Commons Sitting of 28 May 1886

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Conveyancing (Scotland) Act (1874) Amendment (No. 2) * [242].
Second Reading—Government of Ireland [181] [Seventh Night], debate further adjourned; West Indian Incumbered Estates [233]; British North America [234]; Jurors' Detention * [202].
Committee—Report—Losses by Riot (Compensation) [209]; Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act (1875) Amendment [211–241].
Committee—Report—Third Reading—Post Office Sites (re-comm.) * [148–229], and passed.
Considered as amended—Third Reading—Arms (Ireland) [240], and passed.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—Second Reading—Gas (No. 2) * [214].
Report—Gas and Water* [206]; Water* [207].

QUESTIONS.

  METROPOLITAN ASYLUMS BOARD— ANNUAL INSPECTION OF ASYLUMS.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he is aware that the annual inspections by the Metropolitan Asylums Board of the four non-infectious establishments under their control are followed by entertainments on a lavish scale to the managers and their friends at the expense of the metropolitan ratepayers; whether it is the fact that, at a recent meeting of the Board, Sir Edmund Currie, the Vice Chairman, estimated the cost of each of these four annual entertainments at £100, and stated that the inspection, which was the pretext for their being given, was for all practical purposes worthless; and, whether, under these circumstances, the Local Government Board will for the future disallow the cost of these festivities?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. STANSFELD): It has been the practice for the Managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District to have annual inspections of the Leavesden, Caterham, and Darenth Asylums, and the ship Enmouth. The Chairmen and other influential members of the Boards of Guardians in the Metropolis, and representatives of the Press are invited to attend on these occasions, and refreshments are provided.

  307
  The cost of the four annual inspections in 1885 amounted to £245. This is a considerable reduction upon the amount expended in some previous years, and the Board trust that the expenditure will be still further reduced. It is to be borne in mind that these annual inspections are the occasions when the Asylums are officially visited by the Managers who are not on the Committees for the management of those Asylums.

  DOMINION OF CANADA—EXTRADITION ACT, 1877.
  MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Imperial Government is aware that the American Continent forms the principal refuge for fugitives from British justice; if it is a fact that the Parliament of Canada long since passed a Law to check the influx of American fugitives into the Dominion, to take effect as soon as the relations between the two peoples of the Anglo-Saxon race could be placed on a footing more consonant with the friendship existing between them and with modern civilisation; and, if steps are being taken to conclude a new Treaty of Extradition to replace the one of 1842, extending to only six crimes, between Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland and the United States of America; and, in such case, what prospect there is of its early completion?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): The Government of Her Majesty the Queen are not in possession of any exact statistics as to the various refuges of fugitives from British justice. No law of the nature described in the second paragraph of the hon. Member's Question is known to have been passed by the Parliament of Canada, for I cannot suppose that his expression refers to the general Extradition Act passed by Canada in 1877, which follows very closely the Imperial Act of 1870, and which provides for carrying into effect existing or future Extradition Treaties between Her Majesty and Foreign Powers. Negotiations for the conclusion of more satisfactory arrangements in regard to extradition between Her Majesty's Dominions and the United States, are at this moment in progress, and it is hoped may shortly be completed.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BELFAST BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. CRILLYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the attention of the Local Government Board has been called to the Belfast newspaper reports of the proceedings of the Belfast Board of Guardians at their meeting of the 16th March 1886, in which Mr. Mitchell, one of the members, made a report against John Y. Brown's conduct, as contractor for the hardware to the union for the year ending 25th March 1886; is it true that Brown supplied goods inferior to sample (previous to his arrangement in bankruptcy) and as a part of his contract; is it a fact that sometimes bogus invoices were delivered to the workhouse master, as well as invoices on which no prices were set forth; is it true, as the master stated, that Brown delivered goods frequently without orders from any person in authority, and that he (the master) received them into stock, and passed the accounts to the guardians for payment, and which payments Brown duly received until the irregularities were detected, and the frauds exposed by Mr. Mitchell, has the extent of the impositions been as yet ascertained; and, if so, have the contractor or his sureties been made accountable to the ratepayers; is it true that Mr. Hamilton, the Poor Law Inspector, delivered a panegyric on the management of the Belfast Workhouse in his last half-yearly report to the guardians, and made no reference to this apparent collusion between Brown and the master; and, will the Local Government Board institute any inquiry into his case?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY: Mr. Speaker, this matter, I understand, has been under investigation by a Committee of the Guardians, and the result has been that the only substantial fault to be found is that certain goods supplied by Brown outside his contract, but on proper authority, were shown to have been overcharged for. The amount of the overcharge is £2. Mr. Brown explained that the reason was that the usual trade discount was not allowed. The account was not paid, and it was ordered that this amount be deducted from it. The Master denies having made

  309
  any such statement as is attributed to him. It is quite true that the Inspector spoke favourably of the general management of the workhouse.

  POST OFFICE—POST CARDS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Why the halfpenny Post Cards cost more than a halfpenny each, while the penny Post Cards are sold at one penny each?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): In answer to the hon. Member's Question, I have to state that as regards Inland Post Cards, the extra amount charged is only sufficient to recoup the State for the cost of material, custody, and distribution. The price of the Foreign Cards is fixed at 1d. (10 centimes) by the Postal Union Convention.

  LICENSING LAWS, 1883–4–5—RETURNS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, What are the difficulties which prevent his laying upon the Table of the House, the Returns asked for showing the number of convictions for breaches of the Licensing Laws during the years 1883, 1884, and 1885; the number of licences granted for houses, the registered owners of which are brewers, distillers, or holders of wholesale licences for the sale of wines, spirits, or beer, and other information of a similar character of which notice has been given him?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that the reason why I should not feel justified in agreeing to this Return is that owing to the great variety of detailed information which would have to be collected from every part of the country, the result obtained would not, in my opinion, justify the necessary expenditure of time and money. The hon. Member is, I believe, aware that a part of the information he desires is to be found in the published volumes of judicial statistics.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL—CIVIL SERVANTS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Chief Sec-
  310
  retary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the sum total of the salaries and wages in the Civil Service proposed to be placed under the control of the Irish Executive by the Government of Ireland Bill; whether the following list correctly represents the offices and services which will be transferred from the Imperial to Irish control:—Board of Works, Chief Secretary's Office, Charitable Donations, Local Government Board, Grants in aid of Schoolmasters and Doctors, Public Works, Registrar General's Office, Record Office, Valuation and Boundary Survey, Law Charges, Supreme Court of Judicature, Court of Bankruptcy, Registry of Deeds, Registry of Judgments, Land Commissioners, County Court Offices, Reformatory Dundrum, Dublin Metropolitan Police, Constabulary, Constabulary Pensions, and Prisons; and, what is the total number of separate appointments for which provision is made in the Irish Civil Service Estimates?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): It is extremely difficult to answer as satisfactorily as I should like the inquiry of the hon. Member. In the first place, the Bill does not specify what branches of the Civil Service are to be transferred to the Irish Executive. In the second place, the continuance of branches will depend on the view taken by the Irish Executive of its own requirements. Then, again, it is not easy to define a Civil servant. However, I am disposed to think that the information which the hon. Member wishes to obtain would, as regards the permanent service as it stands now, subject to any special reservations in the Bill and exclusive, of course, of Customs and Excise, be generally interesting, and I shall be prepared to give the Return if it is confined to cases in which (1) the whole salary is now voted by Parliament; (2) the official's whole time is at the disposal of the public; and (3) the appointment carries pension or gratuity on discharge. These are the three limitations which, I think, constitute the definition of a Civil servant within the sense of the Question. The appointments might conveniently be classed in such a Return under three heads—(a) Heads of Departments, superior appointments, and clerical staff; (b) messengers and servants; and (c) any others.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman refuse to give those local officers, subsidized by the Central Government, over which the Executive of Ireland would have power to withdraw the salary and dismiss the officer?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: No, Sir. In my proposed Return I would not include cases of that description.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Shall I move for the Return?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: Yes; I think that would be the most convenient course.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there are 3,000 of these local officers which will be under the authority of the Irish Executive?
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I was not aware. I will make a little further inquiry, and see if it is possible to include them in the Return, though I am doubtful about it.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS—GRAIN BAGS—RUSSIAN REGULATIONS.
  MR. KINGasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the attention of the Secretary of State was called in December last to the fact that the Russian Government had made regulations imposing a duty on jute bags used by British steamers in packing grain at Odessa and other Russian ports for English ports; whether every British vessel having bags on board for such purpose, as provided under our Merchant Shipping Laws, is compelled, before using them at Russian ports, to discharge them, to pay cartage on them to and from the Custom House, and to pay the Russian duty as on imported goods, involving delay and the payment of duty over and over again on the same bags; and, whether any correspondence has taken place with the Russian Government on the subject of this impost, and with what result?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BEYCE): The attention of the Secretary of State was called in July last to the regulations complained of, which, however, are stated by the Russian Government not to be new. Their result is in the main correctly stated in the second paragraph of the Question. Representations have
  312
  been made to the Russian Government on the subject, and it is still the subject of active correspondence between Her Majesty's Ambassador at St. Petersburg and the Russian Government.
  MR. SAUNDERSasked whether the hon. Gentleman could produce the correspondence to which he referred for the advantage of the merchants interested?
  MR. BRYCEsaid, that the Correspondence was not yet completed, but when completed he thought it might be produced. It should be carefully looked up to see whether that could be done.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT—RATING OF LUNATIC ASYLUMS, &c.
  MR. KIMBERasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, in any scheme of Local Self Government which may be in contemplation for England by Her Majesty's Ministers, it is proposed that the rating of lunatic asylums, and also of land and buildings belonging to or occupied by the Crown, should be made upon an equally full valuation with private property in the same locality or rating district?
  THE PRESIDENT (Mr. STANSFELD): I am not prepared to make any statement as to the scheme of Local Government contemplated by Her Majesty's Government; but I may say that I do not think it would be expedient to attempt to deal with questions as to the rating of particular classes of property in a Bill having for its primary object the constitution of Loyal Authorities and the determination of the areas within which they shall have jurisdiction.
  MR. KIMBERasked whether the right hon. Gentleman had any intention of bringing in a rating Bill?
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he did not expect to bring in such a Bill this Session.

  SEA FISHERIES (IRELAND)—TRAWLING ON THE COAST OF DONEGAL.
  MR. BERNARD KELLYasked the Chief Secretery to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, on the 10th May, a memorial was forwarded by the fishermen of St. John's Point and Inver districts, county Donegal, to the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries, praying for an inquiry

  313
  into the trawling in Donegal, Inver, and Killybeys Bays; and, whether any steps have been taken with the view of rectifying the grievances complained of by the memorialists; and, if not, whether the Government will urge upon the proper authorities the desirability of prompt action in the matter?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The inquiry in which the hon. Member is interested will form one of a series on the same subject which the Inspectors of Fisheries intend to hold as soon as ever their engagements will permit of their doing so.

  POST OFFICE—MAILS TO THE OUTER ISLES (SCOTLAND).
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If the reason why the steamer carrying the mails to the outer isles does not call at Tobermory was because the Government was informed that the pier dues would amount to £100 or £150 per annum; and, whether it is the fact that the Post Office official who visited the district was informed that the pier dues would not exceed £50?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The expediency of requiring the mail steamer to call at Tobermory did not depend exclusively upon the amount of pier dues payable. Other considerations influenced the Postmaster General in refusing the application. No officer of the Post Office was informed that the pier dues would not exceed £50 a-year.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked if the hon. Gentleman could state what the dues would amount to if the steamers called there?
  MR. HENRY H. FOWLER: No, I could not.

  FISHING PRIVILEGES (SCOTLAND)—RETURN.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary to the Treasury, When the Return relating to fishing privileges in Scotland, granted on the 6th of February, will be laid upon the Table?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): I hope to lay the Return in question on the Table on Monday evening.

  ARMY—ARTILLERY BARRACKS AT SCARBOROUGH.
  SIR GEORGE SITWELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is the intention of the Government to build Artillery Barracks at Scarborough; and, if so, at what date the work is likely to be commenced?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN)&c.): According to present arrangements, it is in about three months' time intended to commence the erection of barracks at Scarborough for the depôt of the Northern Division of Royal Artillery.

  BULGARIA—ALLEGED CONSPIRACY.
  SIR ROBERT PEELasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any information has reached Her Majesty's Government on the subject of a conspiracy, alleged to have been fomented by Russian agents, and confirmed by Circular Note of the Bulgarian Minister of Foreign Affairs to the Prefects of the Province of Philippopolis, for the assassination of Prince Alexander of Bulgaria and of his Prime Minister; whether Her Majesty's Government has received any information tending to confirm the following statement, which has obtained currency from a usually well authenticated source, dated Sofia, May 22:—
  "There is now little doubt that the plot against the Prince formed only part of a general conspiracy to create disturbances and produce anarchy throughout the Country, and thus furnish a pretext for a Russian occupation, which the Czar's Representative at Philippopolis has been openly promising his adherents in the near future;"
  and, whether any representations have been addressed by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Russia deprecating a course of action so calculated to disturb the peace of Europe?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BEYCE): Her Majesty's Government have received information that a plot was discovered at Bourgas to waylay Prince Alexander and take him alive, if possible, on board ship, to kill the Prime Minister and Prefect of Bourgas, and to provoke a revolution. Her Majesty's Government know nothing as to any action of Russian agents in the matter, and possess no facts that would tend to justify any

  315
  representation to the Government of Russia.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—GREENWICH PARK—HOURS OF OPENING.
  MR. EVELYNasked the honourable Member for North West Staffordshire, Whether it is the fact that that Greenwich Park is not open to the public before seven a.m., to the great inconvenience of neighbouring residents, and especially of working men; and, whether, since other Royal Parks are open at five a.m., there would be any objection to placing Greenwich Park under similar regulations to those of the other Royal Parks?
  MR. LEVESON GOWER (A LORD of the TREASURY): This question has been considered on several occasions. Hyde Park alone is open all the year round at 5 A.M., and this can be done because the Park is under the charge of the Metropolitan Police. In the case of Greenwich Park, the opening of the gates at 5 A.M. would entail an addition to the force of Park constables employed at an estimated increase of expense of at least £ 150 a-year. If sufficient evidence were laid before the First Commissioner that the number of persons to be benefited by the earlier opening of the Park would justify the increased expenditure, he would be prepared to submit the matter to the Treasury in connection with the Estimates of next year; but it must be borne in mind that the question of Greenwich Park can scarcely be decided by itself, and that similar applications in regard to other Parks would, if entertained, involve a very material increase in the expenditure.

  THE COLONIAL AND INDIAN EXHIBITION—DUTIES ON GOLD AND SILVER PLATE.
  MR. KIMBERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Duties of 17 s. per ounce and 1s. 6d. per ounce respectively, have been paid on the Foreign gold and silver plate exhibited in the Colonial Exhibition; and, whether exhibitors have paid the £5 15 s. charge for a Licence to deal in gold and silver plate?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): No duty has been paid upon any gold
  316
  and silver plate since its deposit in the Exhibition. Up to the present time only one licence has been taken out, which is for a quarter of a year.

  PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— ARKLOW HARBOUR WORKS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he will lay the further Papers, a list of which has been submitted to him, in reference to Arklow Harbour, upon the Table?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The Papers for which the hon. Member has asked will be included in those about to be presented to the House on the subject of Arklow Harbour, with one exception—namely, a Report from the Commissioners of Public Works to the Treasury.

  POST OFFICE—ABSTRACTION OF NEWSPAPERS.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Is the Postmaster General aware that during the past ten years frequent complaints have been made of the abstraction of large numbers of newspapers, sent by people in this Country to their relatives abroad, particularly in India and Australia; whether he has heard that these newspapers are taken out and read by people on board ship; and, whether the postal authorities have ever made special efforts to discover the culprits, and with what results?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): Such complaints have on two occasions been made to the Post Office, but on investigation they have proved to be unfounded. If the hon. Member will furnish the Postmaster General with the particulars of any case of the kind which has come to his knowledge, it shall be fully investigated.

  GOVERNMENT OF INDIA—THE JOINT COMMITTEE.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL&c.)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If the Government had made up their minds what was to be done about the Government of India Committee, the Motion for which had been on the Paper for months?
  THE FIRST LORD (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): On the termination of the debate, which is to be resumed to-night, we shall be in a position then to say what shall be done.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL— POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

    MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, last night the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister referred me to the ordinary channels of information for a full report of the statement made by him at a certain meeting held yesterday, and he also said in this House that he had stated that—
    "No application would be made to the House to take further steps in the prosecution of the Government of Ireland Bill within the compass of the ordinary Session of Parliament."
    That was a rather mysterious answer, and on referring to the report this morning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech I find that the right hon. Gentleman himself explained that it was susceptible of two interpretations. One would be to keep the Bill alive for the purpose of proceeding in the autumn with the principal clauses in it; and the other would be to allow the Session to be wound up, and to summon Parliament again on an early day for a fresh Session, and in that fresh Session to reintroduce the Bill with the necessary Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman is reported to have gone on to say that he was "inclined to think that the latter would be the better course." My Question is, which of these two courses do Her Majesty's Government propose to adopt?
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has quoted from a report—which I have no doubt is either perfectly or substantially correct—of the words used by me yesterday, and he has also quoted with perfect accuracy the answer made by me to him yesterday in this House. I did point out yesterday at the Foreign Office that there were two methods by which effect might be given to what we might consider to be our duty in the prosecution of this great subject, consistently with the promise I made as a positive announcement, that we should not, after the second reading,
    318
    ask the House to take any further steps for the prosecution of the remaining stages of the Bill within the limits of an ordinary Session. One of these methods was reserving the consideration of the Bill in Committee in an Autumn Sitting; and the other method was to allow the Bill to lapse during the present Session and to advise Her Majesty to summon Parliament at a very early period for the purpose of the immediate reintroduction of the Bill. I also stated, and I think I had the authority of my Colleagues for doing so, that we were inclined to prefer the latter method. I do think that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) will feel that I ought not to be called upon at this moment to make a statement which might involve the Prorogation of Parliament and its reassembling in reply to a mere question in Parliament a more positive announcement than that I have now made. Reference must be made elsewhere before I proceed to give that authoritative information to the House; but there is nothing at all improper in asking for that information, and on an early day I may be in a position to give it.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: The answer of the right hon. Gentleman is so unsatisfactory that I feel bound to ask the leave of the House to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the statements of Her Majesty's Government as to the future proceedings on the Government of Ireland Bill.
    The pleasure of the House not having been signified—
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman proposes to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing "a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the statements of Her Majesty's Government as to the future proceedings on the Government of Ireland Bill." I have to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is supported by 40 Members?
    And not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen in their places:—
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I may venture to remind the House that throughout the whole consideration of this important question of the future

    319
    Government of Ireland there is one thing which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has put prominently in the foreground as the main justification of his proposals, and that is the extreme urgency of grappling with the question of the restoration of social order in Ireland. In his speech on the second reading of this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman stated that the change which he proposed in the Government of Ireland was "proposed by him in order to meet the first necessity of civilized society." The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "Social order is not broken up in Ireland—it is undermined—it is sapped, and by general and universal confession it imperatively requires to be dealt with."
    That is the state of things, the urgency of which surely nothing can exceed, to remedy which the right hon. Gentleman has introduced the Government of Ireland Bill and the Land Purchase (Ireland) Bill. Now, Her Majesty's Government took their time—I do not say that they took too much time—in preparing the schemes which they have submitted to the House. The right hon. Gentleman framed a definite plan; he asked the House to come to close quarters with this great question. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] We criticized what we thought the fugitive vitality of this measure. To us it seemed to partake of something of the nature of a dissolving view. But these criticisms were met almost with ridicule by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. He told the country that it had before it a Cabinet "determined in its purpose" and with an "intelligible plan," with the advantage as to aim and principle of "speaking with one voice." He and his Colleagues criticized—indeed, that was the main staple of their speeches on these Bills—the position of those hon. Members who sit on these Benches, of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington), and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). We were told that no one of us had any plan for dealing with the future of Ireland. But, Sir, Her Majesty's Government made it their boast that they had a plan, and that that plan held the field. Does it hold the field now? If so, why is it that it is either to be withdrawn altogether, or to be post-
    320
    poned till such an indefinite period that certainly the urgency of the restoration of social order cannot now be present to the minds of Her Majesty's Government? We are not to be asked, Sir, if I rightly interpret the answer which the right hon. Gentleman has made to me this evening, to vote on the second reading of a definite plan, but to give an indefinite vote on some principle of autonomy for Ireland which no one can explain or put into shape. When Mr. Butt proposed his schemes for Home Rule in Ireland, what was our invariable reply to them? "Give us a definite plan, and then we will tell you what we think about it." How did the right hon. Gentleman characterize Mr. Butt's proposals in 1874? He said—
    "It is a dangerous and tricky system for Parliament to adopt—to encounter national dissatisfaction, with the assurance which may mean anything or nothing—which may perhaps con-conciliate the feelings of the people of Ireland for a moment and attract a passing breath of popularity, but which, when the day of trial comes, may be found entirely to fail. It is a method of proceeding which, whatever Party may be in power, or whatever measures may be adopted, I trust this House will never condescend to adopt."—(3 Hansard, [218] 131.)
    That is the very method of proceeding to which he asks the House now to condescend. Why is this Bill to be practically withdrawn? Is it to be withdrawn, or only to be postponed? Has the right hon. Gentleman found it so impracticable that nobody will vote for it, and therefore he is compelled to deprive the vote on the second reading of any meaning? [Cries of"No!"] Then, why is it to be withdrawn or postponed? Why is the plan of the Government for dealing with this great question of urgency, this important question of social order in Ireland, to be put off for five months till October? What is that but to paralyze the forces of law and order in Ireland, to prolong the uncertainty as to the future, which, from whatever point of view you regard it, must be a great national evil—a peril to the whole social and economic fabric in that country? Why is the Bill to be remodelled? How is it to be remodelled? What have we got before us? I have heard of Governments which have proposed abstract Resolutions instead of Bills, and have been strongly censured by the right hon. Gentleman for so doing. But I never yet heard of

    321
    a Government which brought forward a Bill containing a definite scheme for a great Constitutional change—which boasted that that scheme held the field, and then proposed to withdraw it after getting the consent of the House to it as a mere abstract, indefinite Resolution. That is what I venture to call trifling with Parliament—it is trifling with one of the gravest Constitutional questions with which Parliament can be called on to deal; and, above all, it is trifling with the first duty of the Government—which is to maintain and restore social order in Ireland. Why is it done? Suppose the second reading of this Bill to be carried, what will it be? Why, it will be a "Continuance in Office Bill." This course is to be followed in order that Her Majesty's Government may sit on that Bench without the power of carrying out the policy they have proclaimed. That is a course which should be repudiated by this House, as, I believe, when it is understood, it will be repudiated by the country. That the House may be able to mark its sense of the policy which Her Majesty's Government have adopted, and to extract something like a real definition from the right hon. Gentleman as to what that policy is, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.)
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am struck, Sir, in the first instance, by the warmth with which the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) has found it necessary to address the House; but as I do not believe that the introduction of warmth into these debates in the slightest degree improves the prospect or diminishes the difficulty of dealing with very great questions of State policy, he will excuse me if I studiously avoid all imitation of him in that respect. I must admit there is nothing more easy, and to certain persons nothing is more attractive, than to point a speech by the imputation of offensive motives. The right hon. Gentleman, not satisfied with introducing this discussion, thinks fit to pronounce—and probably hon. Gentlemen behind him are ready to cheer when I refer to his announcement—that obviously the motives of the Government in the decision they are supposed to have arrived at is to insure their own con-
    322
    tinuance in Office. They prefer that to all the considerations connected with the great issue before them, and their minds, in fact, are of such a mean and degrading order that they can alone be acted upon, not by motives of honour and duty, but simply by those of selfishness and personal interest. Sir, I do not condescend to discuss that imputation. In my opinion, the dart aimed at our shield, being such a dart as that, is "Telum imbelle sine ictu." If we had not lived our lives in the face of the public, and if the public, or, at all events, as we think, the predominating portion of the nation that gives us its confidence, should for one moment suppose us to be capable of being influenced by such considerations, the mere denial of them would not prevail. I do not think I am bound to say—I hope it is not pride—but it is the experience of the generous confidence of my follow-countrymen, which makes me know that such a denial and such repudiation of such an imputation is totally unnecessary. I leave the right hon. Gentleman to the enjoyment in his own mind of his accusations. Then, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman says that I have treated this question from the first as one of the utmost urgency, and as a question of social order. It is true, Sir, we have so regarded it, and upon that ground we have urged and shall continue to urge it. But I must observe that social order has been acted upon by the course which the Government have already taken, by the pledges that they have given, and by the prospects of the solemn declaration which they intend to ask the House to make. Social order in Ireland is in about the same state as it was last autumn, when that was contemplated with such complacency by the Members of the late Government. [Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH dissented.] The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head; but if he will let me conclude my sentence I will say with such complacency that when they met Parliament they did not find themselves able to make any announcement on the subject to Parliament in the Speech from the Throne. Such was the condition of Ireland with regard to social order, and such is the condition of Ireland with regard to social order now. No acute crisis with regard to social order in Ireland has been reached, as it was about to be reached,

