Crimes Act they could have seen that law and order were enforced, but the Chief Secretary had refused because once he was opposed to the Act. The Government stood convicted of the grossest mismanagement of Irish affairs. It was only last year that the fullest warning was given from those benches by Members from Ireland of what was bound to occur if they continued in the way in which they were going at that time. The Chief Secretary called those hon. Members carrion crows, and up to the present date the right hon. Gentleman had never offered an apology.
MR. STANLEY WILSON
said he was speaking from his own knowledge. He had not made that assertion intentionally and certainly if the right hon. Gentleman had withdrawn that expression he withdrew his own remark. He had risen only to make a strong protest against this unjustifiable expenditure upon the law officers in Ireland.
§ MR. BIRRELL
I cannot, of course, altogether explain the absence of hon. Members below the Gangway, whether they come from Ireland or whether they are Labour Members, but one reason occurs to me why they or any other sensible men should be absent. All this has been said before. I can honestly say that with the exception of a remark or two from the noble Lord, everything has been said before that could possibly be thought of. Possibly to some hon. Members once is enough. As for the general discussion, everybody knows perfectly well that it has been made perfectly plain both by myself and others that there is a strong difference of opinion between us and them as to what was a proper and wise course for the Irish Administration to pursue under the circumstances of last autumn. They say we ought to have taken more active measures, that we ought by enforcing the Crimes Act to have filled the gaols of Galway and Roscommon. We thought otherwise. 479 The allegation that that marvellous fetish, the Crimes Act, has only to be proclaimed in Ireland for peace and order to reign from one end of the country to the other is a ridiculous statement and one that it is impossible to support by any reference to history. I am not going into the question at length. I have stated publicly and privately what my views are on the question. An hon. Gentleman who is not in his place told us that he would never forget as long as he lived the day when I banged the box, and said I would do nothing. But, oddly enough, although the hon. Member declared that that incident had burnt itself into his memory as the most awful within his experience, he nevertheless grossly misquoted the Chief Secretary by ascribing to him the statement that he would do nothing. What I really said was "I won't," meaning thereby that I would not put into force the provisions of the Crimes Act. To say that I meant to do nothing and that my right hon. friend intended to do nothing is disproved by the existence of the Supplementary Vote which the House is discussing. The Irish Office took all the steps which the ordinary law provided. What do hon. Members want? Do they say that we are not to prosecute these persons or put the ordinary law in motion? And do they say that we ought not to have changed the venue to Dublin in order to obtain a trial of persons not on the spot where the crimes took place? Do they say that we were not to employ the law officers of the Crown, when it was put to us by hon. Members opposite that we should employ these most expensive functionaries? In order to give importance to these trials we did employ them, at all events, hence this £2,500 and we have to pay them. I do not wish to go into the question of whether the law officers are paid too much or not. It would be most disagreeable for me, situated as I am, to do so, but no doubt the question will some day be raised and it will be most dis- 480 agreeable to my right hon. friends. But at any rate we were bound to put the only law into operation, and we did it. It cost more money than we estimated and we have to come for a further Vote. Then hon. Members say: What did you get for your money?" That is another important peculiarity of theirs. They evidently want a butcher's bill to show that something happened and that certain convictions followed. Certain convictions did follow as a matter of fact. I cannot see how hon. Members can object to the Vote unless they argue that we should have disregarded the law from the first, and say that the state of things in Ireland in connection with cattle-driving was so alarming and appalling that the ordinary law should be put on one side. This Vote is caused by our putting the law into force. Nobody can deny that we have put it into force in many cases. Every step known to the ordinary law was taken in our anxious endeavour to obtain the ends of justice through and by the ordinary law. This is a proposition which I shall never be ashamed of. I am surprised that the noble Lord, who is a stickler, I hope, for the English Constitution in all its forms, should seem to think that it was our duty at once to seek to disregard the ordinary law and rush into extraordinary, unpopular, and demoralising methods. The noble Lord dislikes historical palliations of cattle-driving, and I quite agree, if we could only wipe out history, if we could say with the old woman that she never read history on the ground that bygones should be bygones. What happened when I made that very remark at luncheon at Londonderry, and said—What a glorious thing it would be if only you could forget your glorious history, your famous siege, your walls, your statues, and other memorials of that old world terrible and violent dispute"?A Tory newspaper next morning had a most furious article referring to that speech, and accused me of having the 481 impudence to come down to Londonderry and say I did not want to see their walls, or their statues, or their monuments, simply because I said I hoped to live to see these old, unhappy, far off things forgotten. You cannot do that even in England. I remember last year being in charge of an Education Bill. Had not history something to do with that? Had not the noble Lord's history something to do with that? I agree with the noble Lord, if only we could induce Ireland and England to forget these things and look on the situation both as regards education in England, and law and order in Ireland, from the point of view of how things exist at the present moment rather than go back to those old world stories, it would be a desirable thing. If the noble Lord is ever Chief Secretary for Ireland, as I understand he may be next year—if we are all to be swept away and we are to have firm law and order established in the next nine months, surely it is really not worth while for the House to trouble itself much longer over this £2,500.