    323
    and infallibly, in my opinion, would have been reached, when the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues made their famous declaration of January 26. Were the people of Ireland to entertain a doubt as to the earnestness of the Government in the prosecution of this great and important task—were the people of Ireland to be disappointed in the expectations they entertain of the great and solemn declaration by Parliament in favour of their self-government as to Irish matters—then, indeed, we should arrive at a position of difficulty. But I rely upon the people of Ireland to know and to believe that so long as we are acting in good faith for the speediest possible prosecution of this subject, they will themselves rally round the constituted authorities of the country, and enable us still to plead their cause with those appeals to the generosity and prudence of Englishmen and Scotchmen which we have thus far been able to urge. With regard to how far we are to ask this House to press forward, from week to week, or even from month to month, a subject of this kind, it is necessary that the Executive Government should upon their responsibility exercise their own discretion, subject to the correction of the House. As the right hon. Gentleman has read what I stated yesterday, I may refer him to a portion he has not mentioned. We cannot arrive at the second reading of this Bill—probably, though, I have no right or authority to name a day for the division—I assume we cannot arrive at a division before June 1. We have to consider what demand we could fairly make upon the House with regard to the prosecution of its ulterior stages; and we have also to consider this important fact—that in perfectly good faith a large number of Members of this House, who are determined friends of the principles of the Bill, have said that they require more time for the consideration of its provisions. [Ironical cheers and laughter.] I speak in their hearing and without contradiction. I believe I am only giving utterance to a sentiment which is rather widely spread upon this side of the House; certainly it is a sentiment the utterance of which has reached me through a multitude of channels; and as the right hon. Gentleman has reminded me with perfect justice of the urgency which I have ascribed to this question, I must remind him of
    324
    the novelty which he and his Friends have ascribed to it, and of the unpreparedness of Parliament which they and even Gentlemen on this side of the House have constantly alleged for its consideration. But apart from that demand for time, I am bound to look at the nature and character of this Bill, which, although it is not a very bulky Bill, yet contains, in my opinion, a mass of matter, almost every line involving some new proposition—[Ironical cheers from the Opposition]—exactly so—which justifies, and even requires, very prolonged consideration on the part of this House. I may remind this House of what took place five years ago upon a Bill which, I think, difficult as it was and complicated as it was, did not require more consideration at the hands of this House than the present Bill. I mean the Irish Land Bill of 1881. Now, Sir, if my memory serves me right, the House spent more than 50 days of deliberation upon that Bill, and more than 30 days in Committee upon that Bill. I ask what would be our prospects, and how should we be treating the House, and how should we be treating the subject, even were we to endeavour to force forward this Bill at a time of the year when, with reasonable and proper discussion and deliberation, it could not be passed through its ordinary stages within the period which physical as well as social necessities impose upon this House as the annual limit of its arduous labours? Why, Sir, in a case of this kind it may be, and I believe distinctly that in this case it is, the best policy, with a view to expedition and despatch, with a view to attaining with the greatest speed the goal which we hope to reach—it is the best policy, I believe, not to make an untimely and unseasonable demand of that kind. Sir, we have had warnings upon that subject. This Bill has not only to be passed through the House of Commons, but it has to be dealt with in "another place." [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!] Yes, the noble Lord cheers me, and I daresay he is tolerably well aware of the point to which I am about to refer. We know perfectly well that every point that can be taken will be taken against this Bill, and, among others, that of its unseasonable prosecution. What happened to the Ballot Bill? The Ballot Bill was sent to the

    325
    House of Lords—a measure which we of the House of Commons could have supposed the House of Lords might have disposed of—and it did finally dispose of it—in a very few days; yet still, because we sent that Bill to the House of Lords within the first week or 10 days of August—I do not remember the exact day—advantage was taken of that fact to dismiss the Bill for a year. Sir, we do not wish to expose ourselves to risks of that kind. We do not wish to have collateral issues raised upon this Bill. We have raised one of the greatest issues ever submitted to Parliament and the country, and our desire is to keep that issue clear. We feel convinced that as long as we can keep it clear before the nation, and prevent it from being mixed up with other collateral issues, with plausible considerations derived from our mode of managing Business, derived from our unfortunate choice of times for submitting it to the one House or the other—as long as we can avoid this, we have before us a conflict in which we are prepared to go through to the end, and in which we are perfectly confident of the final issue. But, Sir, we will not adopt our rules of tactics from the suggestions of the Opposition. We will give reasonable consideration, as far as we can, to the demands of friends of the Bill. We are, in the conclusion we have arrived at, doing our best, judging for the best, according to our faculties and according to our means, as to the mode by which we should soonest reach the final consummation of this great question. Now, Sir, I might have said to the right hon. Gentleman that this was altogether a premature discussion. I should have thought the time to discuss our proceedings upon the second reading of the Bill was when the Bill had been read a second time; but I do not think fit to take any objection of that kind, because I know I should be open to the reproach, or at least the reproach would certainly be made, that I was endeavouring to evade the issue. But I tell the right hon. Gentleman that we are exercising our best judgment as to the most efficient and effectual means of prosecuting this great subject, and that in the exercise of that judgment we shall choose for ourselves our means and our times of action, and we shall not adopt advice with regard to them from those whom we know to be opposed to
    326
    the principle of our measure, and whom we know to be too ready—as we have had a proof to-night—of taking every collateral and secondary objection to the Bill. Another point has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He says we are going to give an indefinite vote. He says there is a promise—I do not know that he used the word—but he says this Bill is going to be remodelled. He did not read that in the report of my speech this morning. I think that happy word, as applied to the structure of the Bill, is a pure invention of the right hon. Gentleman. I am not aware that there is a shadow or a shred of authority for any such statement.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Reconstructed was the word used.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The noble Lord says "reconstructed" was the word. It is quite true that the word "reconstructed" was used. [Opposition cheers and laughter.] What confidence these Gentlemen who use those means of opposition must have in the rectitude of their own cause and in the far-seeing character of their own statesmanship! The word "reconstructed" was used. Does the noble Lord dare to say it was used with respect to the Bill? [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Yes.] Never! never! It was used with respect to one particular clause of the Bill. This grand attack, founded upon the fact that our Bill was to be remodelled, fails. What a woeful collapse! It is not the Bill that is to be remodelled, it appears, after all. I give the right hon. Gentleman some credit for it, because he had not the patience to read through the report he saw in the papers. He was wearied to death in reading the speech made by me. But the noble Lord spoke boldly, as if he had read it, and now it comes out that he read it wrong. He quotes it wrong, and then, having alleged the remodelling of the Bill, he is obliged to fall back upon the reconstruction of a clause. It was on one clause alone. I am not quite sure, but I think I remember another clause, and possibly other passages of the Bill. I am not quite sure that there are not some other passages of the Bill which would fall under my description with regard to reconstruction. But the whole of those, as I stated yesterday in the most distinct terms, are exclusively upon one point of the Bill. I certainly did

    327
    not exclude Gentlemen from the advantage of any Amendment, compatible with the scope and purpose of the Bill, which we might be able to avail ourselves of if the advantage of time were secured. But the point to which alone reconstruction was to apply was so much of the Bill as touches the future relation of the Representatives of Ireland, whether Peers or Commoners, to the Imperial Parliament. I believe that was made perfectly and absolutely clear. I am a little surprised that the acute intellects on the opposite side of the House should have found themselves puzzled with this portion of the alphabet of the subject. Then the right hon. Gentleman quotes words against me that apply to an abstract Resolution, and he says we are to ask the House to vote for something which is of the nature of an abstract Resolution—something or other about autonomy in Ireland which nobody can understand and nobody can define. At any rate, we have been able to define the subject of this autonomy in Ireland sufficiently to arouse the very determined and, perhaps, a little embittered hostility of hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. I do not understand why they should complain so much of the absence of definition. Unhappily, many of those on this side of the House have likewise found our description of the Bill sufficiently definite to array them in a most deliberate and determined opposition—a most important section of the Liberal Party, which I am afraid we have no hope of mollifying or converting. But, Sir, our definitions, as I have often said, may have varied in terms, though I believe they have never varied in substance. If I had been aware of the right hon. Gentleman's intention, I would, for greater accuracy, have brought down the note I made of the very words which I used yesterday in regard to the principal purpose and scope of this Bill, which principal purpose and scope I stated yesterday, and I state again, that no consideration will induce us to vary or depart from by one hair's-breadth. The purpose is to obtain from Parliament, if we are able, the establishment of a Legislative Body in Ireland for the effectual management and control of Irish, as distinct from Imperial, affairs. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman says we are going to ask for an abstract Resolu-
    328
    tion. Now, Sir, we are going to ask for the very thing that has always been put by me in contrast to an abstract Resolution—that is to say, for a Vote having reference to a Bill before Parliament. It is perfectly true that on the second reading of a Bill you do not affirm all the provisions, or even the most important provisions, of the Bill. A very lax doctrine has, as I showed yesterday, prevailed on the other side of the House with regard to that subject. Lord Beaconsfield, with respect to a measure of the utmost importance, said, in assenting to the second reading of the measure—it was the Land Act of 1870—that he affirmed nothing; but that there ought to be a change in the Land Laws. That is a very lax doctrine indeed, and is something like reducing the second reading of a Bill to the passing of an abstract Resolution. But, Sir, we have not stood upon that. We have said that the second reading of the Bill is a solemn pledge from Parliament to the people of the three countries, and most of all the people of Ireland, to the effect that a certain thing of vital consequence ought to be done, and that Parliament intends to do it, and to do it at the earliest moment which the circumstances in which it stands will permit. What is the charge of the right hon. Gentleman? I have not endeavoured to reduce the meaning of a vote on the second reading below that which, according to all sound and established Parliamentary doctrines, it is known to bear. On the contrary, I have stated as strongly as possible that we conceive that nothing can be more distinct and definite, either as to substance or as to time, than the promise and engagement which this House and those voting for the second reading will give by that vote—first of all, that they think that a Parliament for the management of Irish affairs—or as a Legislative Body as we have called it—ought to be established; and, secondly, that it is their duty and their intention, at the first available moment, to set about establishing it. Now, Sir, that is the position of the Government; and if the right hon. Gentleman tells me that we ought to sit through July and August—we met early in January—September and October for that purpose, I do not believe that such a demand can be fairly made upon a Legislative Body. There are limits;

    329
    happily, these limits are prescribed. There never has been a Legislative Chamber in the world which worked so hard as the House of Commons. But we must observe some limits in the demands which we make upon it, and to endeavour to make a partial progress, and then to be compelled to come to an exhausted House and to say that, after all, we find we cannot reach the third reading of the Bill, or, worse still, to send it to "another place" with the advantage to its opponents of the pretext of time—no, Sir; that is a mode of generalship upon which we do not intend to act. If we have judged wrongly in this matter the House will correct us. I do not believe we have judged wrongly; I do not believe the House thinks we have judged wrongly; and I believe this—if we had judged wrongly, if we had made some great error of tactic in the management and prosecution of this Bill, if we had been chargeable with some grievous fault, the right hon. Gentleman would not have found it at all necessary to interpose to-day with a Motion for Adjournment, but would probably have sat with folded arms, delighted to see how we walked into some one of the many snares set for us. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman says, in order to mark his sense of our proceedings, that he will move the adjournment of the House. Well, he has moved it. I am very glad he has, and, in order to mark our sense of the proceedings, we will negative the adjournment. These proceedings are entirely within precedent, and we ask the House to approve what, according to all sound Parliamentary doctrine, is its known and usual method of action; and if we can form any judgment under the most solemn responsibility as to the best method of going forward to attain the great end before us, we believe that we have chosen that method, and that our having chosen it is in truth the reason why the right hon. Gentleman has found it necessary to assail us.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) has, I think, altogether misapprehended, and, for aught I know, not unintentionally misapprehended, the purpose of the inquiry of my right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), and the purpose of the Motion which he has made this evening. What my right hon. Friend wished to
    330
    inquire about was not the motives of the Government or the policy of the Government with regard to this particular Bill in the past. What he inquired about, and had a right to inquire about—and even the Prime Minister will admit that he occupies a responsible position—was the nature of the procedure which the Government proposed to adopt with regard to the future proceedings on the Bill. That, every hon. Member will admit, is a legitimate subject for inquiry. The First Lord of the Treasury stated that there was nothing unprecedented in the action of the Government, and that it was well within precedent. I defy the Prime Minister, with all his Parliamentary knowledge and experience, to show to the House a single precedent for the course which he apparently intends to adopt. Can the right hon. Gentleman point to any measure of first-class importance—any measure of overwhelming importance such as this—being introduced by a Government, and then an offer being made to the House—"If you will vote for the second reading of this Bill we will withdraw the Bill, and you shall never hear of the Bill again." It is quite true this is accompanied by another indication—that Parliament may be called together in the autumn or winter. "Winter" is the word in the Prime Minister's speech. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!] I read his speech with great care, and the words were—"I do not think the winter should come upon us——"
    MR. INCE: Will the noble Lord read on?
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The hon. and learned Member below the Gangway is a little premature. I was going to readon, but was interrupted by the inopportune applauses. "I do not think the winter should come upon us and find us enjoying ourselves in the country." What does that mean but a Winter Session? Obviously it means this—that the autumn may come upon us and find us enjoying ourselves. But to comeback to what I was saying, which was this—that the statement of the Prime Minister has been coupled with the indication that Parliament may be called together in the winter to consider a Bill which may be the same as this, or may not be the same as this Bill. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I did not say that.] It may be, or may not be, the same Bill; but about

    331
    it the Prime Minister has used these words—
    "The proposal," alluding to some changes which he had been indicating, "the proposal will entail some further change in the construction of the clause, and the practical effect will be that it will certainly be necessary to reconstruct these clauses of the Bill."
    Thus, there were several clauses, particularly the 24th, and, in a secondary degree, the 39th. Very well; how did the Attorney General treat the proposal the other day for the reconstruction of the 24th clause? He treated it as a matter affecting the whole Bill; and more than that, the right hon. Gentleman knows that if the proposed reconstruction of the 24th clause did not affect the construction of the whole Bill, he would not have got one single one of those who agree with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) to support him on the second reading. The right hon. Gentleman is speaking with two voices altogether in this matter; and the House must really, in common fairness, allow the Party on this side to protest against a procedure of that kind. He has indicated to the Irish Members that the Bill will be practically the same; but he holds out the hope of the withdrawal and re-introduction of the Bill in the winter. [Cries of "No!" and "Autumn!"] We are getting some information. The two voices are a voice to the Irish Members that the Bill is not to be reconstructed, and a voice to hon. Members below the Gangway that the Bill is to be reconstructed. Without doubt, the tactics of the right hon. Gentleman are of this nature, and it is for this reason that we complain that they are tactics directed to this purpose—namely, to confuse the House of Commons, to lead the House of Commons on step by step, though, at the same time, not showing to the House of Commons whither it is being led. At any rate, that is a perfectly legitimate construction. Now, mark; my right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) asks of the Prime Minister—"Which of the two alternatives does the Government propose to adopt—the adjournment of the Bill to the autumn, or the Prorogation of Parliament early in July, and the introduction of a new Bill in the autumn?" That is a perfectly legitimate subject of inquiry. It is a vital point—obviously vital with
    332
    the second reading. If the Bill is to be adjourned and proceeded with in the autumn as we leave it now, obviously hon. Members who wish to reconstruct it will have their facilities for so doing enormously limited. Their chances will be exceedingly poor; in fact, to those who have any experience, whatever the advantages the Government possess in Committee after the second reading, it will be apparent that their chances will be practically nil. I can quite understand that many of those who sympathize with this Bill would vote for the second reading if that course were to be adopted, but might seriously question the propriety of assenting to the second reading now if the other course is to be adopted. The other course is the Prorogation of Parliament, and the introduction of a totally new Bill in the autumn. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No.] Well, totally new in so far as the stages of the Bill are concerned. In the latter case, there is all the difference in the world, and everybody would start perfectly free. It would be open to hon. Members to take no part in any further debate on this subject, to take no part in any division, and to come back to the House of Commons perfectly free to take whatever part they liked with regard to the new Bill in the autumn. But that course is not open to hon. Members if the proceeding of an Adjournment of the Session is to be followed. Now, was there anything unreasonable in my right hon. Friend putting that question to the Government before we are asked to take one of the most solemn decisions which the House of Commons can possibly take? Does the right hon. Gentleman say that the Leader of the Opposition has not a right to know—before he advises those who place confidence in him what course they are to take—what are the future intentions of the Government with regard to this great measure? How can hon. Gentlemen opposite complain of our making such an inquiry? How can they complain when, in order to protest against the refusal of information, my right hon. Friend moves the Adjournment of the House? Sir, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister made one or two remarks of a general character on which really I must be allowed for a moment to comment. He talked about the impossibility of proceeding with this Bill after a second reading this Session.

    333
    Why? If the right hon. Gentleman will present to the House of Commons a fair issue, if he will stick to his guns, from one day to another, if he will proceed with his legislation in the traditional Parliamentary manner, he will find no obstruction from this side of the House—nothing but fair Parliamentary opposition. But when all the traditional Parliamentary procedure is abandoned, when we are being jockeyed, when the House of Commons is not allowed to come to a clear issue, then it is that we may, in the defence of the ordinary rights of a minority, be forced to have recourse to all the proceedings which a minority can command. But the right hon. Gentleman says that he has no time. Why has he no time? To whom is it principally due that this debate has been so protracted? Who refused to take it de die in diem—absolutely refused? Who interposed every obstacle which Parliamentary experience and ingenuity could suggest? Why, Sir, if it had not been for the obstacles interposed by the Prime Minister himself, we might have divided on this Bill a week ago. And what is the remedy? "The question," says the Prime Minister,
    "is very urgent. I still hold to that doctrine of extreme urgency; but we have no time to deal with it this summer, and we will, therefore, put off further dealing with it till the end of the year."
    [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!] Really, the Prime Minister seems very captious about dates. Well, they will put off dealing with the Bill, then, until some period or other in the future marked out for us by those "limitations which are imposed by the revolutions of the heavenly bodies." Certainly nothing could be more indefinite than that phrase. The Prime Minister complained of want of time, and he says—
    "We will not send it up to the House of Lords in August, because the House of Lords will seek refuge in the excuse that they cannot consider the measure in the time at their disposal."
    Sir, I dare say the Prime Minister is far better acquainted with Peers than I am. He has made a great many, and therefore he would have more right to pronounce upon the probable views of the House of Lords than I have; but I think it is perfectly certain that, whatever course the House of Lords may take
    334
    with regard to this Bill, it will not be based upon any such frivolous excuse as that; and if the Prime Minister likes to proceed with this Bill, and send it up to the House of Lords in the month of August, I am perfectly convinced that he need not have the smallest fear whatever that the question of time will be in any degree raised. I have not a doubt about it that the consideration by the House of Lords of this Bill will be serious, solemn, immediate, and final. But the Prime Minister said it is altogether premature to discuss the proceedings of the Government on the second reading. [Cheers from below the Gangway.] That is cheered by hon. Members below the Gangway. The Prime Minister said that we ought to have discussed them after the second reading. That would have been altogether too late. This consideration the Prime Minister does not seem to have thought of. But who has set us the example of discussing the proceedings of the Government on the second reading? Why, the First Lord of the Treasury himself. What did he do? He summoned a meeting of his supporters at the Foreign Office. Mark, that was not a private meeting, but a meeting of an essentially public character. [Cries of "No, no!"] I call a meeting—a meeting of a public character when you have an official reporter present, who supplies an authentic report of what passed to the public Press; and if that is not a public meeting, really I do not know what is a public meeting. And at this public meeting the Prime Minister announced to a certain number of his supporters a definite line of policy with much deliberation and detail; but he absolutely refuses to give that information in an official manner to the House of Commons. Now, again, I ask the First Lord of the Treasury, can he point to any analogous proceeding by a Prime Minister with regard to a first-class measure in the whole course of his long experience? I venture to say he cannot. I do think I should not have complained if Parliament had been immediately put in possession of the same information that his supporters were put in possession of; what I do complain of, and what I think is altogether insulting to the House of Commons, is this—that certain information with regard to the future conduct of this measure is given

    335
    to a certain group of the House of Commons, and is refused to the whole body of the House of Commons. At the present moment, though the Prime Minister knows that numbers of votes may depend upon whether he makes a definite statement or not, he absolutely refuses, under the most frivolous and ridiculous pretext, to tell the House whether he intends to adjourn the Bill to the autumn, or whether he intends to prorogue Parliament very soon and introduce a new Bill in the winter. And that is what we complain of, and have a right to complain of. That is what we wish to draw the attention of the country to. You say you want to go to the country. If you want to go to the country to get the opinion of the country on this measure you need not take more than five or six weeks about it. Nothing would be easier. You can proceed to divide on the second reading, and if you are not satisfied with the result of the division dissolve Parliament. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bryce), in the speech which has been so much praised, began by saying how anxious the Government was to fly to the opinion of the country, and this was received with the loudest possible cheers below the Gangway on both sides. Why do not the Government go to the country? Because all these proceedings are designed in order to keep the question away from the country, and in order to prevent the country giving an opinion upon it. ["No, no!"] Some hon. Members opposite are supposed to be shaky in their independence about this Bill. Why? What has been the great bribe offered by the Prime Minister—a bribe as great as any offered at the time of the Act of Union?—"If you vote for the second reading of a Bill which you do not approve of in your hearts, and which you disbelieve in, I promise you that, at any rate, for another eight, nine, or 12 months you shall not be sent back to your constituencies." This is the noble policy of the right hon. Gentleman, and these are the noble motives by which he appeals on behalf of the Government to the Parliament of Great Britain and Ireland—"Vote for anything you like; you are committed to nothing."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Oh, no.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: What? Then they are committed.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Certainly.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The Prime Minister surprises me. I did not think it possible to be surprised by the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister contend, from a Parliamentary point of view, that hon. Members, by voting for the second reading of the Bill, can be committed to the Bill if that Bill dies and is withdrawn?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The principle of the Bill.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Never. Never was such a view held in Parliament before. I venture to say never, and that is why the Prime Minister holds out to hon. Members the bribe that if they will only vote for the principle of the Bill, which they disapprove of and which is going to be withdrawn, and possibly never heard of again, he will consent to give them a little longer lease of Parliamentary life, These are the manœuvres, Sir, which are being adopted by the Government to settle one of the gravest questions ever brought before Parliament—manœuvres which, of course, we must expect from an "old Parliamentary hand," but manœuvres which I certainly should not have expected from one who was brought up in such a school of statesmanship as the First Lord of the Treasury; manœuvres which, I feel certain, Lord. Grey never would have contemplated, which Lord Althorp never would have contemplated, which Sir Robert Peel never would have contemplated, and which, I believe, he himself, some years ago, would not have contemplated. The House has been very kind to allow me to make these remarks in defence of the course which has been taken by my right hon. Friend. I have heard many Motions for the Adjournment of the House moved, but none more defensible, none so defensible, as the present one. I say that the House cannot go to a division on the second reading of this Bill; it cannot properly, decently, or safely continue this debate, unless the Government will deal fully, fairly, and frankly with the House, and will say what course they will pursue after the second reading has been either agreed to or rejected. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not only take the sense of the House on this question; but I am sure, if it rested with me, and me alone, I would move Adjournment after Adjournment until I had forced

    337
    the Government by the sheer pressure of the minority, and by the public opinion excited out-of-doors, to desist from this policy of hocussing the House of Commons.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT): The noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) has given us a great deal of advice, and has addressed to us a good many taunts; but I can assure him that in the conduct of this measure we shall neither be guided by his advice nor influenced by his taunts. It seems to me that the extraordinary disappointment, irritation, and impatience betrayed by hon. Gentlemen opposite is a confirmation of the wisdom of the policy that the Government are pursuing. Now, I think before this grand parade it would have been well if right hon. Gentlemen opposite had made up their minds as to what was the meaning of the Motion they have submitted to the House. The noble Lord stated that the meaning of the Motion made by the right hon. Gentleman was not an inquiry into the motives of the Government. Well, that, I think, is strictly accurate, because the right hon. Gentleman made at the conclusion of his speech, not an inquiry as to the motives of the Government, but a statement on his part as to what those motives were to be. I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) has said as to the motives imputed to us by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). The noble Lord, however, with his accustomed accuracy, has said that the Prime Minister affirmed that if the second reading of this Bill be granted we should never hear of the Bill again. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Withdrawn.] Well, then, the noble Lord is extremely inquisitive as to the subject of the time when we shall hear of it again. The noble Lord is a man of great eloquence and of distinguished talent; but I think there is one line in which he will never shine, and that is the line of a critic, because for a critic, at least, it is essential—although some seem to dispense with it—to appear to have read the documents which he pretends to criticize. I think that the House saw the futility of the quotation which the noble Lord made with reference to a Winter Session; but if he had read the speech of my right hon. Friend
    338
    he would have seen that it pointed to two courses. He asserted that one plan would be to do what was done in 1882, when we met in the Autumn, and that the other course would be to summon Parliament again at an early day for a fresh Session. The noble Lord said—"The summoning of Parliament at an early day may mean in the winter." On the contrary, everybody understood my right hon. Friend's intention. If the noble Lord does not understand, I have no hesitation in saying that an early day for a fresh Session meant not a meeting in the winter, but a day in the early autumn. Well, then, the noble Lord said that the object of these proceedings on the part of the Government is that the. House may be led without knowing where it is to be led to. But I do not think that the House is so absolutely unintelligent as the noble Lord seems to think. At all events, the Government have never concealed the goal to which they desire the House to be led. My right hon. Friend has stated over and over again that the goal to which the Government desires the House to be led—whether it be in the summer or early autumn—is a Legislative Body in Ireland for the conduct of Irish affairs. How, then, can it be said that the course of the Government conceals from the House the direction in which it is to be led? The noble Lord said that the Government attempted to "jockey" the House. I think that the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman opposite who was late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Henry Chaplin) must have mistaken the day; they must have thought it the day on which the House took a holiday, and must have borrowed the language of the racecourse. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I said "hocussing."] Well, then, hocussing was the word. I believe they are both words derived from the language and phraseology of certain Bohemian tribes who are often seen, I believe, on those Downs, and it is language more appropriate to those scenes than to the debates of the House of Commons. The noble Lord is a great authority in the House of Commons; but he is also undertaking to speak for the House of Lords. He has told us in the most distinct way what is the course which the other House of Legislature will take, and not only that, but also the grounds

    339
    upon which they will arrive at that decision, and that in whatever month the Bill goes to the House of Lords the House of Lords would give the final decision. I venture to think that the final decision of this question will never rest with the House of Lords at all. Then the noble Lord says that the object of this Motion is simply inquiry. We heard very little inquiry from the right hon. Gentleman. It is quite true that he referred to a point which the noble Lord seems to think was the whole object of the Motion—namely, to know whether the intention of the Government is to proceed by Adjournment or Prorogation, and as to the advice they shall tender to Her Majesty on the subject? On that subject there was no ambiguity in the language of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister either yesterday or to-day; but, really, it is a very astonishing thing that there should be two Gentlemen who are Privy Councillors, who have held Office under the Crown, who should imagine that it is possible for a Minister of the Crown to announce a decision on the subject either of Dissolution or of Prorogation without direct and distinct authority from the Crown. Really, I am astonished that it should be necessary to give the right hon. Gentlemen elementary lessons on the principles of the Constitution of this country. My right hon. Friend has said everything that it is possible or proper for him to say on such a subject as this, and no Motion for Adjournment ought to induce any Minister to say more on that subject than he has said. The noble Lord was very severe on the Party meeting at the Foreign Office. He says that Party meetings are never held of that character with reference to Bills which have been promised in Parliament, or which are in progress in Parliament.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: What I said was that information of so remarkable a character as appears to have been communicated at the Party meeting ought also to have been communicated immediately afterwards to the House of Commons if the meeting were of a public character.
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not know what the noble Lord means by meetings of a public character. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Really, I think that a little decency might be
    340
    observed, and that one might be allowed to conclude one's sentence. A meeting may be public in two senses. It may mean a meeting where everybody is admitted. That was not the character of the meeting at the Foreign Office at all. No, Sir; nobody was invited to that meeting who was irreconcilably hostile to the establishment of a Legislative Body in Ireland. That was the principle on which that meeting was founded. All friends to that principle and Members of the Party on this side of the House were invited to that meeting. The transactions of that meeting were allowed to be made public; and, according to my recollection, that is an extremely common thing in meetings of that character with reference to Bills in progress in Parliament, and with reference to the most important Bills. I can remember that in 1867 more than one meeting of that character was held by Mr. Disraeli and his Party with very important results on the conduct of the Bill then pending. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Private meetings.] They were no more private meetings than this was. The speeches at those meetings were reported, and the results were made public. That, at least, is my recollection of the matter. The noble Lord has again challenged our course with reference to this Bill. One would think he had never heard of the authors of the Ten Minutes' Bill, or of the authors of Resolutions which were withdrawn, and of new Bills introduced and withdrawn, when he said that no such modifications of such an important character had ever been made before. The noble Lord says that it is contrary to all Parliamentary doctrine to say that in voting for a Bill which disappears, but re-appears again in a future Session, you are committed to anything. The noble Lord lays that down as if it were a proposition not capable of being disputed; but I think his proposition must be considerably modified before it can be accepted. Let me give the noble Lord an example. We had of recent years Bills before us for household suffrage in the counties over and over again in former Parliaments. Does the noble Lord mean to say that a Member of this House who voted for the second reading of such Bills, to give the suffrage to the county householder on the same footing as it was given to the town householder,

    341
    were not committed to the principle of household suffrage in the counties, even although the Bill for which he voted disappeared? I think he will find few people to agree with him. I apprehend that the vote for the second reading was the affirmation of a principle which would endure to a future Session. What is the meaning, then, of this Motion? The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) has said that he has brought forward this Motion for Adjournment—I think these were his words—"to mark the sense of the House of the conduct of the Government." [Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Hear, hear!] Very well, we accept his Motion in that sense; that is, he has made this Motion for Adjournment to mark the sense of the House of the conduct of the Government. We invite the right hon. Gentleman to take an issue upon it.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: (Lancashire, Rossendale): Sir, I do not think that the Government or the House can be very much astonished or have any reason to complain that this Motion has been made by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). It is not necessary, I think, to discuss whether the Motion has been made with the view of enabling the House to "mark its sense of the conduct pursued by the Government;" but, at all events, it is a recognized and certainly not an inconvenient practice that an opportunity of this kind should be taken for the purpose of endeavouring to elicit and obtain some information from the Government as to the course they intend to take upon a matter of very great public importance. Now, Sir, no one can doubt that announcements of very great public importance, which may probably affect the conduct of hon. Members upon this measure and the fate of the Bill, were made in an unofficial form to hon. Members of this House yesterday; and it is very desirable that some information—or, if possible, further information—should be communicated to the whole House before it proceeds to the reconsideration of the Bill. We are already placed in a position of very considerable inconvenience and embarrassment. We have been debating the second reading of this Bill for more than a fortnight under one set of circumstances and under peculiar conditions, and we are now going to re-
    342
    sume the debate on the Bill, and to be asked to give a decision on the Bill under circumstances very different indeed, and a very large number of those who have already addressed the House have addressed it under circumstances altogether different from those now before them. I think the right hon. Gentleman asked a question which was a reasonable question, and which I should have expected my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) would have been able to answer more fully than either he or the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt) has done. The right hon. Gentleman only referred in his speech to the necessity which he and the Government felt of giving the House more time for the consideration of this measure after the second reading. But, as he pointed out yesterday and again to-day, there are two different ways in which that additional time may be given. Either the House might be asked to adjourn after a certain time, and to resume the consideration of this Bill in an Autumn Session, or else the House might be asked to wind up the present Business in order that there might be an early Prorogation, and that a new Bill—a new measure—should be produced in the autumn, which should go through a first reading, a second reading, and all the stages of a Bill. Now, Sir, surely when these two subjects of proceeding are under the consideration of the Government it is not unreasonable that the House should ask to know, before it gives a decision on the second reading, the main and leading principles contained in it. Which of these courses do the Government intend to adopt? The Government have spoken as if it involved only a difference of procedure; but I must say I entirely agree with what was said on the other side—that the difference appears to me to be absolutely vital. If we are going to continue the consideration of this Bill in an Autumn Session after a second reading, not only will our opportunities for asking for modifications and vital alterations in the Bill be very greatly curtailed, but also the individual freedom of action of Members will be limited; because they will have consented not merely to the principle—what is defined by my right hon. Friend as the principle—of the Bill, but they will have committed themselves to the main and lead-

    343
    ing principles contained in the Bill. On the other hand, if the Prorogation takes place and a new Bill is introduced, we shall all retain a very much greater degree of individual liberty. It will be open to us to discuss the Bill on its introduction and on the second reading; but now to say that we are going to take the second reading, and not to be told till after that whether we are to go on with the consideration of this Bill or a new Bill, appears to me to be asking the House to do that which is not reasonable.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I did not say a new Bill. I said to re-introduce the Bill.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I may point out that there are to be considerable modifications in this Bill. There is the one point of considerable importance upon which the discussion has most frequently turned—the exclusion of the Irish Members and the Irish Peers from this Parliament. We are told that modifications are going to be made in the two clauses which are directly concerned with the question, and we are told that other modifications may be necessary in other clauses of the Bill. In our opinion—though, perhaps, not in that of the Government—very frequently expressed, such alteration as my right hon. Friend intends to make in this respect, when it comes to be examined in detail, will be found to render alterations in almost every clause necessary. At all events, according to the arrangements of the right hon. Gentleman, there are to be modifications of the Bill introduced in the autumn; it will not be the same Bill as this Bill. If it were the same Bill it would not affect the point I put before the House. It would be a new Bill which the House would be able to deal with on the first and second reading; whereas, if we are to proceed with the consideration of this Bill, the only stages when we shall have it in our power will be the Committee, Report, and third reading. I say that the House has a right to know—
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: You do know.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: My right hon. Friend says we do know. Then, all that is required is for some Member of the Government to get up and state what it is that we do know. The House has a right to know which
    344
    of the two courses is to be adopted. [Mr. GLADSTONE here said something to the noble Marquess.] My right hon. Friend says that he did say it. I did not understand him to make any announcement that it was intended to adjourn the House after the second reading of the Bill, or to prorogue——
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: We cannot prorogue; the Queen prorogues.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It is inconvenient to address the House and carry on a conversation as well. I am well aware that we cannot prorogue the House; but my right hon. Friend is not debarred from stating what is the advice the Government was prepared to give to the Queen.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I beg my noble Friend's pardon. That is exactly what I did say. I beg leave to repeat that I did say that that was the advice which the Government would tender to the Queen. [Cries of "What advice?"] To take the course of Prorogation.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I stated the same thing in answer to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). Before he made the Motion I stated that the proper course would be Prorogation; but that there were certain references which must be made elsewhere—I presumed he must know what that meant—before we could with propriety make an announcement to the House.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I think the last two statements made to the House show more than ever that the Motion for the Adjournment was not uncalled for, because I know now for the first time, and, I believe, the great majority of the House now know for the first time, that it is the intention of the Government—the present intention of the Government—to advise, not the Adjournment of the House, but the Prorogation after the second reading of this Bill. That raises a very important question which it seems to me the House would do very well to take a little time to consider before it goes to the second reading. The House is now going to be asked—after the statement of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer—to do that which I believe it never was asked to do before, and certainly, I may assert, never was asked to do before in the case of a Bill of any mi-

    345
    portance. It is going to be asked to give its assent to the second reading of a Bill, which Bill it knows it is not the intention of the Government to prosecute in the present Session of Parliament. Well, now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman states what he and his Friends believe to be the principles to which hon. Members will commit themselves in voting for the second reading of the Bill. I venture to assert that it is beyond the power of the right hon. Gentleman to define for any hon. Member of this House what he will commit himself to, or will not commit himself to, in voting for the second reading. Every Member of this House will be the best judge for himself. Under ordinary circumstances, in voting for the second reading of the Bill, he knows that he is helping it forward in its main and most important stage. He knows that it is open to him to make such observations and to propose such alterations as he desires to make in Committee, and to vote against the Bill on the third reading. But what he is going to be asked to do now is to vote for the second reading of a Bill which he knows cannot, under any conceivable circumstances, be passed into law. What he will be voting upon, in my opinion, is not upon the principle of any measure, such as that defined by the right hon. Gentleman; but he will vote simply upon the question whether he desires to force the Government to dissolve Parliament or not. I venture to think my right hon. Friend, after all his Parliamentary experience, cannot produce any precedent for asking Parliament to proceed to a second reading of a Bill which is dead. And I must say it is a matter for the consideration of the House whether, when it is asked to continue solemnly to proceed with the discussion on the second reading of a measure such as this, it ought to give some attention to the extraordinary, and, as I believe, unprecedented position in which it is being placed. There is another point which it might be for the convenience of the House to consider for a moment, and endeavour to obtain some information. Nothing, or very little, has been heard about another measure which is before the House. Little has been heard of late about the Irish Land Purchase Bill. My right hon. Friend, in answer to a Question yesterday, referred an hon. Member to several passages in a speech
    346
    which he delivered on the introduction of that measure.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I rise to Order, Mr. Speaker. You are aware, Sir, that the House has been asked to adjourn for the discussion of a definite matter of urgent public importance—the declarations of the Government on the Government of Ireland Bill. I wish to ask, whether the noble Marquess can discuss another measure which is entirely outside of that, and if it is not out of Order?
    MR. SPEAKER: Undoubtedly the terms of the Motion handed to me by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) were to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance—namely, the statement made by Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Government of Ireland Bill. Anything but a mere casual reference to any other Bill would be entirely out of Order.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I had not the slightest intention of discussing the Land Purchase Bill. The House will remember that my right hon. Friend in his first speech on the Government of Ireland Bill referred to two questions which, he said, in the view of the Government were inseparable—that is, the Irish Land Bill and the Irish Government measure—and that the only reason why he regretted they could not be dealt with in the same Bill was the enormous mass of material. I think we are entitled to ask whether, in the opinion of the Government, these questions are still inseparable? My right hon. Friend said yesterday that the position arrived at by the Government was simply this—to establish by vote on the second reading the principle of the Government of Ireland Bill; and I want to know whether my right hon. Friend adheres to his intention to ask the House not only to establish by this vote the principle of the Irish Government Bill, but also whether, before he advises the Prorogation, he intends to ask the House to affirm the principle of the Land Bill, which he told us was inseparably connected with this Bill?
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to ask whether the noble Marquess is in Order in asking, and whether the Prime Minister would be in Order in answering, a question with regard to the intentions of the

    347
    Government on the Land Purchase Bill on a Motion for the Adjournment definitely confined to the question of the Government of Ireland Bill?
    MR. SPEAKER: If I had thought the noble Marquess had been out of Order in the course he has hitherto taken I should have interfered and called his attention to the matter.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I can assure the hon. Member that I have finished all I have to say. It will be for the consideration of the Prime Minister whether he will take this opportunity, or another which he may think more suitable, of giving information to the House on this subject, and which I am sure he will be anxious to give at the earliest opportunity. I do not think I need trouble the House any longer. My right hon. Friend has stated in the course of his speech that the declaration of the Government upon the Government of Ireland Bill has been found to be sufficiently definite to secure for that Bill the determined opposition not only of hon. Gentlemen opposite, but of a considerable number of hon. Gentlemen who sit on this side of the House. Well, Sir, it is not the declarations of the Government which have been found sufficiently definite, but it has been the Bill itself with which, up to this moment, we have had to deal. What we do question, and what seems to us a very important consideration now, is whether there is really going to be a definite issue raised upon which the House can decide. The Bill is about practically to be withdrawn from the cognizance of the House, and we are going to be asked to vote for the second reading of a Bill which we now know can never proceed to any further stage. The right hon. Gentleman has laid down something which he says will be affirmed by hon. Members who support the second reading of the Bill. But that is where we say the indefiniteness arises; that is what we say is an attempt to substitute in the place of a Bill, which hitherto we have had to deal with, something more indefinite than any abstract Resolution which has ever been brought before the House. I say that the House will be placed in a position of extreme difficulty and extreme embarrassment—and one in which I do not know any Government previous to this occasion has over placed the House of
    348
    Commons in—if it is asked to substitute for a definite vote on a definite issue, such as the second reading of a Bill, a vote on a declaration so vague and indefinite as that which is now practically before the House.
    MR. T. P. O.'CONNOR: We on these Benches are not at all surprised that any action taken by the Tory Leader in this House in connection with the Government of Ireland Bill should have the hearty support and sympathy of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington). In fact, the scene we have witnessed tonight will not fail to be productive of instruction. The noble Marquess says the Bill is dead. The action of the noble Marquess and the action of the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) is the strongest proof that the Bill is far too much alive for them. Some of us may have had some doubts with regard to the tactical course adopted by the Prime Minister; but any doubt we may have had on a question of tactics must be, to a large extent, removed by the extraordinary ebullition of chagrin and disappointment which has been displayed by the noble Marquess and the Tory Party. We are asked to vote on the second reading of the Bill. The noble Marquess says that this is asking the House to adopt a course which is entirely unprecedented, and he wants to know what we are voting upon. The Prime Minister does not want, as I understand it, to base the second reading of the Bill on any purely tactical or technical purpose. But the House is asked to deal with the question of social order in Ireland, and to deal with it by voting the second reading of the Bill, promising to the people of Ireland self-government in their own affairs; and by voting for the principle of that Bill to send to the people of Ireland a message of peace and of love. The Prime Minister said that the state of social order in Ireland was exactly the same as when the late Government dropped the Coercion Act. With great respect, I venture to differ from the right hon. Gentleman. The state of social order in Ireland is in a much improved condition. The state of feeling is much improved; and, Sir, the state of feeling in England is much improved. I will tell you what the House will do when it votes for the second reading of the Bill;

    349
    it will obey the mandate of the democracy of England, speaking through Representatives with a unanimous voice. Did the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale receive a vote of confidence from his own constituency? Did any of the mutineers against the Prime Minister? [An hon. MEMBER: Yes.] Well, there may have been one or two; but then exceptions prove the rule. Did a single Representative of the masses of the people on that side of the House oppose the Government of Ireland Bill? Did the Labour Representatives, who speak with a special mandate from the toilers of England, rise and say a word of opposition against the Bill? [Mr. ARCH: Not one.] The Labour Representatives in the Liberal Party are unanimous in the support they give to the Bill; and, therefore, I am entitled to say that in voting for the second reading of the Bill the Liberal Representatives of England would obey the mandate of the British democracy, and give to the people of Ireland a message from the masses of the English people of peace and reconciliation between the two nations. That is the question we are going to decide by the second reading of the Bill. We may be prevented from doing so owing to this unholy alliance. The Whigs and the Tories—I will not mention any other—Party, although the House is aware that there is a Party from whom we have, perhaps, a better right to ask for information than from the Prime Minister representing the dominant classes in this country, who are desirous of maintaining the dominion of the dominant classes in Ireland. [Mr. HEALY: The Devonshire estates.] The noble Marquess said that the declaration which came from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a sufficient justification of the Motion for Adjournment. The declaration of the Prime Minister, given in the form of an interruption, was that the Government thought that the better course was to re-introduce the Bill with modifications in the autumn. But the right hon. Gentleman made that declaration before the Adjournment was moved. The right hon. Gentleman was asked by the Leader of the Opposition what course the Government themselves preferred to take; and the Prime Minister, in language as clear as ever was used in this House, declared that of the
    350
    two courses which most recommended themselves to the judgment of the Government, that of re-introducing the Bill in an Autumn Session was the most satisfactory. Because the Government, therefore, had given an explicit answer, the noble Marquess thinks that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) was justified in moving the Adjournment of the House. The reason for moving the Adjournment was not to get information; the real reason was similar to that of the newly-awakened virtue of the hon. Member for Burnley with regard to Secret Service. It was part of a scheme of persistent, of dishonest, of unscrupulous tactics.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The hon. Gentleman is out of Order in applying the word "dishonest" to an hon. Member. The hon. Member must withdraw that expression "dishonest."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Certainly, Sir; but I think you did not hear what I said. What I did say was not applied to any hon. Member, but applied to the political tactics pursued.
    MR. SPEAKER: Dishonest tactics were attributed to an hon. Gentleman of this House, and that is the imputation of an improper motive. It is not a proper thing to accuse any Member of dishonest tactics, and I must call upon the hon. Member to withdraw the expression.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Certainly, Sir; I withdraw the expression without hesitation. I was about to ask what is the object, then, of moving the Adjournment of the House? It was not for the purpose of getting information; all the information had been given before the Adjournment was moved. The real reason was for the purpose of disturbing and distracting the public mind. The right hon. Gentleman had another object in view. He and the noble Marquess feared the re-union of the Liberal Party That is a perfectly intelligible object on the part of the Tory Leader, because a united Liberal Party is not a sight which can be pleasing to the Tory eye. Every Liberal Member, therefore, who joins in such tactics as these means, so far as he can, to prevent the re-union of the Liberal Party, and to prevent it sending a message of peace to Ireland. That has been the course adopted by the noble Marquess and the right hon. Member