§ *MR. STUART WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)
I will make one more effort to convince the Chief Secretary that the action of my hon. friends behind me from Ireland are not quite so child-like as the right hon. Gentleman would have it appear. Their objection is that these jury trials and expensive changes of venue were taken at a stage long after it had become apparent that they were totally futile. Nobody has ever said that the Crimes Act is a talisman or a fetish containing any magic for doing away with crime, but it enables a great many of these cases to be dealt with by summary jurisdiction, and this in itself would have produced the necessary effect upon the minds of evildoers. I will tell the Chief Secretary what some of us think of his conduct in not making use of the Crimes Act. We think it is pedantic and pharasaical, if not some- 482 thing worse, for it is accompanied by a cynical indifference to the sufferings of individuals, which ought not to have been indulged in by a British Minister.
§ MR. BYLES (Salford, N.)
said he had risen only for a minute to say that there were many hon. Members on that side of the House who absolutely disagreed with the statements which had just been made, and who were desirous of supporting the Chief Secretary in the course which he had taken. Hon. Members on the opposite side of the House wanted the right hon. Gentleman to put the Crimes Act in, force; but they must know, and everybody who had looked at recent Irish history must know that to have adopted the Crimes Act during this recent agitation would have made things ten times worse. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, by gentle means and patience quelled the agitation which was troublesome, and had succeeded in bringing Ireland out of it even though it had a strong grievance behind it, because of these untenanted grazing farms being let under a system which was an evasion of all the advantages which recent land legislation had granted to Ireland, namely, the eleven months system under which no tenancy could grow up. Everyone knew that in Ireland the moment a man, went on the land the tenant right began to inure, but in these cases the men did not become tenants at all, they only acquired the right for their cattle to go on the ground and eat the grass. It seemed to him to be a strange thing that hon. Members opposite should resist so long for a second time this Vote for criminal prosecutions when the whole of their speeches had been devoted to saying that there had not been criminal prosecutions enough. It seemed to him a most inconsistent position for men who were complaining that the Government had not used the administration of the law in overtaking criminals to set to work to complain of what they had 483 done. He could only say once more that he and his fellow Members on that side of the House had the greatest admiration for the patience and the reticence which had been shown by the Chief Secretary in this matter, and were delighted at the success which he had achieved. The reason they had not had more convictions was obvious. When hon. Members opposite set about prosecutions they meant to have convictions even if it was necessary that the judge or magistrate should take a conviction in his pocket. [Cries of "Withdraw."] The reason why they could not get convictions from Irish juries was because the neighbours of the accused were in sympathy with him. [Ironical cries of "Hear, hear."] Well, what was the jury system at all except, as he understood it, the right of trial, which had been acquired and enjoyed for so many centuries, by twelve of one's peers. If their peers did not disapprove of what they had done then they went free.
§ LORD R. CECIL
said he would remind the hon. Gentleman that every juryman was sworn to find a verdict according to the evidence whether he approved or disapproved.
§ MR. BYLES
said in that case it appeared that the juries did not think the evidence sufficient, and hon. Members opposite must remember that it was impossible to coerce a nation. What the Government had been doing was to try to persuade the people to respect the law which governed them. Why did the people despise the law? Because we had not given them laws of which they approved, and unless a Government could govern a nation in accordance with the will of a nation they had failed. The object of the present Government was to make people in Ireland respect the law as the people in England and Scotland respected it, 484 and in that endeavour the Government had the support of their followers.
§ SIR P. BANBURY
said he would ask the hon. Member to remember that a nation could not be coerced when the Licensing Bill came on for Second Reading. He had only risen to address a Question to the Chief Secretary, who had waxed extremely indignant because, he said, hon. Members on that side of the House desired him to do something, and when he had done something, and there had been an increase in the law charges, they objected to pay for putting the ordinary law into motion. The right hon. Gentleman said: "Enough of this objection to this £2,500. Let us have our £2,500 and go home to dinner." He did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the House when the Attorney-General for Ireland said that the Government would not pack juries in order to obtain convictions. Of course the word "packed" might be taken in two senses, and what the Irish Nationalists called "packing" was challenging juries who were likely to disregard their oath, and not return a verdict according to the evidence. What they on that side of the House meant was putting on the jury a man who would obey his oath, and who when a breach of the law had been proved, would give a verdict which would secure a conviction. It seemed to him that the Chief Secretary made a little slip when he said that they had taken all the steps they could to put the ordinary law in force. In England and Scotland, and he thought it was the same in Ireland, a juror could be challenged if it was thought that he was interested on either side or that he was not likely to do his duty according to his oath. He presumed that that was correct as he had not been interrupted. That being so, the argument brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman was fallacious.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
said the right hot. Gentleman had not taken all the steps he could to enforce the ordinary law.