    351
    for East Edinburgh (Mr. Goschen) all through. When I heard these right hon. Gentlemen speaking about the retention of the Irish Members, I thought it was the ardent expression of superabundant faith in the matter. Not at all; the reason why they called so much attention to the question of retaining the Irish Members at Westminster was because they knew that it was one of the few points on which different sections of the Liberal Party disagreed, and because they wanted to widen the chasm between the two sections of the Party in order that they might not become united. The people of England, Scotland, and Ireland outside the House are looking with very eager attention at what this House is doing. If it were only for the purpose of securing social order and peace in Ireland the House would be justified in carrying the second reading of the Bill. But I am sure the Liberal Party mean to do more than this—namely, to give a pledge and guarantee on the great question of leaving a people to select their own form of representative government, and that they are going to bestow on Ireland the right of governing her own affairs on her own soil.
    MR. RAIKES: Though the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) may speak the mind of the Treasury Bench, I doubt whether, upon this question, he speaks the mind of the people of Ireland. There is reason to doubt whether the course proposed to be adopted—that of reading the Bill a second time and then withdrawing it—will be regarded as a message of peace from England to Ireland. I do not know whether that peculiar organ of Irish opinion, United Ireland, is to be regarded as a Ministerial organ; but it says that to read the Bill a second time and then withdraw it would be the most undesirable and fatal course which could be adopted, and that it would be better to defeat the Bill in the Lobby. I venture to think that when the hon. Member for Liverpool talks about a divided Liberal Party he should look at home and try to settle his own differences of opinion with the gentlemen who represent United Ireland. The Prime Minister has told us that this is a question which ought to have been raised, not upon the second reading, but after the second reading. It has already been pointed
    352
    out by my noble Friend below me (Lord Randolph Churchill) that it was the Prime Minister who raised this question first—not, indeed, in this House, and that is our principal grievance against him—but he did raise it in a manner which challenged the notice of the House at a meeting—not a public meeting, but at a meeting which is inaccurately described as a Party meeting—a meeting held at the Foreign Office, to which were admitted only Gentlemen who belong to one section of the Party, which was attended only by one-third of the Members of this House, and at which statements were made which it has been sedulously sought to conceal from two-thirds of the Members of the House so far as regards any utterance from the Treasury Bench. I cannot but think that the course taken by my right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach.) in moving the Adjournment of the House has been amply justified by the incidents which have arisen in the course of the debate. The noble Lord opposite succeeded in making plain that which was previously clear only to the inner consciences of Ministers, and not to any Members on this side of the House—namely, what are the intentions of the Government with regard to this measure. We now learn—we have it on the authority of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, reinforced by that of the First Lord of the Treasury—that it is the intention of the Government to withdraw the Bill after it is read a second time, to prorogue Parliament, and to introduce another Bill in the course of the autumn. That is precisely the point as to which we sought information. When the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) speaks of reconstruction as applied only to Clause 24, and contrasts that with the reconstruction of the whole measure, he is exactly in the same position as if it had been proposed to withdraw the Franchise Bill and to reconstruct and remodel Clause 3, which was that giving the extension of the franchise. If anybody in a less distinguished position than the Prime Minister put forward the argument he attempted to hold it would be received with universal ridicule. If you reconstruct Clause 24 you transform the Bill. If the House is asked to vote for the Bill in order that it may be withdrawn, it is not even asked to affirm an abstract Resolution;

    353
    it is asked to go through an idle form simply and solely intended as an expression of unwillingness to reject a measure introduced by the Leader of the House.
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: As the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) has spoken with extreme confidence as to the meaning of Her Majesty's Government in the answer they gave to my right hon. Friend (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach), I wonder whether there is any understanding between Her Majesty's Government and the hon. Member for Liverpool. I do not know whether there is any subterranean means of communication between him and the Government Bench. I do not know what it is to the hon. Member for Liverpool; but I can safely say this—that to the great body of the House the answer of the Prime Minister is enigmatical and unintelligible to the last degree. It was for that reason that my right hon. Friend proceeded to make the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, and I congratulate him upon the success of that Motion, because, undoubtedly, not to him, but to the noble Marquess who sits behind the Prime Minister (the Marquess of Hartington), two Cabinet Ministers vouchsafed the information which they had, in the first instance, denied to the House. Now, we know what advice Her Majesty's Government intend to offer to Her Majesty on this important subject. We know it now, and we know it for the first time; but when my right hon. Friend was driven to make this Motion in order to extract that information, he naturally availed himself of the opportunity to offer a distinct protest against the general course which the right hon. Gentleman announced to his followers at the Foreign Office. But we shall have, no doubt, on the resumed debate on the second reading an opportunity of expressing our views on that part of the subject. My right hon. Friend having now gained the information which he sought for, there can be no object in continuing the debate on the Motion he has made, and he would not put the House to the trouble of an unnecessary division.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ay 1; Noes 405: Majority 404.—(Div. List, No. 110.)
    The following is the entry in the Votes:—
    Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Member for the Western Division of Bristol, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, viz., the statements of Her Majesty's Government as to the future proceedings on the Government of Ireland Bill; but, the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. Speaker called on those Members who supported that Motion to rise in their places, and, not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen in their places:—
    Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn:"—(Sir Michael Hicks-Beach:)—The House divided; Ay 1, Noes 405.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.— [BILL 181.]
  (Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Secretary Childers, Mr. John Morley, Mr. Attorney General.)

  SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  [SEVENTH NIGHT.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [10th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  And which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. RIGBYsaid, that the attitude of the opponents of the Bill was now somewhat singular. For a long time they had nothing except complaints from the Tory Members that the measure was so great in extent, and involved topics so new, that time must be given for the purpose of allowing the House and the public adequately to consider the arguments on one side and the other. In those days a great deal of curiosity was expressed as to the opinion of new Members who had not yet taken part in the debate; but of late much of that curiosity had died away, and now the opponents of the Bill

  355
  seemed to think that the tide had turned against them, and that they had had enough of the debate. He thought, however, that the time had not yet come for closing the debate, because so many statements hostile to the Bill had been made, and made with a great appearance of authority, that if they were not in some degree met in argument it might be said that no argument could be adduced against them. It was, therefore, with some diffidence, but still in the hope that he might be able to say something that would, at any rate, express the views of those who thought with him, that he had ventured to address the House; but he would promise to eon-fine himself strictly to the legal and Constitutional aspects of the question, because they were connected with the subjects which had been his particular study, and as to which he had been obliged from time to time to formulate opinions, and in some degree to apply them. The points on which he should address his observations referred to such titles as unity of Empire, and supremacy of Parliament. Outside the House the opponents of the Bill had fastened upon those who had supported it epithets which they, no doubt, thought would have some effect upon public opinion. The supporters of the Bill had been called Disruptionists, and non-Unionists. He came forward to say that, as a supporter of the Bill, he was not, at any rate, a Disruptionist, and was no opponent of the Union. On the other hand, he was a firm supporter of the Union, and certainly a firm supporter of the unity of the Empire everywhere. They heard a great deal about a rival Parliament being established in Ireland. The only Constitutional Body in this country that could be called a Parliament was the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. There was but one Parliament throughout Her Majesty's Dominions. A Congress could be constructed by a paper Constitution; Legislative Bodies of different kinds might be made by means of a delegated authority derived from Parliament; but a Parliament such as they knew it in this country could not be created by any paper Constitution, and it did not derive its authority from any superior Body, but by virtue of its own intrinsic power, and it had through centuries absorbed into itself all power and authority in the
  356
  country, and now stood in a position altogether different from that of any other Legislative Assembly in the world. It was absolutely without control from any other authority without. It was controlled only by the feelings of justice and moderation that actuated the different Members of the different branches of the Legislature. That Parliament was supreme not only throughout the United Kingdom, but throughout all the Colonies and Dependencies of Her Majesty's Dominions; and it was equally supreme in those Colonies which had received a legislative form of Constitution by delegation by Parliament as it was in those Colonies which had not yet received any such Constitution. It would be equally supreme the day after this Bill had passed into an Act, and when the Legislative Body which was to be formed in Dublin was carrying on the functions delegated by Parliament as it was now. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) preferred a movement in the direction of federation, somewhat on the lines of the American Constitution. He would not argue now how far that was desirable; but he was certain that if any such measure was to be adopted now or at any future time, those who supported it must cease to speak of being supporters of the Union of the Empire in the sense in which it was now bound together in unity, and, above all things, they must cease to speak of being supporters of the principle of the supremacy of Parliament. Whatever else they did, if they approximated at all to the lines of the American Constitution, if they adopted any form of federation yet devised, they must have the elements out of which a federation was to be formed, and those elements necessarily must be independent States. How they could have federation or anything that had a resemblance to the Constitution of the United States without, in the first instance, dissolving the Empire and sacrificing altogether the supremacy of Parliament he, for one, was unable to say. He did not see why they should not look forward to the development of our Constitution, and at some future day invite Representatives of Her Majesty's Dominions not represented in that House to seats within those walls; but he trusted that when that day came this

  357
  would be brought about, not by surrendering any of the powers of Parliament, not by altering the nature of Parliament, or by creating anything that might be co-ordinate with or superior to Parliament, but, if need be, by introducing Representatives to Parliament who would succeed to all the traditions of the history of that Body, and who would have all the privileges which Parliament had received through all the centuries of its existence. He entirety concurred in the principles that had been laid down by the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), whose great authority upon such a question as this he fully recognized; but he ventured to differ from the right hon. Gentleman as to the application of those principles. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had commenced his speech by quoting a passage from the Prime Minister's speech to the effect that there was no intention on the part of the framers of the Bill to weaken or to impair the supremacy of the British Parliament; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman then went on to read the 3rd section of the Act of Union, which declared that the United Kingdom should be represented by one and the same Parliament, to be called the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and said that as long as that Parliament existed so long would the unity of the United Kingdom be an established fact, and that as soon as it was done away with we should no longer have a United Kingdom. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, however, went still further, and contended that the unity of the United Kingdom consisted not in the identity of the law, but in the unity of the manufactory of the law. That, of course, meant that we must have one Parliament to manufacture the laws for both countries. But the Attorney General (Sir Charles Russell) had pointed out with fatal force that such an argument would not hold good for a moment as far as our Colonies were concerned. If our laws must be made in one manufactory, then unity of the Empire no longer existed. But how far did such an argument hold good, even as regarded the United Kingdom itself? In this country we had many manufactories of law other than Parliament. Large manufacturing powers had been conferred upon our
  358
  municipalities, who were authorized to make laws of great importance for themselves, involving a largo amount of taxation. Then, again, the Judges of the land were authorized to legislate upon matters of great importance affecting the administration of justice. These large legislative powers had been conferred upon these numerous subordinate Bodies, because it was believed that such Bodies could legislate better upon the subjects within their jurisdiction than the Imperial Parliament could. But the existence of the powers of such subordinate Bodies was fatal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's contention as to what constituted the Union of the Empire. In his opinion, true unity consisted in the continued identity of the Imperial Parliament, from which the subordinate Bodies received their powers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had laid down two conditions as necessary for the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament—the first being that that Parliament should be at full liberty to alter its own Constitution and to remodel and to vary that Constitution; and the second being that it should not be subject to the decisions or the decrees of any man or body of men who should have power to say that it had exceeded its jurisdiction. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had rather shrunk from giving any opinion upon what he termed the refinement of the law as to whether a Parliament, such as the Imperial Parliament would be after this Act was passed, would be able to repeal the Act. But when the Imperial Parliament passed an Act there was no authority within its jurisdiction which could dispute the force of such an Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that whenever the Imperial Parliament thought fit to pass an Act varying the Irish Government Act every Judge in England and Scotland would be bound to take notice of and to obey such varying Act. No doubt they would be bound by such an Act. But the right hon. and learned Gentleman thereupon proceeded to ask what would be the position of a Judge in Ireland who would say that the Imperial Parliament had given the Irish Parliament authority to make laws, and that as they were passing very good laws he should obey them, notwithstanding any laws which the Imperial Parliament

  359
  might make. The only opinion which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gave in the matter was that the Irish Judge would be right. The Judge of First Instance sat in Ireland, and he must found his judgment upon the Government of Ireland Act, and any other Act or Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which might be supposed in some degree to conflict with it. Those were the only materials before him for his judgment. But suppose the decision of the Irish Judge was questioned, then the matter had to come before the supreme tribunal, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, composed of Scotch, English, and Irish Judges sitting in England, and they would be bound to obey the Acts of the Imperial Parliament. Therefore, they were brought to this extraordinary conclusion—that two tribunals, having to deal with one and the same question, the one being an inferior tribunal and the other the Court of ultimate appeal—the Judge of First Instance would be right in arriving at a decision which the Court of ultimate appeal would be right in reversing. To arrive at a result so contradictory involved something wrong in the premisses, and that he found to be no other than this—that the Parliament of England had parted with some of its supreme authority to the Irish Parliament, and that from the passing of the Act there were two co-ordinate independent legislative authorities. But they had heard from the Prime Minister when introducing the Bill that the question of an independent Parliament or of a federal arrangement was not to be mentioned; and if there had been any doubt on the point almost the first sentence in the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. John Morley), that if the Bill were passed into law it would be within the legal capacity of our Parliament to effect its repeal, would be sufficient to dispel it. He thought the Prime Minister must have introduced the question only to make an eloquent appeal to the Irish Members not to be beguiled by the offer of a Parliament so unlike what a Parliament ought to be. The terms laid before the Irish Members were plain. The Prime Minister said that the paramount object was that the Irish people should be left to manage affairs which were Irish; that in times past some had looked for sepa-
  360
  ration, at least some in the Greater Ireland beyond the seas, but he did not offer them anything of the kind; that he had tried to find out what made the cry for separation possible; that not separation but the closest possible union was required; that he had probed the matter to the bottom, and that he found not separatist tendencies but the demands of the Irish people for local self-government, and that he offered to them freely. We did not disguise that we were keeping over Ireland the same dominion as ever; we only pointed out that the Irish might depend upon it that in ordinary circumstances the independence of the Irish Legislative Body would never be interfered with. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Inverness Burghs (Mr. Finlay), in a speech which attracted the attention of the House, followed, to some extent, the line of argument of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury. He observed that it was said that, as a matter of strict law, there might still remain a power in Parliament to repeal or alter this Act, even without the attendance of the Irish Members, but that he doubted that very much. The hon. and learned Gentleman was not prepared to express an opinion more confident than the hint of a doubt. The question was, what would be the state of the law after this Act was passed? Parliament would not be called upon to interpret it, unless, perhaps, by a Declaratory Act, though they might be called upon to amend or repeal it if a repeal was forced upon them. The hon. and learned Gentleman was bold enough to say that the omission from this Act of the clause inserted in the Colonial and Indian Acts reserving all the authority of Parliament led him to the irresistible conclusion that the jurisdiction and powers of Parliament had been weakened and infringed. But the fact was that this clause, which might sometimes be inserted, was always understood, and thus this argument of his hon. and learned Friend had no weight whatever. He listened with a very great deal of pleasure and instruction to the speech of the hon. Member for the Romford Division of Essex (Mr. Westlake), who had contended that we should have no authority in Ireland to carry out the wishes of this Parliament. The hon. Member referred to the original Constitution of the United States,

  361
  under which it was found that there was no provision for the exercise of any power by the Executive authority. Unquestionably, that was the fact in the first Confederation of the 13 States, each State being independent, and the central Federal Body having no means of enforcing its decrees, and being, in fact, as helpless as this country would be if it attempted to carry out its laws in France or Germany. But that could not happen with regard to Ireland, for in that country the authority of this Parliament was indisputable, and would remain so after the passing of this Bill. In Ireland, if an Executive officer were appointed to carry out that part of the government of Ireland which was reserved to the British Parliament—all matters relating to Customs, Excise, commerce, and navigation being reserved to the Imperial authority—when anything of that sort was required to be done, no Treaty with Ireland was requisite, and the British Parliament could empower persons to carry out its decrees. It would be known that there was a reserve of supreme power in the Imperial Parliament, and that would place us in a totally different position from that which was occupied by the first Federal Government of the United States. He should like to explain why he was one of those who were disposed to support the Bill. He had satisfied himself that this Parliament was not governing Ireland at the present time in any satisfactory sense which they could ascribe to the word "government." He did not consider that government to be satisfactory which caused among so large a majority of the people a feeling of discontent and hostility towards the governing power. He had satisfied himself that, unfortunately, the feeling of discontent and the desire for greater independence were not likely to pass away from Ireland. The root of that hostility might be in history and in times long ago; but a great deal of discontent existed in Ireland, and he did not see how they could hope to mitigate or to do away with it. So far from their governing Ireland, he felt that in a most intolerable sense of the word Ireland governed England. They found it impossible to carry out legislation for their own country in the presence of a body of Members united in the disposition that the Irish Members had shown
  362
  for some time past. For that he did not believe in any panacea. No doubt, by the English and Scotch votes they could easily outvote the Irish Members upon every point; but they would be bound to surrender their freedom of action, and they would not be able to separate from their co-gaolers to take any steps independently of them, and in which they might wish to oppose them. He saw no hope of remedying the present state of things except by advancing boldly with the object of removing all sources of Irish discontent. They might think that Irish grievances were exaggerated, but there could be no doubt that the Irish were sincere in the demands they had put forward; and he thought that they should no longer fight against that sentiment, but do their best to carry it into effect.
  MR. E. W. BECKETT: Sir, in approaching the consideration of this Bill we are met with a very remarkable phenomenon. Everyone at the outset must ask himself—"How is it that men whose views on all other questions are wide as the poles asunder, on this are in solid and substantial agreement; and how is it that, regarding it from every conceivable point of mental perspective, they arrive at a conclusion absolutely identical, that conclusion being that at any cost this Bill must be rejected?" The answer is plain—because the principle on which this Bill rests is inadmissible, and the Bill itself, which was to have been a monument to the Prime Minister's genius, is unworkable. It sweats difficulties at every paragraph, every provision breeds a dilemma, every clause ends in a cul de sac, dangers lurk in every line, mischiefs abound in every sentence, and an air of evil hangs over it all. It is almost unnecessary to argue against this Bill, because it is not recommended by argument. Nor do we know what Bill we are arguing about. In fact, hon. Members are invited to figure for themselves a Bill that will please the fancy, and after agreeing to the second reading of the present measure to imagine that in an Autumn Session a Bill will be brought in which will satisfy all their aspirations. Speeches on behalf of this measure have been delivered in nearly every style of oratory. We have had specimens of the ludicrous, the pathetic, the turgid, the confidential, the denuncia-

  363
  tory, the light and airy, the tragic and solemn; but all the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have not provided between them one argument that holds the field. In fact, Ministerial speakers seldom refer to the Bill. They keep at a distance from it, as if it were a dangerous thing to meddle with. They steal shy glances at it over their shoulder, but never do they fairly grapple with it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir William Harcourt), in a speech of nearly two hours' duration, did not dare to touch upon the Bill, and he is bold enough when there is no dynamite about. This last new creation of the Prime Minister's brain, this abortive, monstrous leviathan of legislation, is pierced and riddled through with hostile arguments, and wallows helplessly in the mire, rolling about its huge, ungainly bulk in a vain attempt to get upon its legs. But these spasmodic struggles are its last, and before many days are over it will have given up the ghost. Upon another ground it is unnecessary to produce reasons against this Bill. Reasons can only be addressed to reasonable people; they appeal only to the intelligent; and a high authority has confessed that the reasonable and intelligent part of the nation is against this Bill. I am glad that the claims of the Tory Party, so long ignored, are at last acknowledged. We have been designated as the stupid Party; but now it seems we are the intelligent Party, and so magnanimous are we that we rejoice that we can share this honourable title with many of those who have hitherto denied its justice. But does it satisfy those Members on the other side of the House, who consider themselves the salt of the earth, to be numbered with the ignorant and the foolish, the blind and the prejudiced? Surely, Sir, these lights set on a hill, these minor prophets in their own estimation, who call all men to run unto them, cannot be very well pleased to be classed in such a category. It is a strange occurrence, and one significant of the time, when such a man as the Prime Minister says—"Darkness be thou my light; folly be thou my friend and stay; ignorance be thou my guide and counsellor." Most Ministers are satisfied if their measures have to encounter only the regular opposition to which all Ministerial measures are exposed. But such a course would be too
  364
  tame and unexciting for the Prime Minister, who has accordingly ranged against himself hostile forces of an unusual and formidable character. In the first place, he has to meet himself in arms, he has to argue against himself or confute himself, to explain away himself, and smash, pulverize, and demolish himself in the most thorough-going fashion before he deals with anyone else. I am afraid he will find himself rather an awkward customer to tackle. Having got rid of himself, he has next to cope with the opposition of, at least, a third of those who sit on his own side of the House, and the strength of this third is not to be measured by mere numbers, inasmuch as it contains nearly all the intelligence, honesty, and backbone of the Liberal Party. The Prime Minister and his followers have very much the appearance of a tadpole—the right hon. Gentleman being the head, and they the little insignificant, invertebrate, wriggling tail. The Prime Minister stands alone on this question, for the support of the Home Rule Party can hardly be said to be impartial, and the support of the Home Rulers was not, in Liberal estimation at the last Election, a passport to popular favour. It is, indeed, a sorry spectacle to see those very same politicians who raged so furiously against the Tories for their supposed alliance with the Parnellite Party now rubbing noses with that Party, and marching arm in arm with them to the dismemberment of the Empire. Such a flagrant exhibition of political immorality has not been seen since the ill-omened coalition of North and Fox more than a century ago, and it is quite enough to debauch the people of England for more than a century to come. Consistency will soon cease to be regarded as a virtue at all. The Liberals have been invited by the Prime Minister to sit down to a banquet of their own election speeches and addresses; but their digestive organs not having yet acquired an assimilative capacity of equal strength and vigour with his, some flatly refuse to come, some munch their own words with manifest repugnance, and some gulp them down wholesale, and try to look as if they liked them. The truth is that the bulk of the Liberal Party in this House do not follow their own judgment, their own convictions, or their own inclinations on this question. They are traitors

  365
  to themselves. They are bound at the chariot wheels of the Prime Minister. Their devotion is magnificent, but it is not patriotism. It is hero worship run mad. Imagine an impossibility. Suppose the Conservatives had introduced this Bill. The whole Liberal Party, with the right hon. Gentleman at the head of them, would have exploded with indignation. The country would have rung with their denunciations. Fierce, fiery orators would have rushed to and fro like comets, scattering behind them a tail of burning words. Platforms would have sprung up like mushrooms; processions, with drums beating and flags flying, would have paraded our streets, monster demonstrations and cheap trips would have been got up at so much a head, and all the machinery of agitation would have been brought into play. And the Liberals would have been in earnest. Their indignation would have been honest, for I believe they dislike Home Rule, and I venture to say that in their heart of hearts they would like to change places with the Conservatives, and would have been infinitely happier if we had brought in this Bill, and it had fallen to their lot to throw it out. It has been laid down that the duty incumbent on any one Minister or Member who brings in a Bill is first of all to prove the existence of an evil, next to suggest a remedy, and, lastly, to prove that his remedy would cure the evil. Of these three things the Prime Minister has only done one—he has suggested a remedy; but for what? What is the precise and particular evil this Bill is designed to cure? We do not know, for neither he nor anyone else has told us. Is it agrarian? Is it political? Is it sentimental? To say chronic discontent is the evil from which Ireland suffers is to substitute the effect for the cause, and as to left cause we are left entirely in the dark; and, without good cause shown, we should be madmen to pass this Bill. The House must be well aware that this measure is dependent entirely upon the influence of the Prime Minister. Its life is bound up with his life. The cause of Home Rule stands or falls with him, and were his support withdrawn it would collapse completely. No Bill at all resembling this would have the slightest chance of being accepted by Parliament or the country if introduced by anyone
  366
  else. The demand for a separate Legislature would die a natural death, and it could not be revived. The people would marvel by what witchcraft so many of them were induced to take temporary leave of their senses, and would feel proportionate gratitude to those who, in spite of threats and obloquy, had saved them from themselves. Is there any precedent in our Parliamentary history of a measure of this magnitude being passed at the dictation of one man, which, if that man were removed from public life, would be scouted, mocked at, derided, and kicked into the kennel? Is there any justification for passing such a measure? Were all the great measures of the century so passed? Were the removal of Roman Catholic disabilities, the three extensions of the franchise, and the repeal of the Corn Laws so passed? These measures had all taken hold of the heart and mind of the country. The country insisted that they should pass, and if whole Cabinets had gone down into the pit they would still have been passed. But this measure, more important than them all, is imposed on the country as by an Edict from an Eastern despot; and I hope that the presence of a despot has not so far corrupted the free spirit of the people as to load them to sanction legislation which, in his absence, they would most certainly condemn. This assertion is not more conjecture. We have sure and certain evidence of its truth. Last December, in a moment of convivial confidence, the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. H. J. Gladstone) dropped a hint of his father's intentions. The Liberal editor, who was the recipient of his confidence, was so horrified that his bosom could not contain the dread secret. On December 17 it became public property by appearing in the columns of The Standard. All will remember the angry incredulity with which the country, and especially the Liberal Party, received the news. Monstrous, impossible, absurd! they cried with one voice, and denounced it as an infamous Tory fabrication, a malicious invention, without a shred or particle of truth. Indeed, so excited did the Party become that the Prime Minister himself wired from Hawarden disavowing all responsibility for the announcement. Thus were troubled consciences set at rest, and the leading Liberal organ declared that the

  367
  Prime Minister had repudiated the sinister designs attributed to him. This little history proves that the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman are unacceptable, nay more, hateful to the free, unbiassed mind of the country. The Liberal Party has greatly changed since last December. Quantum mutatus ab illo! It has been educated into ignorance. It has bathed in the waters of Lethe, and the oblivious stream seems to have washed away not only all memory, but all manhood, veracity, sensibility, honour, integrity, and courage. There are certain phrases which in this debate do duty for arguments. One of them is "Ireland a Nation." The President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Stansfeld), in particular, expressed his belief in the principle of nationalities. The reappearance of the right hon. Gentleman as a Cabinet Minister is exceedingly interesting; and I am not surprised that the Government should have sought his assistance at such a time as this. The right hon. Gentleman in his youth played with the fire of revolution, and had to resign his Office, because he was implicated with conspirators and assassins, so that there is something peculiarly fitting in his resuming Office just at the moment when the Government are engaged in a conspiracy against the Empire, and in an act of surrender to traitors and rebels. Well, Sir, we believe in the principle of nationalities, so long as it is not adopted indiscriminately. But before you create the Irish or any other nation you must be sure that it can stand alone. Of its ability to do so there is only one test. Has it credit in the markets of the world? Can it, from time to time, raise loans as may be required to meet the extraordinary needs of Government, either for purposes of public improvements, of internal development, or national relief? Would Ireland command this credit and power? Even the bare prospect of Home Rule has depressed Irish securities 50 per cent. The realization would probably knock them down to zero. Without borrowing power, an Irish Government could do nothing to improve the condition of the Irish people, and in certain contingencies their condition would be infinitely worse than it is now. In the event of another famine, for instance, their situation would be desperate indeed. The Irish Govern-
  368
  ment could not help them, so unless relief came from England—England, hated and maligned, but always ready to assist with her wealth her poorer sister in the day of trouble—they would starve by thousands. This would be only one of the happy results of "Ireland a Nation." Another cry is "Justice to Ireland. That parrot cry was raised in this House on the first reading by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Arch), and I suppose in the forthcoming campaign it will be used again to supply pumped-out politicians with perorations. The hon. Member said that if he went round England and asked every labourer whether he wanted "Justice to Ireland," 90 per cent would say "Yes." Of course they would; but everything depends on how you put a question. If you were to go round England and ask every labourer whether he wanted civil war in Ireland, 90 per cent would say "No." Ten per cent would perhaps say "Yes," as they might be of opinion that a good civil war, in which one half of the Irish nation did their best to exterminate the other half, would be the readiest and quickest way of settling the Irish Question. I would ask the hon. Member if he has ever seen a representation of Justice? I will not refer him to the classics, for though the idea is taken from the ancients, the figure is familiar in modern prints. Justice is always drawn as a tall and stately female, with a pair of scales in one hand and a sword in the other. Hon. Members too often forget the sword. They would substitute for it the gilded bladder tied to a gilded stick which mock Kings carry in pantomimes. Yet the sword is essentially necessary to a true conception of justice. By all means hold the scales level and mete out equal measure to all, showing fear and favour to none; but always remember that without the sword justice is impossible, as the unruly passions of men, unless held in check by a salutary awe, will disturb the true balance and throw it out of gear. Those Gentlemen who call out for justice to Ireland must either get another cry or alter fundamentally their false and shallow conception of justice. Another cry is that Ireland must be governed according to Irish ideas. What are Irish ideas of government? Have they ever been defined? Do they exist at all ex-

  369
  cept as a phrase? Are we sure that government, according to Irish ideas, is not misgovernment according to English ideas? The ideas that lie at the root of a good government are pretty well understood all the world over, and at least as well understood here in England as anywhere else. We have served a long apprenticeship, and should know our trade by this time. We wish to establish in Ireland peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety, as much as in England, or in any other country throughout Her Majesty's wide Dominions. But is it pretended, or can it be maintained for a moment, that the principles by which these blessings are to be secured have their dwelling-place in Irish ideas alone? Is there in these ideas a subtle magic—a potent alchemy—that enables them to overcome and transform the essential vulgar characteristics of human nature? Can they make a silk purse out of a sow's ear? If so, how is it that in the speeches of the Irish Leaders this elixir vitœ has never been detected? If Irish ideas do not clothe themselves in Irish brogue, where are we to look for them? These speeches have run along the whole political gamut, and not a note do they strike, except in this House, that leads us to believe that government by Irish ideas means nothing else than the plunder of therich by the poor, and the oppression of the weak by the strong. Sir, Ireland is now governed according to Irish ideas; and what do we see? Liberty of speech, liberty of action, liberty of conscience, sore beset and hindered, and almost ceasing to struggle for existence. We see the whole nation, all but the brave North, in the grasp of an iron tyranny that threatens to crush out all healthy life. We have seen that tyranny imposed upon the people by a series of barbaric crimes and brutal outrages, that have excited horror and indignation throughout the civilized world. As a natural result of all this, we see capital leaving the country, business at a standstill, enterprize dead, poverty and wretchedness alone flourishing, a spirit of suspicion and malevolence abroad throughout the land, and a fearful looking forward to the things that are to come; every sign, in fact, that Ireland is in a disturbed, distressed, unwholesome condition. This, Sir, is government according to the law in-
  370
  augurated by the Land League, and continued, upheld, and strengthened by the National League. The men who have established this illegal system, and who, though not absolutely perpetrators of the execrable deeds by which it is maintained, cannot certainly be acquitted of moral responsibility for them, now demand that we should pass a sponge over the past, and that we should set the seal and sanction of Parliament to an instrument which would be a justification of all their proceedings, and would hand over an integral and important part of the United Kingdom, and with it the lives and properties of thousands of Her Majesty's most loyal subjects, to the government of those who have for years striven to render all good government impossible. We are invited to make the wolf the guardian of the fold. The antecedents of the Parnellites should make it impossible for us to grant their demands; and I maintain that by placing Ireland under the authority of these men we should put a premium upon conspiracy and crime, and should enthrone not a Constitutional Government, but a secret society. We should establish not the rule of a Parliament, but the rule of a despot. The Prime Minister is very strong on this point. On May 24, 1882, speaking of the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), he said—
  "He comes here as the apostle of a creed which is a creed of force, which is a creed of oppression, which is a creed of the destruction of all liberty, and of the erection of a despotism against it, and on its ruins different from every other despotism only in this—that it is more absolutely detached from all law, from all tradition, and from all restraint."—(3 Hansard, [269] 1553–4.)
  Now, Sir, the hon. Member has not changed his creed. The only change since the day on which those words were spoken is in the number of Apostles who profess that creed. In the last Parliament there were 34; in this there are 86; but the creed remains the same; and, apparently, the only reason why the Prime Minister has become an advocate of this creed of force, oppression, and despotism, is that its Apostles have increased from 34 to 86. This opens out a very serious speculation. At what precise number does oppression become liberty—does despotism become mild and Constitutional government? What is the exact figure at which demands which wore a harsh and forbidding

  371
  aspect assume such a gracious and beneficent air that we are no longer to repel them sternly, but to embrace them gladly? What numeral has the magic power of transforming things to their contraries—of turning into white what was black, and of making wrong become right? I have only dabbled in moral philosophy, but have never yet come across a system of ethics which was founded on an arithmetical progression. Sir, I deny that the 86 Nationalists who sit in this House are in any true sense Representatives of Ireland. If we look at the numbers alone, they only represent 4,823 more than half the electors of Ireland. Then, Sir, votes should be weighed as well as counted. The South and West—the source and seat of disorder, disaffection, grievance, poverty, and crime—voted for the Nationalists; but the hardy and industrious North—where the trade and commerce and wealth and intelligence of Ireland congregate—is bitterly opposed to the Parnellite programme. Of those who supported it, how many did so from a conscientious conviction, or with any real knowledge of what they were doing? I believe that the number of illiterate voters amounted to one-fourth, and that they voted, almost without exception, for the Nationalists, for to them the Ballot was no protection, and they knew an adverse vote would have exposed them to the terrible vengeance of the National League. The voters in Ireland were acted upon at the last Election by two of the most powerful influences that can control human nature—greed and fear; greed for the property of others, fear for the consequences to themselves. Bribes and threats were dealt out in equal measure. Even religion lent her hand to the agitators. As an inducement they were promised the possession of the land; as a deterrent they were threatened with "Boycotting" in this world and damnation in the next. Can anyone who knows the character of the Irish peasantry be surprised that they voted for the Nationalists, or can anyone so blind himself to notorious facts as to entertain the belief that such a vote was an honest expression of a national conviction? There is no doubt that the Nationalist Party in this House were returned in the main by the Irish peasantry. What is the character of the Irish peasantry? Here is a picture of
  372
  it drawn by the hon. Member for East Mayo on May 11, 1882, in a speech delivered in this House—
  "I know something of the Irish nature and I I know something of Irish crime.… "Who is there that understands, or pretends to understand, the peasantry of Ireland who will say here, without stating a falsehood, that crime and outrage has not the sympathy of the Irish peasantry? I state that because I know it to be a fact."—(3 Hansard, [269] 488.)
  I congratulate hon. Gentlemen on those Benches on the character of their constituents. I think I have said enough to show that the Nationalists are in no true sense Representatives of Ireland, or if they are they represent what is worst in Ireland and ought to be suppressed, not what is best and ought to be encouraged. On behalf of the idle and vicious they come here, not on behalf of the industrious and respectable. They have usurped the name of the Irish nation; but the true Ireland has not spoken, and cannot speak, while she is in the hands of Thugs. The Prime Minister has taken those who make the loudest noise at their own estimation. He has regarded a foul, malignant, and traitorous organization as the mouthpiece of Ireland. Because we refuse to grant Home Rule we are told that we are the enemies of Ireland. The Irish Leaders are the worst enemies of Ireland. They exaggerate every petty grievance such as must exist in every country, in every age, under every Government, into wrongs of the first magnitude, in order that they may win a bubble reputation and fill their own pockets. They fan the embers of discontent that are always smouldering in the Irish character into a glowing flame of passion; they fill the ears of an excitable and credulous people with tales of English cruelty and oppression, mostly false, in order to arouse a passionate and undying hatred to English rule, English order, English law, English manners, and English religion. They never cease to teach and to preach hatred to England; they exalt it into a moral obligation; they draw the minds of the Irish away from their peaceful avocations and daily toil in order to plunge them in the turmoil of politics. They intoxicate their senses with the alcohol of agitation. You say we know nothing of the Irish. What do the Irish know of us? You take care that they do not know the truth, or your occupation would be gone. The idea the

  373
  ordinary Irishman has of England is so monstrous as to be absurd. To say that she figures as a vampire sucking the life blood of Ireland—as a Minotaur that not yearly, but daily, demands its victims—is but a poor and faint representation of the character in which England appears to many Irishmen. For this distorted, extravagant conception the Nationalist speakers are responsible. Has a single man on those Benches ever tried to do anything but excite ill-will between England and Ireland? Has he ever endeavoured to point out the many advantages that she undoubtedly owes to her connection with us? Has he ever dwelt upon the honourable position which Ireland occupies in being associated in the government of the greatest Empire the world has ever seen. Has he ever told his fellow-countrymen that the great achievements which adorn English history are as much theirs as ours? Has he ever informed them that they are heirs of our glory and partners in our Possessions? If they have declaimed in favour of England a tenth as much as they have declared against her, the Irish Question would be dead and buried for evermore, and Ireland would be a peaceful, happy, and prosperous country. Are we, then, to repeal the Union, to set up a separate Parliament, with all its attendant and contingent embarrassment, at the bidding of a lawless organization? I cannot believe that Parliament or the nation will be guilty of an act of such fathomless folly. The principles of good government, by which alone a nation can thrive, are neither English or Irish. They are peculiar to no age or nation. They existed before the world, and will remain after the world has ceased to be. Those principles are of Divine origin and nature, and we can never apply them in the fulness of their perfection. I fully admit that so far in our dealings with Ireland they have often been overlaid by ignorance, by corruption, by selfishness, by prejudice, by ambition, by Party passion; and we reap to-day as we have sown throughout the centuries the mistakes which have been made by both nations. We recognize ours, and repent of them, and intend to avoid them in the future. Can the Irish say as much? It is not too late to retrieve our errors. We stand, as the Prime Minister said, at the parting of two ways. Do not let us
  374
  choose the broad and easy way that leads to destruction, but rather the straight and narrow way which, if consistently pursued with patience and firmness, will, in the end, regenerate Ireland and bind her fast to England in the strong ties of reciprocal interest, and perhaps at last in the silken cords of affection under one Throne, one law, and one Parliament.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid, he had come to the conclusion, after carefully listening to the debate, that no Bill had been exposed to more varied and more merciless criticism than that now before the House. It would be impossible to deny that, to a very large extent, this criticism had been successful. Even he, an advanced Liberal, could not deny that it was with feelings of somewhat mixed satisfaction that he viewed some of the provisions of the measure; but he believed he was expressing the opinion of those who sat on the same side of the House when he said the Bill was not to be regarded from the point in view of its details, but in its general scope, and that as such it fulfilled the aspirations of the Liberal Party. It was because they were not to deal with the measure on a merely abstract idea, or as endeavouring to find a Constitution for two Islands placed in juxtaposition, but because they were dealing with a question of great complexity, and after a bitter experience of eight centuries, that they were convinced it was the only one which would justly satisfy the desires and aspirations of the Irish people. He asked if the Bill had been criticized fairly? They had heard speeches from the opponents of the Bill, prophesying every calamity, vice, and folly to those who would have the administration of this measure in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) had raised a number of chimeras in order to terrify the House from giving a cordial reception to the measure; and if the people of Ireland were all lunatics and also criminals, he could not have prophesied more absurd and nefarious acts as being likely to be committed by them. The noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) had met the Bill with what sounded very like incitement to armed hostility to the Forces of the Crown. He should like to deal briefly with the principal argu-

  375
  ments against the measure. The first serious argument against the Bill was that raised by the noble Marquess the Member for the Rossendale Division, who urged that the House of Commons should not pass the Bill because it had not received a popular mandate to deal with the subject. The doctrine thus propounded by the noble Marquess was, however, an absolutely un-Constitutional doctrine, and had been denounced as such, and as likely to lead to the greatest danger, by no less an authority than Mr. William Pitt. It was the prerogative of Parliament fairly and freely to represent all the Estates of the Realm. The argument of want of mandate from the constituencies was used against the Union with Ireland, against the granting of representation to the Principality of Wales, in the case of the Union with Scotland, and in settling the Succession to the Crown. In all those cases there had been no such thing as a mandate from the constituencies. But had not, in fact, the constituencies given a mandate? It was stated that the Prime Minister had sprung this question on the country. In fact, however, the right hon. Gentleman had in Mid Lothian pointed out that now, for the first time in the history of Ireland, it was open to the people by Constitutional means to declare what their will was as to the government of their country. Nor was that way of regarding the question confined to one side of the House. The noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale had charged the noble Lord the Member for Paddington with trifling with the question of Home Rule, and the noble Lord did not attempt to deny the charge. There was hardly a single Member who did not, in addressing his constituents, refer to this question as one of momentous gravity. It was laid clearly before his own constituents, who declared distinctly and emphatically in favour of Home Rule. He passed on to consider the second material objection. As to the argument against the Bill that the integrity of the Empire had disappeared, in a system like ours, with a number of Colonies, whose tie to the Mother Country was purely one of sentiment, that argument had been abandoned, and it was now clearly understood that the concession of Home Rule to Ireland could not really impair the unity of the Empire. Then it was urged that
  376
  the Bill was one for the Repeal of the Union. The speech which Lord Clare made in 1802 had been much criticized, and it had been quoted very largely against the Liberal Party and against the Prime Minister. Speaking of what was called the unity of the two Kingdoms, Lord Clare enumerated a certain number of matters which go to constitute legislative independence. He said that all legislative authority in either country was denied to the other, not only in municipal regulations, but in every branch of Imperial policy, whether of trade and navigation, of peace and war, or Revenue, or of Executive Government. The points Lord Clare mentioned to prove that Ireland was separate from England were precisely the points which the Prime Minister had in this Bill reserved for the exclusive control of the Imperial Parliament. He (Mr. Atherley-Jones), therefore, submitted to the House that the Repeal of the Union had gone to the same limbo as the original accusation about the integrity of the Empire. The last foothold of the opponents of the Bill was that the present proposals would impair the supremacy of Parliament. He did not hesitate to say that the arguments addressed to the House by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) and the hon. and learned Member for the Inverness Burghs (Mr. Finlay) upon this point, and on which they had descanted at great length, were absolutely fallacious. But if there was one question of Constitutional law more clear and undoubted than another, it was that, unless they absolutely took away or abdicated the whole sovereignty of Queen, Lords, and Commons, the absolute supremacy of Parliament could not be impaired by any Act of Parliament. Mr. Dicey, whose book had been quoted in opposition to the Bill, and who, unfortunately, was himself one of its opponents, had in more than one passage, in the most unqualified language, insisted on this doctrine, and shown that even in the case of Colonies to which the largest powers of self-government had been granted the most absolute power of veto was reserved to the Crown, which was, in effect, the same thing as the Imperial Parliament. He (Mr. Atherley-Jones) was not so foolish as to suppose that they did not intend practically to give

  377
  to the people of Ireland exclusive control over their own affairs; but, although they so intended to do, they did so from moral considerations, founded on the principles of good faith. They gave this power to the Irish people believing that they would use it to the advantage of their race; and they did so in the conviction that if, unhappily, circumstances should arise hereafter that might render it unnecessary for the Imperial Parliament to intervene, in no wise should it be deprived of the full exercise of its power. Before concluding, he desired to say a few words with regard to the position in which he and his Friends stood. There could be no doubt whatever that those hon. Members who sat on the Ministerial side of the House, with a few exceptions, were agreed upon the point that autonomy should be eon-ceded to Ireland. That being so, he asked what were the alternative schemes? What were the proposals which were made by hon. Gentlemen who sat on the opposite Benches, and by the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), and the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan)? All these hon. Gentlemen had tried their hands at what the scheme should be; but they had all failed most grievously. He was satisfied in his own mind that there was not a Gentleman in the House who did not believe that the measures proposed or suggested by the noble Marquess and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham were totally inadequate to meet the requirements of the Irish people, or in any way to bring this great Irish question to a final close. He was an advanced Liberal, and had always been taught to look up to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham with feelings of the keenest regard and the deepest respect; but there were times when such feelings received a rude shock. His feelings towards the right hon. Gentleman had upon this occasion received a rude shock. The right hon. Gentleman, who would reap the full harvest of democracy in England, would deny the first germ of it to Ireland. The people of England would consider this fact. They asked themselves why it was they now found the right hon. Gentleman deserting, and even reprobating,
  378
  the Prime Minister? He feared the answer in this case was that the democracy knew no limits beyond the limits of the human race. The right hon. Gentleman condemned the policy and scheme of the Prime Minister, and said he felt it his duty, as an ex-Cabinet Minister, to unfold his scheme. What was the right hon. Gentleman's scheme? He appealed to the consideration of the House for the poor crofter and the agricultural labourer that they should not be allowed to spend their hard earnings in paying taxes to buy out the Irish landlords; but in the very same breath he announced that he would tax the crofter and the labourer in order to set up a gigantic Poor Law Union to relieve the distress of Irish landlords. The right hon. Gentleman said he objected to the scheme because it was tantamount to the Repeal of the Union; but the very next day stated his readiness to go in for federation. One single elector of Birmingham was found sufficiently bold to ask the right hon. Gentleman what he meant by federation; and what did the right hon. Gentleman say in reply? Why, that the system which obtained in the United States of America was the system which most commended itself to him. Now, he (Mr. Atherley-Jones) was of opinion that the amount of power which was vested in each individual State of America was far larger than that which was proposed to be granted to the people of Ireland by this Bill. Besides, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman that if they had federation they must have something to federate. For his part, he felt that he should be acting in accordance with the sentiments of the people who had elected him when he said that he was in favour of the Bill, and he should vote for it in that belief in his heart that it would satisfy the just aspirations of the Irish people and conciliate that country to England, so that she would still remain an integral part of the British Empire.
  MR. FISHERsaid, that they were asked no longer to vote upon this measure, but only upon an abstract Resolution, whereas the whole difficulty of the measure was in its details. They were now told that the Irish Members were to be included and were to sit in that House; but, in his opinion, the inevitable result would be the anarchy and confusion which the Prime Minister

  379
  had referred to. What was there to prevent some combination being made with the Irish Members who came over to vote in that House whereby the Church in England should be disestablished, while as a quid pro quo they would have to be granted some change in the Constitution given by this Bill by which hon. Members below the Gangway might establish another Church in Ireland? They would be able to enact a measure by which England should have dearer beer in order that Ireland might have cheaper whisky. They were told that the Irish Members were only to sit in that House for special purposes; but the Prime Minister himself had said that it was impossible to separate local and Imperial affairs. Let them take, for instance, the case of a debate on the Budget. Would Irish Members be allowed to vote upon an Amendment to the Budget? Undoubtedly hon. Members below the Gangway would be affected by some Resolution as to the Expenditure upon the Army and Navy and the Services. The Rules of Procedure, again, would affect them, even if they were only admitted once a year. The consequence would be that on a measure of that character the Irish Members would have the fate of the Ministry in their hands; and if that was the case there was an end to all finality in this measure, because everything would become a matter of bargaining with the Irish Members. Apart from that, something else had been overlooked—namely, the enormous voting power which Irishmen possessed in this country. If the Irish Members wanted some concession in the way of an alteration in the Constitution which was now to be imposed upon them, they would be able to traffic with the promise of the Irish vote in this country at the next Election. He did not believe that Ireland would be satisfied by the grant of a separate Legislature of the sort which was now contemplated. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) had told them that there was no half-way house between government by the Imperial Parliament at St. Stephen's and complete independence; and, in his opinion, anyone who attempted to build a half-way house would find that he was building it on sand, and that the fall of that house would be great, and would be accompanied by bloodshed and by dis-
  380
  aster to this Empire. He knew that many hon. Members opposite believed that this would be a final measure, and that Irishmen would be satisfied by it; but he would ask which Party in that House was most likely to be right upon this point—those who relied on the sayings and speeches of hon. Members below the Gangway, or those who relied upon the assurances, with many reservations and many qualifications, and upon the promises yet unperformed of the hon. Member for Cork? They had the authority on their side of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] From the Prime Minister's speech at Aberdeen, he would have said that the right hon. Gentleman, at that time at all events, was not in favour of granting a separate Legislature to Ireland. The Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Morley) was the only Minister on the Front Bench who had been consistent. But even he had taunted the Conservative Party with advocating a policy of "soft words and hard cash." He would describe the Chief Secretary's policy not as one of "soft words and hard cash," but of soft words and promissory notes, drawn upon other people's property. The Bill, he contended, did not contain the elements of finality. Hon. Members would be reminded of the promises they had made in the past, and would be called upon to fulfil them. The national sentiment in Ireland might be described as not "Three acres and a cow," but "Three acres and a pig." What had they seen in recent years in Ireland? They had seen men like John Mitchel returned to that House. [An Irish MEMBER: He was a noble Ulster man, but he is dead.] Well, he should not refer further to John Mitchel, as he had learned that he had gone to the "bourne from which no traveller returned;" but could they forget that not so long ago Tipperary returned O'Donovan Rossa as Member of Parliament for that county; and he would ask the House to consider what was to prevent him being elected to the Irish Parliament? Was that an argument for handing over power to these men? He could not wonder that the loyal Irishmen in Ulster were aroused and angry. And he should not be surprised if they submitted themselves to many pains and penalties rather than allow themselves