§ SIR F. BANBURY
asked, if that was so, how the Attorney-General reconciled that statement with the statement that he would not pack juries to obtain convictions. The challenging of jurors was done to remove men who, it was thought, would not give a verdict in accordance with the evidence, and to put on others who would. The Nationalist Members called that packing. That was a misnomer, and the word should never have been applied. He felt a certain amount of sorrow for the Attorney-General in having to get up and answer the charge brought against him. It seemed to him that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in what in slang language was called a tight place. The last argument advanced was the very worst, namely, that the present Government were doing no worse than the Unionist Government did ten or fifteen years ago, because they were spending no more money. By those words the right hon. and learned Gentleman condemned himself. Ten or fifteen years ago the Unionist
§ Government spent a certain amount of money in enforcing law and order, and the result was that when the Chief Secretary took office he said that Ireland was in a more peaceful state than it had been for 600 years. Was it not worth while to spend a little money to obtain that result? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had followed in the footsteps of the Unionist Government the House would not have been asked to vote this additional sum. He had no objection to vote not only what was asked, but £5,000 if the right hon. Gentleman did something for it, but he did object to pay him fees to conduct cases in Court when he knew perfectly well what was going to happen. If he did not know, he was not fit for the great position which he occupied. Over and over again Judges had summed up for convictions and over and over again juries had disagreed or acquitted the persons accused. They could not get him to believe that a lawyer of the right hon. Gentleman's position and learning did not know when he went into Court that he was going to get a good fee and nothing else.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 216; Noes, 49. (Division List No. 45.)489
|Ainsworth, John Stirling||Boulton, A. C. F.||Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W|
|Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)||Bowerman, C. W.||Compton-Rickett, Sir J.|
|Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry||Bramsdon, T. A.||Corbett, C H (Sussex, E. Grinst'd|
|Astbury, John Meir||Branch, James||Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.|
|Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)||Brigg, John||Cotton, Sir H. J. S.|
|Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.)||Bright, J. A.||Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)|
|Balfour, Robert (Lanark)||Bryce, J. Annan||Crean, Eugene|
|Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)||Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn||Cremer, Sir William Randal|
|Barker, John||Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas||Crooks, William|
|Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)||Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles||Davies, David (Montgomery Co.|
|Barlow, Percy (Bedford)||Byles, William Pollard||Davies, Timothy (Fulham)|
|Barnes, G. N.||Cameron, Robert||Davies, W Howell (Bristol, S.)|
|Beale, W. P.||Carr-Gomm, H. W.||Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)|
|Beaumont, Hon. Hubert||Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight||Dewar, Sir J. A. (Inverness-sh.)|
|Bell, Richard||Cawley, Sir Frederick||Dickinson, W. H (St. Pancras, N.|
|Bellairs, Carlyon||Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.||Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness|
|Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo.||Cleland, J. W.||Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)|
|Berridge, T. H. D.||Clough, William||Elibank, Master of|
|Bethell, Sir J. H (Essex, Romf'rd||Clynes, J. R.||Essex, R. W.|
|Bethell, T. R, (Essex, Maldon)||Cobbold, Felix Thornley||Esslemont, George Birnie|
|Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine||Collins, Stephen (Lambeth)||Everett, R. Lacey|
|Faber, G. H. (Boston)||Lupton, Arnold||Shackleton, David James|
|Fenwick, Charles||Luttrell, Hugh Fownes||Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)|
|Ferens, T. R.||Lynch, H. B.||Shipman, Dr. John G.|
|Fiennes, Hon Eustace||Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester)||Silcock, Thomas Ball|
|Findlay, Alexander||Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk B'ghs)||Simon, John Allsebrook|
|Fuller, John Michael F.||Mackarness, Frederic C.||Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John|
|Fullerton, Hugh||M'Callum, John M.||Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie|
|Gill, A. H.||M'Crae, George||Soares, Ernest J.|
|Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John||M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester)||Stewart, Halley (Greenock)|
|Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.)||M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)||Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)|
|Glover, Thomas||M'Micking, Major G.||Straus, B. S. (Mile End)|
|Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford||Maddison, Frederick||Stuart, James (Sunderland)|
|Gooch, George Peabody||Manfield, Harry (Northants)||Summerbell, T.|
|Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)||Markham, Arthur Basil||Taylor, John W. (Durham)|
|Gulland, John W.||Massie, J.||Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)|
|Gurdon, Rt Hn. Sir W. Brampton||Menzies, Walter||Tennant, Sir Edward (Salisbury|
|Hall, Frederick||Micklem, Nathaniel||Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)|
|Hart-Davies, T.||Montagu, E. S.||Thomasson, Franklin|
|Harvey, W. E. (Derbyshire, N. E.||Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen||Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E.|
|Haslam, James (Derbyshire)||Morley, Rt. Hon. John||Tomkinson, James|
|Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)||Morse, L. L.||Torrance, Sir A. M.|
|Hazel, Dr. A. E.||Morton, Alpheus Cleophas||Toulmin, George|
|Hemmerde, Edward George||Murray, James||Trevelyan, Charles Philips|
|Henderson, Arthur (Durham)||Myer, Horatio||Verney, F. W.|
|Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.)||Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)||Walsh, Stephen|
|Henry, Charles S.||Nicholls, George||Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent)|
|Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.)||Nicholson, Charles N. (Doncast'r||Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton|
|Higham, John Sharp||Norton, Capt. Cecil William||Waring, Walter|
|Hodge, John||Nuttall, Harry||Wason, Rt. Hn E. (Clackmannan.|
|Holden, E. Hopkinson||Parker, James (Halifax)||Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney)|
|Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)||Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek)||Waterlow, D. S.|
|Hope, W. Bateman (Somerset, N||Pearce, William (Limehouse)||Watt, Henry A.|
|Horniman, Emslie John||Piekersgill, Edward Hare||Weir, James Galloway|
|Howard, Hon. Geoffrey||Priestley, W. E. B. (Bradford, E.)||Whitbread, Howard|
|Hudson, Walter||Radford, G. H.||White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)|
|Hyde, Clarendon||Raphael, Herbert H.||White, Luke (York, E. R.)|
|Jardine, Sir J.||Rees, J. D.||Whitley, John Henry (Halifax)|
|Johnson, John (Gateshead)||Rendall, Athelstan||Wiles, Thomas|
|Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)||Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n||Williamson, A.|
|Jones, William (Carnarvonshire||Ridsdale, E. A.||Wills, Arthur Walters|
|Jowett, F. W.||Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)||Wilson, Henry J. (York, W. R.)|
|Kekewich, Sir George||Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradf'rd||Wilson, John (Durham, Mid)|
|King, Alfred John (Knutsford)||Robson, Sir William Snowdon||Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)|
|Laidlaw, Robert||Rogers, F. E. Newman||Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)|
|Lambert, George||Rose, Charles Day||Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Lamont, Norman||Rowlands, J.||Wood, T. M'Kinnon|
|Layland-Barratt, Francis||Runciman, Walter||Yoxall, James Henry|
|Lehmann, R. C.||Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)|
|Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich)||Scarisbrick, T. T. L.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr J. A. Pease.|
|Levy, Sir Maurice||Sears, J. E.|
|Lewis, John Herbert||Seaverns, J. H.|
|Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David||Seddon, J.|
|Lough, Thomas||Seely, Colonel|
|Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex. F||Craik, Sir Henry||Kimber, Sir Henry|
|Anson, Sir William Reynell||Du Cros, Arthur Philip||Morpeth, Viscount|
|Balcarres, Lord||Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan||Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)|
|Balfour, Rt Hn. A. J (City Lond.)||Fell, Arthur||Percy, Earl|
|Banbury, Sir Frederick George||Fletcher, J. S.||Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel|
|Barrie, H. T. (Londonderry, N.)||Forster, Henry William||Ronaldshay, Earl of|
|Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks||Gretton, John||Rutherford, John (Lancashire)|
|Beckett, Hon. Gervase||Guinness, Walter Edward||Rutherford, W. W. (Liverpool)|
|Bignold, Sir Arthur||Hamilton, Marquess of||Sloan, Thomas Henry|
|Boyle, Sir Edward||Harrison-Broadley, H. B.||Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)|
|Bridgeman, W. Clive||Hay, Hon. Claude George||Starkey, John R|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A (Wore||Heaton, John Henniker||Stone, Sir Benjamin|
|Clive Perey Archer||Houston, Robert Paterson||Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)|
|Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.||Hunt, Rowland||Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark)|
|Corbett, A. Cameron (Glasgow)|
|Tuke, Sir John Batty||Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart-||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Captain Craig and Mr. T. L. Corbett.|
|Valentia, Viscount||Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George|
|Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E. R||Younger, George|
Question, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Joseph Pease)—put, and agreed to.