  381
  and their property to be placed under the control of men of such an infamous character.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: If you refer to Mitchel, he was one of the noblest Irishmen that ever lived.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order!
  MR. FISHERsaid, he did not know whether the hon. Member for South Tyrone would apply that to O'Donovan Rossa.
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: O'Donovan Rossa is new what you made him. Whatever he was before, he is now what you have made him by your tortures, while he was in your prisons.
  MR. FISHERsaid, that if O'Donovan Rossa was the noblest character——
  MR. WILLIAM O'BRIEN: I never said so. I said John Mitchel was one of the noblest characters Ireland has produced.
  MR. FISHERsaid, he was extremely glad they had done some good in Ireland. He saw nothing in the Bill to prevent Rossa being Prime Minister of Ireland, and the hon. Member for South Tyrone Speaker of the Irish House of Commons. References had been made to the Conservative policy as one of coercion. He denied that it was so. Coercion was only employed to meet exceptional crime. When he went before his constituents at the General Election, he stated to them that he was prepared to grant a large measure of local self-government to Ireland. He did not woo the Irish voters in his constituency by saying that he would vote for the establishment of a separate Legislature in Dublin. He denied the statement of the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Mr. Atherley-Jones) that this question had been settled at the last Election. His opponent for the constituency which he represented (Mr. George Russell) was a Member of the late Liberal Administration, and in his Election address that gentleman statedthat—
  "In the interests alike of England and of Ireland, he should oppose the legislative separation of the two countries."
  He was under the impression that that gentleman was at that time in the secrets of the Prime Minister; but, at all events, he denied that the question was before the constituencies at the General Election. He maintained that it was not fair on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that coercion was
  382
  the only alternative which the Conservative Party had to offer. He invited Irishmen still to take some part in the preservation of our great Empire, in the building up of which they had borne a glorious and a conspicuous share—an Empire which administered just and merciful laws, and which never could be maintained in all the fulness of its vigour as the chief factor in the civilization of the world unless it was preserved under one Queen and one Parliament.
  SIR THOMAS ACLANDsaid, that he addressed the House not from any desire to make personal explanations, or to vindicate the course which he intended to take with respect to this measure. He did not presume to speak for other hon. Members on his own side of the House; but if the difficulties which he had felt were felt by others, and which he himself had overcome, could be any proof of the sincerity of his convictions, he wished to put his views shortly before the House. Much as he admired the frank and high spirit of the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale (the Marquess of Hartington), he could not sympathize with him, or believe that he was justified in the remark which he had made as to the Prime Minister bringing this question forward as a surprise on the country. Knowing as he did from personal friendship, and not from any public or official connection, the frank way in which the Prime Minister expressed his own feelings to those with whom he came in contact, he should, indeed, be surprised if some of the most bitter opponents of the right hon. Gentleman at this moment would get up in the House and say, before they went to their constituents at the Election, that they were not aware of the tendency of his views. What did the right hon. Gentleman himself say at the Election? It would be remembered that on certain burning questions a red flag was hoisted at Birmingham, which was followed by the hoisting of a blue flag at Hatfield. The Prime Minister, however, did not appeal to the electors on any burning question. He called upon them to apply themselves sincerely and earnestly to the primary duties of a deliberative Assembly, and the right hon. Gentleman warned the constituencies and the candidates that if order was to be maintained in Ireland it was necessary to have a strong Liberal Go-

  383
  vernment. So far as he was personally concerned, he certainly spoke on no exciting topic to his constituents. He impressed on them the important fact that three of the greatest Liberal measures passed by Parliament had been passed when the Liberals were put out of Office and their Successors came in. So, in like manner, when the question of Ireland came most prominently to the front it was necessary to have a Liberal Government and not a Conservative Government in power for the purpose of maintaining order in that country. He wished, however, to avoid all Party imputations; but he could not refrain from observing that in the course of the discussion a great deal of vague language and many vague catchwords had been employed—as, for example, "the Empire," "Imperial interests," and "Repeal of the Union,"—mixed up with a great many vague sentimental appeals to nationality. He could not bring himself to vote for an abstract Resolution in favour of autonomy in Ireland; he wished to have something in definite and clear language which lawyers might interpret afterwards. He believed that if there was one thing for which the country was anxious it was a united Empire maintained by the supremacy of an Imperial Parliament. The Bill proposed to constitute for Ireland a legislative authority, an executive authority, and a judicial authority. On these points he wished to see not legal theories but practical propositions. The right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) spoke clearly about the supremacy of this Parliament; but he was not strictly accurate in what he said. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Bill as defining the delegation of a limited portion of the legislative power of this Parliament to the new Body; but the Bill rather defined the power it did not delegate. As the matter stood it was possible that in the future great differences of opinion might arise. The new Body was to be intrusted with matters of Irish concern; but what were they? They involved the protection of life and property, and generally the maintenance of social order, including liberty of contract and the payment of debt. Making allowance for all restrictions, the Legislative Body would be practically independent. It would, for all practical purposes, have legislative
  384
  independence; and, according to the Attorney General, there would remain in this Imperial Parliament a great reserve of power which was not intended to be used except in some great emergency. The responsibility of this Parliament for the happiness of Irishmen would be in abeyance. Irishmen in Ireland would be absolutely dependent on the sense of responsibility to which he hoped the granting of power might train the Members of the Irish Parliament. Many of the Irish Members of this Parliament were rising to this sense of responsibility; but still we could not forget the vindictive spirit in which some of them had spoken of Earl Spencer and of the Prime Minister, and the opinions of the 85 Members could not be accepted as the last word from the whole of Ireland. Their position might be strong, constitutionally, and many might by Parliamentary service have earned claims to personal respect; but still, before displacing the Executive of Ireland, creating a new system under the control of a Legislative Body, and surrendering the power of the Imperial Parliament, he must look at what was going on in Ireland, and particularly at the "Boycotting" which so largely affected tradesmen, and appeared to be countenanced by high ecclesiastical authority. He should feel more comfortable if he could see Irish Members effectively using their influence to put a stop to this system. What was the remedy proposed? That the Imperial Parliament should abdicate its whole responsibility, and trust to a sense of responsibility arising suddenly as soon as absolute powers over Irish affairs was transferred to an Irish Legislature. He wished to trust the Irish people, and he believed that they might, as a whole, be trusted if their passions were not aroused and their self-interest was not appealed to by those who misled them. But he had to look at that as a practical question of government, and he said that if a measure could not be carried at once for establishing social order in Ireland, he earnestly hoped that Englishmen and Scotchmen might appeal to their Irish fellow-countrymen to show themselves worthy of the trust which we wished to place in them. With regard to the veto—although Mr. Dicey, whose authority had been quoted, had told them very plainly in an article which appeared

  385
  three months ago, that the Colonial system of veto was utterly inapplicable to the case of England and Ireland, still, for himself, he believed that the Government had framed that Bill with an honest intention that the veto should be a reality; and from what he had heard yesterday, he understood that it would undoubtedly be in the power of Parliament to call the Ministers of the Crown to account if they neglected their duty in Ireland. He felt quite sure that it was not by a union of Parties, or something in the nature of coercion, that we could look forward to the restoration of order in Ireland; but it was to a growing good feeling between the toilers of Great Britain and Ireland that we were to look for a good understanding between the two countries. With regard to alternatives, he admired the noble Marquess the Member for Rossendale as a true-hearted Liberal and a fine manly specimen of the English aristocracy; but it seemed to him that the noble Marquess offered them nothing but a simple negative to the carefully-prepared plan of a responsible Government, and he neither indicated any alternative nor even his willingness to undertake the responsibility. Then as to those who aspired to head the Radical Party, he did not understand their policy, nor did he presume to fathom their purposes. For himself, he came to the conclusion that he could not refuse to join in sending a message of sympathy to the Irish people as a whole. He wished to believe and to trust their Representatives. He could not trust the Nationalist Members as a Party, because they had surrendered their freedom of deliberative action; but he thought he might safely rely on some indications of a gradually growing sense of responsibility, and a changed tone of feeling towards this country. He believed, also, that among the English and a largo proportion of the Scotch people there was a disposition to meet the Irish in a responsive spirit. He was convinced that a mere recasting of the machinery of local government was quite unsuited to the emergency, and he thought that more good was to be expected from a collective representation of all interests meeting at Dublin and speaking, not in unison, but in that harmony which might result from variety. The Ulster men were sometimes more
  386
  Irish than other Irishmen; and he did not believe that in their hearts they were so much afraid of what was coming as was sometimes supposed. He was, therefore, in favour of the 1st clause of the Bill. The words of the 2nd clause were wide reaching, but they must be taken with the restrictions and exceptions and with the prerogative of the Crown. He was prepared to face the problem as inevitable of establishing a bonâ fide Legislative Body in Ireland; but he hoped that the Government would pause before they gave it control over the Judges, and he certainly was not prepared to make it independent of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. Reserving in every sense the abiding and continued responsibility of Parliament to promote the happiness of Ireland, he believed that a Legislative Assembly in Dublin was, under all the circumstances, expedient, provided that the extent of its powers was not prejudged. The people of both countries were, in his opinion, anxious to come together and to work in harmony, and he hoped that these debates would result in the promotion of the welfare and the happiness of the people and the maintenance of the honour of the Empire.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: Sir, I do not think that the Representative of an Irish constituency can rise to join in this debate without feeling that it is the most momentous discussion in which the Irish Members have taken part since their entrance into this House. Looking back beyond the present century, through the vicissitudes which have marked the connection of England and Ireland, I do not believe that, at any period of that connection, a more fateful issue has been raised between the two nations than that which confronts us to-night. Hon. Members on opposite sides of the House will doubtless form widely different estimates of the policy which Her Majesty's Government is pursuing; but no section of the House will deny that the problem which the Government seeks to solve is of vital import not alone to Ireland, but to the Empire. An opportunity has arisen, under circumstances which I will venture to describe as especially favourable, for the healing of a long-standing feud between the two peoples. In Ireland, it has at length been possible to

  387
  frame, in a Constitutional manner, the demand of the country for what it considers its rights, and to give a practically unanimous expression to that demand. It has, furthermore, been possible to bring the Irish people to the temper of mind in which they are willing to forget and forgive the wrongs that have been done them—in which they are willing to enter into cordial union with the present generation of Englishmen, leaving the unfortunate past to history and historians. It has been possible to inspire them again with confidence in Parliamentary methods, and to induce them to look to this House for a redress of their grievances. They are waiting, in silent expectation, for the answer of Parliament to the demand they have addressed to it; and I believe it is only the foes of England, or her very shortsighted friends, who could wish them to be disappointed. In England, too, a temper of mind seems to prevail which is favourable to the solution of the Irish difficulty. Among a large section of the English people, the bigoted hatred and irritating contempt of the Irish nation, to which we were so long accustomed, have given place to a better understanding of our claims, and a more generous sympathy with our necessities. There are, too, among responsible English statesmen, some at least who are enlightened enough, and patriotic enough, to seek in their solution of it not the mere triumph of a Party, not the mere gratification of personal ambition or personal spleen, but only the welfare of the peoples whose destinies they are set to control. To such men, and to the unprejudiced Englishmen whom they represent, our claim to self-government must be easily intelligible. Addressed to them by any other people under the sun, it would at once command their sympathy and ensure their support. We base our claims on our natural rights to enjoy the privileges, as we possess the character, of a free nation. We are a people geographically distinct from the English. We have a national spirit of our own. We have our own historical traditions. We have our own peculiar wants, and, in great part, we profess a different religion. This character of a distinct nationality we have ever upheld, as the incidents of a somewhat unfortunate history bear witness. We are now, as we have ever been, fully conscious of
  388
  our right to national autonomy; and as we have striven to enforce that right in the past, so shall we strive to enforce it now. In asserting that we are a people distinct from the English, I must not be understood to mean that we are by nature antagonistic to England, nor even that we are necessarily opposed to her by tradition. It does not follow that because a man is not English, or of English blood, that he is therefore the enemy of England. We were not born Englishmen, and we will not die Englishmen; but that is no reason why through life we may not co-operate with Englishmen for a common political purpose. In many parts of the world men who are not English by race are nevertheless staunch friends of England. In many portions of the habitable globe men, alien by birth, are politically connected with England, and are fervent supporters of the English connection. There is, therefore, no firm reason why we cannot be at peace with England without being forced to become Englishmen. I wish to insist strongly upon this point—that it may be understood that, in putting forward this claim, in no sense do we meditate an attack upon Great Britain, and in no way do we wish to make our just demands a menace to her greatness. Being, therefore, a people apart, and forming a distinct, though not a separate, nationality, we assert our claim to the privilege of a people, and insist upon our right of national self-government. The claim thus put forward determines at once our attitude regarding all proposals of local self-government. We cannot consent to accept minor measures of parish administration by Elective Boards as a compromise of our demands for a National Legislature. Being a people, we claim a people's right—the government of our nation by our nation. We claim to manage for ourselves in National Council the national concerns which affect us and us only. We can accept nothing less than this. We have a duty to our country's ancient name and to the undying aspirations of our race, and we should fail in our obligations to both if we demanded less. I trust hon. Gentlemen will so far understand our demand as to perceive that no arrangement of County Boards or Provincial Councils will in any way meet it. I trust, too, that we shall not again be

  389
  asked to explain why Ireland cannot submit to be governed in the same way as the Municipality of London, or the county of Middlesex. It may seem, perhaps, to hon. Members that this aspiration is but a striving after a romantic idea. To that we reply that the ideas which govern men are factors of political life with which practical statesmen must deal. The history of mankind proves that ideas have had much to do in shaping the destinies of nations. I might add that ideas of this kind, when entertained by other nationalities, have found ample sympathy and encouragement from English statesmen, and that, thus fostered, they have not unfrequently revealed themselves as forces of vast power in the history of the modern world. Let English statesmen then realize, once for all, this plain truth—that the Irish people are determined at all cost to be a free people. We do not object to form a portion of the Empire; but we protest that we must be a free portion of it, requiring that we shall be recognized as a nation within the Empire. We demand that we be permitted to enjoy within the Empire the legislative and administrative independence which befits a free people. We cannot consent to have our laws made by an Assembly which is the Representative Body of another people, which does not live with our political life, which is not vitally concerned in our national prosperity, and which therefore cannot legislate in our name. Allowing such an Assembly to be actuated by a desire to accord us the fullest and most ample justice, the fact of its being virtually a foreign Assembly would still make its legislation a yoke, and at best a well-meant oppression. Again, we cannot submit to have our Administration placed in the hands of strangers, who are ignorant of the condition of our people, who are unable to sympathize with their feelings and aspirations, and whose government in consequence does not represent the national will. Granting that they were animated by the most honourable motives, the fact of their being strangers makes their interference in our domestic concerns a grievance, to which force alone will oblige us to submit. So long as the Senate in which our laws are made shows a majority of five to one against the Representatives of our people, so long will this grievance subsist; and,
  390
  furthermore, so long as the control of the Irish Administration rests with a Parliament so constituted, so long must we hold with the distinguished Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) that the Government of Ireland is an alien bureaucracy. I would again beg the House to understand that when I say "strangers," I do not mean enemies. I would convey that our laws are made and administered by men of different race, of different nationality, with but very imperfect opportunities of becoming acquainted with our circumstances and our wants, and whose political education has not fitted them to sympathize with either. You may still govern the ryots of India through English gentlemen appointed by the authorities at home; but in Ireland the point has been reached in political education, and I trust in political power, when this system is no longer feasible. The time I hope has arrived when the Rulers of Ireland shall be appointed by the will of the Irish people and not by a Government which comes and goes by the will of the people of England. Giving credit to Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Welshmen, for a sincere desire to rule Ireland aright, we still hold that they ought not to rule her because they are not of her people, and we emphatically decline to submit to their government. Is there anything preposterous in that? I appeal to the fairness and common sense of this House, and of the English people—Would the people of England consent to have their laws made by a Legislature sitting in Washington or Sydney, were those cities within four hours' sail of London? Would they submit to have their Administration placed in the hands of the American or Australian nominees of such an Assembly? We know full well their national spirit would revolt against such an arrangement. Why, then, should the Irish people acquiesce in a state of things under which their laws are framed by a Senate established in London, and the administration of their affairs is placed in the hands of individuals appointed by such a Parliament? But, Sir, the legislative independence of Ireland is not merely an idea—independence is something more than a mere ornament of a people's life—it vitally concerns the material interests of the nation, and affects profoundly its general welfare.

  391
  I do not know if the history of the human race furnishes one example of a country which has prospered without being free. If it does so, I have not heard of the example, nor read of it. It will, I think, be found that an alien domination, established in the midst of a people, has ever formed a centre from which deadly influences radiated to blight and blast the national prosperity and paralyze the national life. That, I believe, has been the rule in other nations. It certainly has been the rule in Ireland. The era of our Parliamentary independence was the one era of prosperity amongst us. With the destruction of our Independent Legislature began a period of decay which, continuing without interruption, has eventuated in the condition in which we find ourselves now. During the years immediately preceding the Union Ireland was a thriving nation. She possessed a widespread and ever increasing trade. The ferment of industrial life was active throughout the country, the bustle of commercial enterprize enlivened the streets of our towns; numerous native manufactures afforded occupation to our people, and swelled the sum of the nation's resources. The City of Dublin, which was then worthy of the name and dignity of the Metropolis of Ireland, was among the most brilliant and most wealthy of the European capitals. Sir, the statements of Lord Clare and of Lord Plunket as to the pre-Union prosperity of Ireland have been given to the House during the course of this debate. I shall now ask the attention of hon. Members to some other statements to the same effect—statements of the traders and bankers of Dublin in 1798 and 1799—and that Parliament, be it remembered, was representative only of a section of the nation—it represented the Protestants of Ireland only. Yet under the rule of that Assembly, thus imperfectly constituted, the progress of Ireland was rapid beyond example—so rapid, that jealousy has been assigned as the motive which prompted English Ministers to destroy the liberties to which that prosperity was attributed. I will not dwell upon the means to which Ministers stooped to effect their disastrous purposes. I believe there is not now an instructed Englishman who does not look with shame upon the devices by which the Legislative Union was effected. I
  392
  believe that there are few amongst those who advocate the continuance of the Union who, if it had to be effected again, would not shrink from participation in the loathsome horrors by which it was accomplished. Hon. Members, who are strangers to the methods of government that have hitherto obtained in Ireland, may think this language exaggerated. Were they natives of an Irish county, through which the ancient Britons and their mercenary German allies had been encouraged to carry ruin and dishonour and death, and where every glen has been the scene of some fiendish outrage, perpetrated by public authority on a defenceless peasantry; had they spoken with men who were eye-witnesses of the ghastly imfamies done in the name of the British Government to force a wretched people into rebellion, they would not esteem any language of indignation and abhorrence too strong for the crimes denounced. But I do not wish to keep the attention of the House fixed further on these melancholy events. I trust we are about to enter on an era of good feeling between the people of the two countries, in which the remembrance of these wrongs may be suffered to die out. What I am concerned to bring under the notice of the House is the circumstance that the Union has been disastrous to that prosperity in which, under a free Parliament, Ireland had advanced so rapidly. I shall be brief in my reference to the significant statistics which prove the dismal truth—statistics as to Irish manufactures. It appears, then, that the commercial and manufacturing prosperity of Ireland did not long survive the Legislature to which it owed its existence—a period of gradual decline began with the advent of the foreign Government which has lasted to our own day, and which has now reached its lowest point, because there is nothing left for it to destroy. An attempt was made some time since, in an Address presented to the new Viceroy by the Dublin Chamber of Commerce, to prove, from the Returns for the Port of Dublin, that the trade of Ireland had increased during the past 80 years. The tonnage of the vessels that entered and leave the port is much greater than it was at the beginning of the century—therefore, argued these discerning merchants, the prosperity of Ireland has increased, The Returns of

  393
  the Port of Dublin seem to furnish the most melancholy evidence of the decadence of Ireland that could well be offered us. It will be found, on examination of these Returns, that the bulk of the imports to Ireland come in the form of manufactured goods, and that the exports are mainly agricultural products. The fact that, since 1800, Ireland has been driven to buy more largely manufactured articles, and to pay for them in agricultural produce, is proof that her own industries have died out. Instead of utilizing her agricultural produce in maintaining a native manufacturing population, and exporting only as much of her surplus produce as would pay for the raw material, she has now to export as much as pays not only for the raw material, but for the labour which, 80 years ago, was supplied by a thriving population at home. The barristers and half-pay officers who form the Dublin Chamber of Commerce can hardly he regarded as authorities upon matters commercial; but their fallacies are worthy of notice, since they have been taken as a test by more thoughtful men. The one industry which, since the unfortunate Act of Union, has thriven in Ireland—apart from landlordism—is that of cattle raising. But that increase is no indication of national prosperity—it is rather the reverse. It indicates that a large part of the population has been exterminated to make way for cattle; that a readier means has been found of paying foreign countries for the commodities that were before manufactured at home, and a simpler method introduced of raising the yearly revenue which the people of Ireland have had to furnish to the 1,500 absentee landlords, who claim an exorbitant rent for some 4,500,000 Irish acres, of which they assert themselves owners. I will not weary the House by quoting further statistics in proof of the melancholy effects of the Legislative Union on Irish industries and Irish trade. I could wish that hon. Members who have no experience of our country could pay a visit to Dublin or any other of the Irish towns that, 80 years ago, were thriving centres of commercial and industrial life. It would do more to convince them than volumes of statistics. They should see the ruin which is gradually settling down upon those towns, the half-empty streets, the lines of noble houses crumbling into decay, the
  394
  squalor and misery which are invading the quarters in which wealth and rank had their home; and I venture to predict that, after an experience of this kind, they will not be deeply impressed by the figures of the Dublin Chamber of Commerce. But the loss of our industries and our commerce is not the only material disaster which we owe to the Legislative Union. We had a right to expect that the new Legislature, which usurped the functions of our own, would give attention to the one industry which was left to us, only because we could not be deprived of the soil of our own country. Shut out from other fields of labour, the Irish nation was forced to give itself almost entirely to the cultivation of the soil. Agricultural industry being almost the sole source on which the nation had to depend, it might have been expected that the Imperial Legislature would have regulated the condition of that industry so as to secure the cultivators against the evils of an extravagant competition for land; yet, for 80 years, the Imperial Legislature looked calmly on, till the evils, which grew out of the misery of the nation, reached the point at which they were endurable no longer; and, even then, it took an agitation which convulsed the country from end to end, and a supreme effort on the part of England's greatest statesman as well, to secure some measure of justice for the Irish farmers. The want of all legislative protection to the Irish tenant farmer against the exactions of a grasping landlordism must stand as a condemnation of that Government which arrogated to itself the guardianship of the rights of the Irish people. In less than a century, the landlords of Ireland, as a class, took advantage of the competition for land, occasioned by the practical extinction of other industries, to increase their levies on the labour of the poor beyond all reason; but Government did not interfere to assert the plain principles of economical justice in favour of the oppressed. From 1782 to 1874, the Irish rental of the Marquess of Bath rose from £28,000 a-year to £78,189; that of the Earl of Devonshire, from £18,000 to £81,326; that of the Earl of Caledon, from £1,000 to £19,754; that of the Marquess of Conyngham, from £9,000 a-year to £32,644; that of Lord Bantry, from £800 a-year to £14,561; and so

  395
  on through a melancholy list; and when, at last, the Imperial Legislature was brought, under the pressure of what looted like a social revolution, to take cognizance of this gigantic evil, the Court which it established proclaimed the grievous neglect of the Government by proceeding to cut down the landlords' rentals by from one-fith to one-quarter, and as its courage grew and its experience increased, by one-third, one-half, and even a higher fraction. If the proceedings of that Court are but the assertion of the principles of strict economical justice, what are we to say of the system of government which delayed 80 years to establish it—which waited until the country was on the verge of ruin before initiating remedial legislation? The further evils which government by the Imperial Legislature has brought upon Ireland have, of late years at least, become familiar to the ears of the Members of this House. Our educational system neglected, or, if not neglected, constructed in direct antagonism to the wishes of the nation, the law administered by partizan Judges and by ascendancy magistrates; the public offices in the gift of men who were most frequently at open war with the country, and filled by strangers whom they thought most likely to serve their purposes—a system of Administration in no way amenable to the public opinion of the nation, and supported in every unpopular act by the public opinion and the Press of another people. Famine at stated times; the Constitution suspended periodically; and, finally, the usual outcome of tyrannical government, chronic disaffection, and at due intervals spasmodic rebellion. I do not make these assertions in any contentious spirit. The Irish Question has now reached a phase in which the Representatives of Ireland may dispense with long arguments. The political Parties in this House are, I venture to believe, in accord as to what is due to Ireland in justice. The difference between them is a difference as to how much of justice shall be conceded. Concession is inevitable, and, let me add, the concession of the full measure of our rightful claims is inevitable. There is much talk about the choice between coercion and justice. I do not believe that the advocates of coercion put the least faith in it themselves; and I make bold to assert that, from coercion, Eng-
  396
  land has much more to fear than we have. We have reached a depth of political misfortune in which we have nothing to lose but the modicum of individual and public liberty which we are permitted to enjoy during the periods when the Constitution is not suspended by Act of Parliament. Commercial prosperity we have not, and it is difficult to imagine a worse condition of our agricultural industries than that in which we find ourselves at this moment. What, then, have we to lose by coercion? The additional Army that coercion would quarter on us would be but a trifling addition to the evils we have to wince under already. But what has England to fear from coercion? I have no hesitation in asserting that the statesman who, at this moment, would enter into a course of repressive legislation towards Ireland would deserve the reprobation of every man who values the dignity and the stability of this Empire. A people that have suffered, as few peoples have suffered, are willing to forget their injuries, and to join the people of England in maintaining a common Empire. They are willing to lend to the support of the Imperial power the strength of a people whose day is only beginning; they are joined in their friendly advances by the millions of their race scattered over the face of the globe, and the sympathy of every nation in which freedom is a sacred thing with them in their endeavour. Sir, I do not envy the man who can look with a light heart on the results that must follow if their advances are rejected. They have expressed their demands in the form and through the channels prescribed by your Constitution. They have unanimously asked from you the privilege you have accorded to many other peoples within the Empire. If you refuse them, you will have to deal with an insulted and maddened nation, familiar with the methods of political organization, united at home, and supported by their kinsmen in Britain and in every region under the sun; and you will have this hostile opinion at home and abroad impregnably strengthened and irresistibly justified, by the fact that the Prime Minister of England has proclaimed their demands to be just, and declared it your duty to satisfy them. United in the demand for mere justice, supported by the public opinion of the civilized world and by the enthu-

  397
  siastic sympathy of their own kinsmen, vindicated in their determination by the Prime Minister of England and by the most enlightened as well as the most patriotic of England's sons, they cannot be defeated. A cause that can command such resources must succeed, were the opposition against it ten times what it is. The certainty of our success is the best guarantee that we will never relax our endeavours. I trust it will be a motive to the hon. Gentleman who are opposed to us to relax somewhat of their opposition. They may be able to delay justice, or to minimize the measure of justice accorded to us; but a triumph of that kind would be a national disaster. It would not prevent us reaching the end we seek, but would leave us without friendly feeling towards those who had hindered us. If it is important that the relations of Ireland to England should henceforth be those of cordial friendliness, those who seek to make ungracious the concessions which must ultimately come, are doing scant service to both countries. It has been the misfortune of English remedial legislation for Ireland that every concession has always come too grudgingly to command our gratitude. I trust that mistake will not be committed now; and that all who are concerned for the welfare of both nations will concur to make this last concession a basis of genuine concord between them for all time to come. We have been asked for guarantees of loyalty to the Empire. The best guarantee in our case is that of self-interest. Make it worth while for us to be loyal, and we will be so. Make the Irish people a recognized member of the Imperial system, and they will be faithful. Permit us to share in the Imperial prosperity, and we will defend the Empire of which we are a part; and we will sacrifice, if needs be, our properties and our lives to uphold its greatness and enhance its glory. And count also upon our gratitude. We are willing to take the great Leader of this House and his Colleagues as the exponents of the wishes and feelings of the people of England towards us and towards the people for whom we now speak; we are disposed to be grateful. We know they have done a just deed; and on account of the generosity they have shown, we are willing to forget the littleness and the bigotry which have opposed them. As to the insulting predictions that
  398
  we should plunder the property of our fellow-subjects if power were placed in our hands, if we are able to govern at all we must be able to govern with justice, and we shall have as much interest in making the minority contented in Ireland as the British Government could have in protecting it. I pass by the foolish appeal to the prejudices of the British traders, which represent us as excluding British manufactures from our markets. The common sense of the ordinary British trader will convince him that, in a prosperous and thriving Ireland, he is likely to have a better market for his wares than in the empty towns and ruined villages of Ireland in her present state. These pretended difficulties are not worthy of the consideration of thoughtful men. Hon. Members, in discussing this question, should look to higher issues. They should, I think, be swayed chiefly by motives dictated by justice between nations, and by the honest desire to undo a great national wrong and alleviate a great national misery. On behalf of the people of Ireland, we now ask for justice from the people of England. "We appeal to them to cast aside unworthy prejudices, and to accord us generously the rights we claim. If they will concede to us the privilege of self-government, if they will grant us our rightful share in the Imperial dignity, we will contribute to the support of the common Empire with the enthusiastic zeal and unconstrained devotion of a free and grateful people.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: I am sure that everyone who has heard the hon. Baronet must feel that, from his point of view, he has made a moderate speech, and one which shows that he has the interest he speaks to very close to his heart; but I feel that we must not, at the present time, blind our eyes to the fact that the Irish Members in the House have an object in view which they surely conceal, and that their speeches are not made for the purpose of showing what their real feelings are. Those, on the other hand, who venture to oppose this measure have got their responsibilities to regard towards their country, and their duty to regard towards Ireland as well as towards England. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister made an appeal yesterday to some section of the followers of

  399
  his Party, and pointed out to them the responsibility that rests upon each one of them. Does the right hon. Gentleman suppose that the opponents of the measure do not feel the responsibility of their position? Does he think that we are careless or indifferent to the duties we owe to the country and the House? I trust that the Prime Minister, and those right hon. Gentlemen who have assisted him, will pardon me if, in expressing my views in opposition to this measure, I may, perhaps, do so in somewhat stronger language than they may think befitting in their much greater experience. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will admit that I have the right, to the best of my ability, to present my views to the House. I cannot help noticing that the position of the House, and certainly the position of hon. Members who feel it their duty to oppose this measure, is most peculiar, for we have not got to deal with the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues delivered from the Bench opposite, but we have got to deal with an exposition of policy made at a meeting at which none of us were present. That puts hon. Members who desire to deal thoroughly with the measure in a position of the greatest difficulty, because it will be open to the right hon. Gentleman to say, if by any chance we have not understood correctly his speech as reported in the newspapers—"You have not appreciated what the position was, and what I meant when I made that statement." The hon. Baronet opposite gave a large number of reasons for voting against this Bill, yet, strangely enough, at the end of his speech expressed his intention of voting for it. The hon. Baronet said he could not vote for an abstract Resolution; but what is the House called upon to do at the present time but to vote on an abstract Resolution? [Cries of "No!"] I do not ask hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to assent to my view; but, at the same time, I do ask them to hear the reasons why I suggest to the House that this Bill is no better than an abstract Resolution. There have been some who have spoken in this House who say that they are only prepared to vote for this measure when they see it as a complete scheme; and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in a speech of unexampled eloquence and of the greatest
  400
  possible detail, has described the grounds which make the measure, in his opinion, complete. What is our position now? We have at length elicited that there is no intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government that this Bill shall ever reach the Committee stage at all. Not only is it that the second reading is to be a mere farce—a mere matter of form—but we are told that this Bill is not again to be presented to the House; but some other Bill is to be proposed that is to embody, as far as we can judge, the measure that the right hon. Gentleman introduced. Sir, if that is not the position, why is it that the right hon. Gentleman, addressing first those present at the meeting, and now, to-night, the House of Commons, has told us that the measure is not to be proceeded with beyond the second reading? The right hon. Gentleman must forgive me for expressing my feelings—they are the feelings of conviction—when I say that I think the Members of the Liberal Party were put in a most humiliating position yesterday. It was conceded to them by the right hon. Gentleman that they might have very good reason for opposing the second reading of the Bill in its present form. It was conceded to them that they might very likely feel that they could not support the second reading of the Bill in its present form; but what were they invited to do? They were invited to vote for the second reading while retaining their liberty to vote against the third reading; and yet, in the very next sentence, they were told that they never would have an opportunity of voting on the third reading. This seems to me an extraordinary thing. Here are these Gentlemen who will go down to posterity as having been at that meeting. Are they, I ask, when their conduct is referred to, to get up, or is someone to get up for them, and say—"It is true we do appear as having supported the Bill; but we only voted for the second reading, on the distinct understanding that we shall have an opportunity of voting against it on the third reading, if the matters of which we complain are not set right in it?" I do not pretend to put this—or even to suggest to the right hon. Gentlemen that I have a right to put this—as a matter of Parliamentary experience. I admit that I may be making a mistake, for I have only been able, in years gone by, to read

  401
  from outside what has been said and done in this House; but this I will say, that, as a matter of principle, I can see no difference whatever between the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, and voting for an abstract Resolution, which is repudiated by the right hon. Gentleman. I think the House ought now to have some statement from hon. Members below the Gangway on this side as to whether they do, or do not, approve of the proposed course. I can well understand a certain view being adopted by them. I can well understand the Representatives from Ireland saying—"We are only too glad to take this measure, because it is a step in the direction in which we seek to go;" without openly saying in this House—"It is a platform on which we can stand, in order to make further demands." We can understand that they, with perfect honesty, are entitled to accept what is given to them, and that then, in years to come, they or their successors may ask for more; but I do think, if it is to be understood by the House that those hon. Gentleman are really satisfied not only with this measure, but also with the course adopted by Her Majesty's Government, they ought to say so. I do not think it is fair to the House—it is scarcely fair to Her Majesty's Government, and it is certainly not fair to the opponents of the Bill—that it should be assumed without a statement on their part that they will be satisfied with the course that has been taken. One cannot help being struck by what one reads in some of the Irish organs in regard to this matter. Of course, hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway may say I have no right to refer to this paper, when they have heard what I am going to read; but I find this passage in a paper which is, I believe, not unconnected with some of the hon. Members below the Gangway—
  "The proposal to withdraw the Bill, either before or after the second reading, is absolutely out of the question. It would be a defeat more disastrous than could, by any possibility, be sustained in the Lobbies."
  Does the hon. Baronet below the Gangway agree to that? If that is the position, the hon. Members below the Gangway, instead of supporting the proposal, ought to let the House know what is their opinion of the proposed second
  402
  reading. The same organ goes on to state—
  "The proposal to strike out the clause excluding the Irish Members from the Westminster Parliament is no less inadmissible. It will be a gratuitous admission by the Government that they are wrong in the main point of their Irish policy, and that they dare not take the judgment of Parliament on that particular proposal."
  What I say is, that if this does express the views of a section of those who are represented by the Irish Members, I think that in candour the latter ought I to let the House know what their opinion is of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in offering to withdraw the Bill after the second reading in order to I save a defeat which is otherwise inevitable. I will now pass to so much as has been left of the measure, and to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, which I read with a great deal of attention, in The Times of this morning. I apologize to the right hon. Gentleman if I am misrepresenting his views. I have only brought to bear on the matter such explanation as I could, putting the two things together; but I must say I have less difficulty in speaking against the second reading to-night, because if the right hon. Gentleman is true to the statement he has made—if he does not change again as he has changed so many times in the course of these discussions—["No, no!"] Well, I must be allowed to express my own opinion. I will submit to criticism. I have never shirked it, at any rate, in this House. I cannot reconcile the various statements of the right hon. Gentleman, even in the course of the debate on this Bill, without coming to the conclusion that he has changed his opinions. I therefore say that if the right hon. Gentleman does remain true to the exposition of policy given at the Foreign Office on Thursday, the principal blots and objections and vices of this measure will still continue in it, or in the Bill that is to be introduced, and the measure brought in on these I lines would be open to the Constitutional objections that have been raised by more than one hon. Member in this House to the measure as it at present stands. A great deal of the debate during the last few nights has turned upon the speeches of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) and the hon. and learned Mem-

  403
  ber for Inverness (Mr. Finlay), and I do not wonder at it. I do not wonder that the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bryce), the Presisident of the Local Government Board (Mr. Stansfeld), and the hon. Member for the Wisbech Division of Cambridge-shire (Mr. Rigby) should, in their turn, have attempted to answer those speeches. It is, at any rate, my duty to say what my view, and what our view on this side of the House, is upon this question; and I do not hesitate to say—not as a matter of doubt, not as a matter of opinion which I am afraid to quote, not as a matter of statement which I desire to withdraw—that if this Bill passes in its present shape, or if an amended measure is brought in in the shape indicated in the Prime Minister's speech, the authority and supremacy of the Imperial Parliament will be seriously impaired. Sir, this, at any rate, is clear—and I am not going to deal with it from any special-pleading point of view, I am going to test what the right hon. Gentleman called "the root and substance of the matter"—this is clear, from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and from the clauses which exist in the Bill, that certain matters are intended to be put within the exclusive domain of a Legislative Body in Ireland, and that these matters, upon the face of the Bill, are to be excepted from the supremacy and from the domain of this House of Commons. The hon. Member for Wisbech, speaking to-night, said that it would be right to postpone all consideration of the clauses of the Bill until the Committee stage—a very safe observation to make, because it is a stage which will never be reached. But I protest against the doctrine that in discussing the fundamental parts of the measure we ought not to regard the provisions of the clauses as presented to the House for the purpose of second reading. These clauses were referred to by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke yesterday; and I say again that Clause 37 provides in so many terms that that which is left to the Irish Legislative Body is no longer within the power of this British House of Commons. I am perfectly willing to read the language; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary cannot plead ignorance of the language to which I refer—
  404
  "Save as herein expressly provided, all matters in relation to which it is not competent for the Irish Legislative Body to make or repeal laws shall remain and be within the exclusive authority of the Imperial Parliament save as aforesaid, whose power and authority in relation thereto shall in no wise be diminished or restrained by anything herein contained."
  I will not deal with this by blinking the subject. I will point out a reason why, if the Bill were to pass, the supremacy of Parliament would be seriously impaired; but I will for a moment adopt the language of the right hon. Gentleman and say that if, after the passing of this measure, which purports to give not merely municipal government, but an Irish Legislature, which purports to give to that Irish Legislature the power of making every law, and the power of altering every law, except in so far as is excepted by Clause 3 and Clause 4, and which only reserves to this House of Commons—the Imperial Parliament as it will then be—those matters which are not handed over to the Irish Legislature—if, I say, after the passing of this measure, this House were to pass a Bill respecting one of those matters that are assigned, it would be guilty of a gross breach of faith, and will do that which will be far more than a breach of some technical rule of law. I listened with the greatest interest to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General. He knows how I respect his opinion. He knows how I should look for guidance from him in such a matter, and I was astonished to hear that, though he quoted the speeches of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay), beyond saying that their arguments were futile, he never ventured by argument to point out in what respect they had erred. It does not make an argument bad to call it a futile one. Though the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was eloquent and moving on general topics, I think the House was entitled to have some exposition from him—something more than the statement that the arguments to which I refer were futile. He ought to have dealt with such a matter as this very much more in detail. I am not going to weary the House with technical matters. I want it to remember that there is one part of this Bill that seems to be lost sight of by all the

  405
  lawyers who have attempted to advocate the Bill. The Attorney General talked of the 30 Legislative Bodies in the British Empire. Does he forget—I am sure he does not—but does the House forget that not one of the countries, districts, or peoples who have a separate Legislative Body ever had representation in the Imperial Parliament? It is, I say, one thing by a grant of the Crown, or a grant of Parliament, or, it may be, by some other Constitutional means, to give certain limited powers of legislation, reserving—as always has been hitherto reserved in express terms—the power of the Imperial Parliament; but it is quite another thing where you take a section of the House—a section entitled to the same rights as we have, a section who now form an integral part of the Imperial Parliament—and say—"We will cut you adrift; we will place you in another country, and give you separate legislative rights." I do not hesitate to say that, looked at from a practical point of view, looked at from the point of view of making a Parliamentary contract with these Gentlemen who have the right to represent Ireland, it is an entirely different thing to say—"Leave this House, and leave it on the terms that you shall have the sole right of legislating in Ireland in respect of Irish affairs," and to say to some Colony, who has never had representation—"We give you the right of autonomy, subject to the express power reserved to the British Parliament of legislating, if they think fit, and of your being bound to obey their laws." I think I may make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister to deal with this point when he addresses the House. He will do me the justice of saying that I am not treating it in the least degree in a technical manner. I think we are entitled to say, having regard to the precedents of the India Act and the Colonial Laws Act, and having regard to the admission made by the Attorney General, that this Bill was framed on the lines of those Acts, the omission of clauses analogous to those expressly reserving to the Imperial Parliament the right of legislating for the Colonies—the omission of a clause enabling the Imperial Parliament to legislate on Irish matters—was in itself significant. But I say, further, that the Prime Minister made no question about
  406
  it. When he introduced this Bill he made it perfectly clear that he did not intend that this English Parliament should legislate in respect of Irish affairs as distinct from Imperial affairs. What was his language? He said that there could not be a Domestic Legislature in Ireland dealing with Irish affairs and Irish Representatives sitting in Parliament to take part in English and Scotch Business. It is perfectly clear that if Ireland is to have a Domestic Legislature Irish Peers and Irish Representatives cannot come here to control Irish Business. I appeal to the House whether the meaning of this was not that, as Irishmen are to have exclusive rights in regard to Irish affairs, therefore they have no right to come and interfere with English and Scotch affairs? If the right hon. Gentleman meant that there should be a practical power of legislation in this House with regard to Irish affairs, I will do him the justice to say he would have said so, and would not have allowed the House to remain under the false impression it did. If this Bill passes into law with the clause in it giving the Irish Legislature the exclusive right to deal with Irish affairs, and reserving to the English Parliament no right to deal with Irish affairs, and if, at the same time, the clause stands which declares that the Bill can only be repealed and altered in the presence of the Irish Members, all that I can say is that it would be practically impossible and against the terms of the Bill for the Imperial Parliament to pass an Act of Parliament dealing with Irish affairs without repealing this Bill. It may be possible that such a breach of faith may be committed by the British House of Commons; but, if it were possible, it would be so gross a breach of faith that I cannot conceive that it is a matter which ought to come within the range of practical politics. Now, let us for a moment consider one or two other matters in respect of which the power of the Imperial Parliament is seriously impaired. It has astonished me that it occurred to no one—at any rate, on the Government side—to point out the extraordinary nature of the veto given to the Privy Council by the 25th section. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE dissented to the use of the word "veto."] I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. Perhaps I have

  407
  used a wrong expression. I think he will see in a moment what I mean—that the Privy Council have the right of deciding finally whether or not an Act of Parliament passed by the Irish Legislature is, or is not, beyond the scope of that Legislature to pass. I used the word "veto." Unfortunately, I am not the master of language the right hon. Gentleman is; but I am quite willing to make my meaning clear. I was about to refer to what was said by the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Stansfeld), and certainly the most extraordinary proposition was laid down by him in connection with this matter, and one which I was also sorry to hear somewhat confirmed by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Bryce). They said that this idea of submitting these matters to the tribunal of the Privy Council was taken from the well-known precedent—to use the expression of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board—of the Supreme Court of the United States. Well, I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman was in the House when the hon. Member for Wisbech (Mr. Rigby) spoke to-night when he referred, perfectly correctly, to the constitution of the Supreme Court of the United States, to what its functions are, and to the functions proposed to be given to the Privy Council. I assert—and I invite the criticism of every right hon. and hon. Gentleman on the other side of the House—that there is no real analogy between the function of the Supreme Court of the United States, which is in itself entirely unique, and the function which it is proposed shall be exercised by the Privy Council. But if the functions of the Privy Council are as the right hon. Gentleman assumed, then the power of the Imperial Parliament is most seriously impaired. It was pointed out by the hon. Member for Wisbech, that by the Constitution of the United States the Legislatures of the different States have equal rights, and if by any chance any Act passed by those States should be contrary to the terms of the Constitution, the function of the Supreme Court is to set it aside. There is nothing at all analogous to that in the British Constitution. [Mr. BRYCE here interposed with some words of dissent.] I can assure the hon. Gentleman
  408
  the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that I have not the smallest objection to being corrected. Perhaps he did not hear the speech of the hon. Member for Wisbech. The hon. Member stated the fact with perfect correctness. He said that the right of the Supreme Court of the United States is to control the State Legislatures within the terms of the Constitution. [Mr. BRYCE: To interpret the Constitution.] What is the distinction for this purpose between interpretation and control? ["Oh, oh!"] The hon. Member is trifling with terms, for if an Act of one Legislature in the Union is passed, and it is contrary to the Constitution of the United States, the Supreme Court interprets it as being invalid and beyond its power, and that, I maintain, may be interpretation, but it is also control. I can give chapter and verse of instances in which the legislation of one of the federated States has been held to be ultra vires by the Supreme Court of the United States; but there is nothing analogous to this in the British Constitution. The nearest approach is that, in regard to Colonial legislation, the Privy Council has certain powers in the matter of the Royal Assent being given; but I need not tell the House, because it has been admitted by many right hon. Gentlemen, that the Imperial Parliament can pass an Act overruling the decision of the Privy Council in any such matter. Will the House bear with me whilst I point out what the provisions of this Bill are? By the provisions of this Bill in regard to this matter, if the Irish Legislature passes an Act beyond the scope of its authority, under Clauses 3 and 4, this would be submitted to the Privy Council, whose decision would be final. But if the supremacy of Parliament is to be left unimpaired, the power of deciding whether the Irish Parliament has exceeded its authority should, of course, rest with the Imperial Parliament. What, then, becomes of the finality of the Privy Council's decision, if it is not intended to override the power of this House? No doubt, the immense ingenuity of those who are advocating this Bill will be brought to bear upon this matter, and that we shall be told that there is some different view to be taken. But where is it in the Bill? You find it stated in the measure that the judgment of the Privy

  409
  Council is to be final, and, under the circumstances I have pointed out, the exercise of that judgment would be a complete infraction of the supremacy of Parliament, unless it is understood that the authority of the Privy Council is never to be put in force. When it is sought to justify this part of the measure by an appeal to the existence of the Supreme Court of the United States, all I can say is that the Supreme Court of the United States has nothing in common with the Privy Council, for there is no tribunal here which can control the Imperial Parliament or interpret its Statutes in the same way that the Supreme Court of the United States can interpret the Acts which have been passed by the federated States. Now, there is one other matter upon which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) has been entirely and completely misunderstood. I forget whether it was the Attorney General or the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, or both, who referred to it, but they have said there is no possibility of a judicial conflict. I should like just for a moment to put to the House what the true position of matters is. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has said it will be competent for this House to pass an Act of Parliament respecting Irish matters the day after this Bill is passed. Well, if that be so, it is contrary to the provisions to which I have referred relating to the jurisdiction, both of this House and of the Irish Legislature, with respect to Irish matters. But assume that this Parliament did pass Acts in direct contradiction to some of those passed by the Irish Parliament. Now, what would be the position of an Irish Judge who had brought before him an Act of the British House of Parliament—I speak, of course, of the House of Parliament sitting at Westminster when the Irish Members are not here? Suppose an Act of this kind dealing with Irish affairs, laying down a different law to the Acts passed by the Irish Legislature, came before an Irish Judge, what would be his position? I say that, adopting the principle of Constitutional Law that has been recognized by every lawyer who has spoken in this debate, no Court of Law would venture to question the right of Parliament to legislate in any case—I say that, adopting that principle,
  410
  it would be incumbent upon the Irish Judge to follow the law of the Irish Parliament. ["No, no!"] I am perfectly willing, as I have said more than once, to submit to criticism; but it is only fair to listen to my arguments. The Judge would have before him an Act of Parliament passed by an Irish Legislature—an Act which would have received the Royal Assent. He would have before him this Act—the Magna Charta of the Irish people, according to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister—whereby, on the face of it, there was left to the English Parliament, as I have already urged, no right of dealing with the matters which were committed to the Irish Legislature. In following the Statute passed by the Irish Parliament, this Judge would have the encouragement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minster, who has told us that the laws passed for Ireland by this Parliament, even when the Irish Members are here, are foreign laws. If they are foreign laws whilst the Irish Members are here, how much more will they be foreign laws in every way when the Irish Members are absent? I do not hesitate to say that if we are to place the Irish Judges, who would owe no allegiance to the British House of Commons, in conflict with the English Parliament, it would be the duty of the Irish Judges to obey the Irish Parliament. They would be removable by the vote, or rather the Address, of the Irish Legislature, and if, as I say, a conflict arose, they would naturally obey the Acts of the Irish Parliament. It may be said—"It is all very fine to make these statements, but in such criticisms as these hon. Members who oppose the Bill seem to assume that the Irish people are either criminals or lunatics." I was sorry to hear language of that kind used by the Attorney General. Has anyone ever heard from these Benches any insinuation that the Irish people are criminals or lunatics? One may have thought them misled and misguided, and to be under influences which are not for the best, and which have for their result that the true opinion of the nation is not elicited at the elections; but, at any rate, we have never attributed to the Irish nation the suggestion or idea that they were going to act either as criminals or lunatics. We are taunted with having criticised the "safeguards," and with

  411
  having pointed out that they are not sufficient, and that the Imperial Parliament will be shorn of some of its supremacy. It does seem strange to me that these taunts should come from right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are responsible for this Bill. For where do we find the strongest testimony that the framers of the Bill feel that the dominant Party—meaning thereby the Party represented by the Home Rulers—are not to be trusted? It is in the Bill itself. The hon. and learned Attorney General—and I hear him making the remark again sotto voce—twitted us the other night because some of us who contend that this Bill would impair the authority of Parliament, have also pointed out that that which is to be given to the Irish nation ought not to satisfy them. These arguments are not inconsistent. I wish to show that this measure has not been carefully thought out. I also wish to show that the framers of the Bill have considered that the power which was going to prevail in Ireland was not a power which was entitled to full trust and confidence. I will not, except in one passing reference, allude to the Land Purchase Bill; but it does seem to me, whatever view may be taken of the right of this House to deal separately or together with the two measures, that the Prime Minister himself represented that, in the opinion of the Government, the union of the two measures was necessary. If there was that absolute trust and confidence in the Party that was to have the dominant influence in Ireland, what was the necessity for the introduction of a measure framed in these terms? But it does not stand there. I am referring to what is on the face of the Bill. Will any hon. Gentleman get up and say that the Irish Judges have not done their duty? Will Earl Spencer, or anyone who has had a knowledge of the course of judicial business in Ireland in these troublous times, say that these men—these Judges—have not done their duty gallantly? They have enforced the law as representatives of the Queen, and have done in their own country what the Judges of Her Majesty are in the habit of doing. Will the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. John Morley), or any other responsible Member of the Government, say that Mr. Justice Lawson, Mr. Justice Murphy, and Mr. Justice O'Brien are not worthy of the confidence
  412
  of Her Majesty? I do not think it could be said that they were not gentlemen in whom the Prime Minister had confidence when some of them sat on the Front Bench beside him. I say that no one will suggest that these Judges have not been worthy of respect and esteem; yet so little confidence has the right hon. Gentleman in the dominant Party in Ireland that he provides for the retirement of the Judges, if they wish to retire, and enacts that they shall be obliged to abdicate the duties which they have fulfilled to their own credit, and to the safety of the nation; and here, again, I will not fence at all with the question, but will take the right hon. Gentleman's own language. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General quite right in suggesting that this is a fear that is only expressed by those who think the Irish nation is composed of criminals or lunatics? Had he in his mind the language of his great and eminent Leader when he threw that reproach in our teeth? I will quote the words of the right hon. Gentleman, which seem to me a complete refutation of the words of the Attorney General—
  "Some of the Judges, by no fault of their own, have been placed in relations more or less uneasy with popular influences, and with what, under the new Constitution, will, in all probability, be the dominating influence in that country."
  It seems to me—I will not use the word "unfair," because we know the Attorney General would not be unfair intentionally—but it seems to me hardly just, when these provisions, which will protect men who have only done their duty against dominating influences, are inserted in the Bill, to suggest that we are the persons who are afraid that the Judges in Ireland will not do their duty. I do not wish to-night to deal with the question of the connection between the Legislative and the Executive. It has been amply dealt with by the hon. and learned Member for the Romford Division of Essex (Mr. Westlake), and I do not think it would be right to detain the House with further argument when it has been so well put by the hon. and learned Gentleman; but I will say this, that I share the feelings and the views of the hon. and learned Member, and it does seem to me to be a most serious thing that we are to have a complete

  413
  severance between the Legislative and Executive, and that we are to have no control over those Ministers who represent the Offices of State in Ireland. It involves serious questions as to the Army, and as to the action of the Military Forces in Ireland, who cannot act of themselves, but only on the authority of the Civil power—questions which, in my opinion, call for some answer, and which, I trust, some Member of the Government will be able to answer. I will content myself with adopting the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments. I have but a few more general observations to make, and I crave indulgence in making them, because we all feel the importance of the question. The President of the Local Government Board, in order, I presume, to inflame the feelings of the House, has said that the feelings of Ireland are the result of many years of obstinate injustice and repression. If the right hon. Gentleman had referred to what had happened 30 or 40 years ago, I should have absolutely and entirely agreed with him; but if he referred to what has happened during the last 20 years, then I contend that there is no ground whatever for the assertion. I do not wish to quote the Prime Minister, but the House knows perfectly well that the right hon. Gentleman has asserted more than once that there is nothing which Ireland has asked for that this country and this Parliament have refused. I wish to call the attention of the House to the very remarkable difference between the present cry and that which existed in former times. Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Butt were able to state to the House grievances which existed, and which required Parliamentary remedy by legislation; and in many instances, if not in all, the House admitted that their complaints were right. Have hon. Members below the Gangway been able to quote a case of legislation which is now required for Ireland with which this House is not competent to deal? Is it to be said that the British House of Parliament has so fallen that it cannot respond to the just appeals of the Representatives of the Irish nation in their places in the Imperial Parliament? It seems to me that such a supposition is little short of an insult to the British House of Commons. Before the introduction of a measure of this kind, we ought to know in what respect the Imperial House of Commons
  414
  has failed to do its duty to Ireland. Another matter has been mentioned, and as it is a matter of most serious importance, I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in his place whilst I refer to it. When my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) was speaking, he referred to some observations of the Chief Secretary, and apparently, or at any rate to the mind of the Chief Secretary, misquoted those observations. I do not know that there was a misquotation, but the Chief Secretary repeated his words. I shall read to the House the words of the Chief Secretary; and when it is suggested that this measure is put forward in the interests of the Irish nation; when it is said to be a measure of peace that is demanded by the Irish people, what is it that the Irish Secretary said with regard to this measure of peace? I took down his words on that occasion. The words were—
  "The dynamiters and assassins will be very delighted if you reject this Bill."
  Now, what does that mean? Does it moan that this House is going to make a bargain with dynamiters and assassins? ["No!"] Then, what is the meaning of the statement that they will rejoice if you reject this Bill? All I can say is, that this is pointing to that spirit of fear which was repudiated by Mr. Disraeli, when he spoke in that debate referred to by the Prime Minister, and when he said we ought to vote on the measure as Englishmen, and not with the fear that we should meet Rory of the Hills in the Lobby. It seems to me that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is unworthy of him.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The hon. and learned Gentleman absolutely misconstrues the force and drift of my argument. My argument was that if you reject this Bill you will divert the movement in Ireland from the hands of Constitutional agitators into the hands of violent Extremists on the other side of the Atlantic.
  SIR RICHARD WEBSTER: Nobody can quote the exact words of the right hon. Gentleman without misunderstanding him. I have quoted the words, and I will submit to the judgment of the House. What is——

  415
  "Diverting the movement in Ireland from the hands of Constitutional agitators into the hands of violent Extremists"
  but saying that we must be afraid of rejecting this Bill, because the fact of its rejection will rejoice the dynamiters and assassins? Perhaps it appears to me in that light owing to the infirmity of my own mind. If he can show me that I have misunderstood his argument, I will gladly admit it; but at present I can put no other construction or meaning on his argument. I maintain that dynamiters and assassins are factors which ought to be left out of the calculation altogether. We have suffered enough, God knows! through them in the past, and there are those amongst us who know that the course pursued by Liberal Governments on other occasions have led to some terrible results; but I say that the Government is surely not so craven and cowardly as to be affected by such arguments as those. But it is not from the right hon. Gentleman alone that we have heard these arguments. I trust the House will remember the observations made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon), who is, I think, not present. No one doubts his sincerity. I have never for one moment doubted the sincerity of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. They know what they want, and, from their point of view, they are fighting honestly for it. I, perhaps, misunderstand the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Mayo, as I misunderstand the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. He says there is a Truce of God in Ireland—there is a Truce of God in this House. With whom is this truce? Why is it we are appealed to to continue this truce to-night? It can only be that it is supposed that by passing this Bill the truce which the introduction of this measure has begun will be continued with the Extremists, who are capable of outrageous acts. ["No, no!"] Well, I know of no other Party to whom the hon. Member could refer, and it would be a monstrous thing if we were afraid of doing justice to Ireland, as well as to other parts of the United Kingdom, under a fear of this kind. Then the phrase "cessation of hostility between the two peoples" is used, and it is a remarkable thing that the fact that there is no hostility between England and Ireland should be spoken of as "a Truce of God
  416
  in Ireland and a Truce of God in this House." How has this hostility been shown? The Extremists have adopted the system of conducting matters by violent means. We do not need to have any fear of the legitimate Representatives in Ireland. They have the most perfect right to represent their views in most forcible language, and they certainly do adopt a forcible method of bringing their wishes and desires before us. But to speak of this cessation of the use of this method as "a Truce of God," is a remarkable thing, and I should scarcely think the hon. Member for East Mayo, if he were here, would defend the words. I have plainly—and I hope in not too strong language—put my convictions before the House. The Tory Party feel their responsibilities just as much as hon. Gentlemen opposite feel theirs. But I cannot help saying one word, in conclusion, with regard to this measure, of which we are never to be allowed to discuss the details, and which we are only to deal with as an abstract proposition of Home Pule—Home Rule being, as has been over and over again pointed out, a thing which may mean anything until the details are fully explained. Sir, I wonder if it ever crosses the minds of those who are prepared to follow the Prime Minister with such blind obedience what the real position of this legislation has been. It was repudiated by the Prime Minister himself in December last. ["No, no!"] An hon. Gentleman opposite says "No!" He may have been in the secrets of the Prime Minister. He may have understood the original utterances of the right hon. Gentleman; but how did the honest people outside understand the language of the Prime Minister in December last? When the scheme was first put forward in a semi-authorized version it was repudiated by the right hon. Gentleman in language that convinced the nation at large that there was no such scheme. There was nothing that would have justified any reasonable man in coming to the conclusion that the right hon. Gentleman meant to bring in such a scheme. The scheme, however, repudiated by him in December last was introduced by the right hon. Gentleman a few weeks ago, supported by the remnants of a shattered, and, adopting the Prime Minister's phrase, I might say an almost emasculated Cabinet seeking to

  417
  obtain safety on the wreckage of a disorganized Party. It is by such means as these 1hat it is hoped safety can be attained by Her Majesty's Government at the present time. Of the ultimate passing of this measure I have no real fear. [Cheers and counter cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen must not misunderstand me; I do not think they will affect to do so. I have no fear that the Bill will ever pass. The House and the feelings of the nation will be true to that which is right and just in this matter. What I am afraid of is the influence that the fact that such a measure could have been introduced by the Prime Minister may have upon the ignorant classes to whom the right hon. Gentleman has appealed. ["No, no!"] Do hon. Gentlemen opposite repudiate the language of the Prime Minister? Has not the Prime Minister admitted, in his Manifesto, that the professional classes, the men who have to work by their brains, are against him? It is because I fear the influence on the uneducated classes that I think it dangerous and most disastrous that this measure should have been introduced by the right hon. Gentleman. It is to be feared that, for many years to come, the proposal of this measure has inflicted a serious blow on the bond of Union between England and Ireland—a bond that can only be strengthened by straightforward and honest adherence to a moderate and firm policy of law and order. Sir, I trust that the independent opinion of the country will join the independent opinion in this House in resisting a measure which can bring no lasting benefit to Ireland, and can only injure the United Kingdom, of which Ireland is a part.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(The Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Henry H. Fowler.)
  Motion agreed, to.
  Debate further adjourned, till Monday next.

  ARMS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 205.]
  (Mr. John Morley, Mr. Secretary Childers, Mr. Attorney General.)

  CONSIDERATION.
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  On Motion of The CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. John Morley), the fol-
  418
  lowing Amendments made:—Page 1, Clause 2, line 14, leave out "June," and insert "December;" Sub-section 2, line 14, leave out "first," and insert "thirtieth;" leave out "eight," and insert "seven;" Clause 3, line 24, after "granted," insert "and the number of prosecutions ordered and the results."
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. John Morley.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 156; Noes 65: Majority 91.—(Div. List, No. 111.)
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

  LOSSES BY RIOT (COMPENSATION) BILL.— [BILL 209.]
  (Mr. Childers, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Attorney General.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 24th May.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Compensation to persons for damage by riot).
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill a question on a subject which, in some parts of the country, is considered of importance—that is, the subject of areas. It has been already mentioned in the discussion on the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, and I am under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman said he would make inquiries in the matter. For the sake of putting myself in Order, I shall move to strike out the words "police district," in the first line of the clause, for the purpose of inserting the word "hundred." It appears to me that the Bill, as it is drawn, will very much alter the incidence of the rate. I take the case of my own county. It is divided into hundreds, which are, for all money purposes, found to be satisfactory; we have hundred rates, and if a disturbance should take place in Liverpool or in Manchester I am convinced that the people living in the northern part of the county would feel it a very great hardship if they are called upon to pay for the first time for damages caused by riots with which they have nothing to

  419
  do. This system of hundreds has worked perfectly well; it is well understood; and, therefore, I ask the right hon. Gentleman why, for the purpose of this Bill, he has taken the police districts? I am aware that he has placed a clause in the Compensation for Damages Bill, which provides that the police district shall be the rating area. That may be quite right; but I do not think the analogy holds in the case of the counties, some of which are very large, and where it would be a great hardship for the inhabitants at one end of the county to be called upon to pay for the damage done at the other.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 13, to leave out the words "police district," and insert the word "hundred."—(Sir R. Assheton Cross.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): It is quite true that in Lancashire the hundreds have certain duties with respect to bridges, and there is in the Highways Act of 1878 a provision that the rating area should be the hundred. That is the only county, I believe, where this is the case, except possibly Gloucestershire, about which I am not quite certain; but these are the only two counties, at any rate. I have taken pains to look into this matter in consequence of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and have arrived at the conclusion that it is better to adopt the police area for the purpose of this Bill.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the trouble he has taken in this matter; but yet I do not think he has quite answered the contention of my right hon. Friend that the county of Lancashire is so large that a rate to pay for the damage caused by a riot at one part of it would be regarded as a tax for the purpose of repairing injury with which the people in another part of it had nothing to do. I have suggested that it would be better to take a different area, and I do not see why the Union area should not be adopted, which would practically come to the same thing in the end, and would be felt to be more
  420
  uniform—that is to say, more just to the large areas and less burdensome to the small.
  MR. CHILDERS: I have a primâ facie objection to this proposal, founded upon the different bodies of police in counties; but I will take the subject into consideration before the Report.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed, to.
  Clause 3 (Mode of awarding compensation).
  MR. TOMLINSON: I ought to apologize to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Childers) for not having put the few Amendments I desire to move on the Paper, in order to enable him to understand them the better. I rise now to move an Amendment, in line 21, to leave out the words "published in The London Gazette," in order to insert the words "laid before Parliament." We are very familiar with regulations which are framed to carry out Acts of Parliament, and we are aware of the difficulties which have arisen in consequence. This clause appears to give very extensive powers of making regulations to the Secretary of State; and I submit that the proper mode of dealing with the matter is to provide that the regulations which he may frame shall be laid upon the Table of this House.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 2, line 21, to leave out the words "published in The London Gazette," and insert the words "laid before Parliament."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): I can assure the hon. Member that these words are merely formal, for the regulations must, of course, be published. Does the hon. Member mean, however, that the regulations shall be laid on the Table of the House in order that they may be open to revision by the House, or in order that the public shall know of them?
  MR. TOMLINSON: What I was in hopes of was that the right hon. Gentleman would have given us some actual precedent for the course which has been adopted in regard to this clause. I should like to know whether it has ever

  421
  been the case that an Act of Parliament has been administered by the Secretary of State publishing regulations in The London Gazette?
  MR. CHILDERS: Oh, yes, Sir; that is so. There are hundreds of Acts of Parliament which have been administered in that way; but, as a matter of fact, that does not happen in this case.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Right of action to person aggrieved).
  MR. TOMLINSON: I beg to move to omit Sub-section 2 of this clause. It may be proper that the County Court should have jurisdiction up to £100; but what I want to know is, what is there in these matters to take them out of the ordinary rule as to jurisdiction? I submit that there is nothing to take them out of the ordinary rule, and therefore I move to omit the words.
  Amendment proposed, "To leave out Sub-section (2.)"—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That the Subsection stand part of the Clause."
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): It is thought that those are just the sort of actions that will be taken under this Bill. I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Remaining clauses agreed to.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): I now beg to move the following new Clause:—
  "The police authority of any district other than the City of London or the Metropolitan Police District may, if they think fit, within one month after the passing of this Act, by order declare that claims for compensation under this Act may be made in respect of losses sustained within such district during any period not exceeding; twelve months next before the passing of this Act, and thereupon the said authority may allow such compensation (if any) as they think fit, and the compensation so allowed shall be paid in accordance with the provisions of this Act with respect to riot expenses in like manner as if such expenses had been incurred after the passing of this Act.
  "A Secretary of State shall have power to make special regulations under this Act for the
  422
  purpose of any claims for compensation to be made in pursuance of this section."
  There are some verbal Amendments to the clause which I will put into the hands of the Chairman.
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I shall be glad to have an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department that he will promptly exercise the power given to him in the clause in regard to the making of special regulations for the purpose of any claims for compensation made in pursuance of this section. I ask for this because only one month is allowed during which the police authorities are to receive claims and adjudicate upon them.
  MR. CHILDERS: Yes, Sir; I think that that may be promised.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause added to the Bill.
  Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Tuesday next.

  WEST INDIAN INCUMBERED ESTATES BILL [Lords].— [BILL 233.]
  (Mr. Osborne Morgan.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN): I beg to move the second reading of this Bill, Sir. It is a short Bill, and the object of it is to provide for the determination of the Acts respecting the sale and transfer of in cumbered estates in the West Indies. It has come down from the Lords, and I may say that nearly all the Colonies interested have passed a Resolution in favour of the measure. The Bill only consists of two clauses, the 1st providing that it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, from time to time, by Order in Council to direct that the West Indian Incumbered Estates Acts, 1854 and 1872, shall cease to be in operation in the Colony as from the day mentioned in the Order, and such Order in Council shall have

  423
  effect as if enacted by this Act; but before such Order is made in respect of any Colony an Address from the Legislature of the Colony, praying; for the Order, shall be presented to Her Majesty. The 2nd clause contains the machinery for carrying this out. It is very important that the Bill should pass at once, and therefore I hope the House will consent to read it a second time now.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Osborne Morgan.)
  SIR HENRY HOLLAND: I am not anxious to oppose the second reading of this Bill; but I should like to know how we are to go on in regard to the West Indian Incumbered Estates Court? I understand that all the Colonies are not in favour of abolishing it; and if it is to be abolished, how are the Judges to be paid in the meantime in respect of those Colonies who may desire the Court to continue.
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: I believe there will be no difficulty in that respect. All the Colonies except one have already passed Resolutions in favour of the Bill, and we have no reason to doubt that they will all adopt it.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

BRITISH NORTH AMERICA BILL [Lords].— [BILL 234.]
(Mr. Osborne Morgan.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)I beg to move the second reading of this Bill. It is a very short Bill, and proposes to authorize the representation in the Parliament of Canada of territories which, for the time being, form part of the Dominion of Canada, but are not included in any Province. A Bill with this object has already been read a second time in the Dominion Parliament.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Osborne Morgan.)
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (IRELAND) (RETURNING OFFICERS) ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.
(Mr. T. M. Healy, Mr. Chance.)

[BILL 211.] COMMITTEE.
[Progress 24th May.]
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 2 (Review of taxation).
MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg, Sir, to move the omission of this clause, in order to accept the new clause of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James).
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
SIR HENRY JAMES: In the place of the clause which has just been struck out, Sir, I beg to move the following clause:—(Review of taxation.)
"The judge or officer by whom any account or claim is taxed or examined under 'The Parliamentary Elections (Returning Officers) Act, 1875" (herein called the 'principal Act'), shall deliver to the returning officer, and to the other party to the taxation or examination, a certificate showing the items and amounts allowed or disallowed, with a copy of any order or judgment made thereon.
"Either party may, within seven days of the delivery to him of such certificate, give notice in writing to the said judge or officer of intention to appeal, specifying in the notice the items and amounts in respect of which he intends to appeal.
"The said judge or officer shall thereupon forthwith transmit to the prescribed taxing officer of the Superior Court the said account or claim, with any vouchers relating thereto, the certificate and the notice of appeal, and such taxing officer shall forthwith proceed to review the taxation or examination in the usual manner, or in such manner as may be prescribed, and shall, if required, receive evidence in relation to the matters in dispute, and may confirm or vary the certificate, and direct by whom all or any part of the costs of review are to be paid, and shall return the certificate as confirmed or varied to the said judge or officer with any such direction, and effect shall be given to a certificate as so confirmed or varied, and to any such direction, as if the same had been a judgment of the Court as defined in the principal Act.
"In this Act 'Superior Court' means in England the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice in England, and in Ireland the Common Pleas Division of the High

425
Court of Justice in Ireland. 'Prescribed' means prescribed by rules of the Superior Court in England or Ireland, as the case may be."
We thought it better to leave the power of taxing to the Judge, with power of appeal to the Taxing Master of the Superior Court. It is a complicated matter, but we are all in accord upon it.
Clause brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL): The clause which my right hon. and learned Friend proposes is, no doubt, a valuable tine; but it appears to me that it would be better if, in the case of large towns like Liverpool or Manchester, the power of taxation were left to be exercised locally.
MR. CHANCE: I desire to move an Amendment to this clause—namely, to insert the words—
"Any taxation or review of taxation under this Act shall be subject to appeal to the Superior Court, in like manner as any ordinary taxation of costs is now subject."
I do not think I need make any remark upon it.
Amendment proposed, to the said proposed Amendment, to insert the words—
"Any taxation or review of taxation under this Act shall be subject to appeal to the Superior Court, in like manner as any ordinary taxation of costs is now subject."—(Mr. Chance.)
Question, "That those words be there added," put, and agreed to.
MR. CHANCE: I do not propose to move the new clause which stands in my name.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 241.]

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES (DUBLIN) BILL.— [BILL 20.]
(Mr. Chance, Mr. T. D. Sullivan, Mr. Edmond Dwyer Gray, Mr. Timothy Harrington, Mr. Murphy.)

SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. SPEAKER: I am informed that this Bill has not complied with the Standing Orders in going before the Examiners; and, under those circum-
426
stances, I have thought it my duty to inform the hon. Member that this compliance is necessary before the second reading is taken.
Second Reading deferred till Wednesday 9th June.

MOTION.

  CONVEYANCING (SCOTLAND) ACT (1874) AMENDMENT (NO. 2) BILL.
  On Motion of The Lord Advocate, Bill to amend "The Conveyancing (Scotland) Act, 1874," ordered to be brought in by the Lord Advocate and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 242.]
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock till Monday next.