§ Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment, as amended, proposed [18th August] on Consideration of the Bill as amended;
§
And which Amendment, as amended, was, in page 3, line 7, after Sub-section (4), to insert, as a new sub-section, the words—
(5) Directly or indirectly imposing any disability, or conferring any privilege, benefit, or advantage upon any subject of the Grown on account of his parentage or place of birth, or of the place where any part of his business is carried on, or upon any Corporation or Institution constituted or existing by virtue of the law of some part of the Queen's dominions and carrying on operations in Ireland, on account of the persons by whom or in whose favour or the place in which any of its operations are carried on; or."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
§ Question again proposed, "That those words, as amended, be there inserted."
§ Debate resumed.
§ SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)said, he did not propose to detain the House at any length on this matter; but be was bound to say he did not fully understand the object of the Amendment, nor did he particularly care. But he scarcely thought it right to establish separate legislation of this kind for Ireland, nor ought they to create within the limits of the United Kingdom separate nationalities having separate rights. He would therefore move, as an Amendment, the insertion, after the word "birth," of the words "or residence."
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 3, after the word "birth," to insert the words "or residence."— (Sir J. Gorst.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'or residence' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
§ *SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, the Government could not accept the clause, as it would make a substantial difference in the scope of the clause. To include "residence" would affect the powers of the Legislative Body as to franchise eligibility for office, and in other ways.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThat statement throws a curious light on the clause. Without the Amendment proposed by my right hon. Friend the clause would enable the Irish Legislature to dead differentially with, say, absentee landlords. Do the Government desire that? I cannot believe that that is their intention. The Amendment of the Chief Secretary purports to aim at preventing any disability, benefit, or advantage being created in respect of any subject of the Crown as distinguished from other subjects. The Amendment to the Amendment will effect the purpose more completely; and, therefore, I cannot understand the Government's objection to it. It is clear that without it the Irish Government will be able to carry out a differential treatment which Parliament neither contemplates nor proposes. Will the Chief Secretary explain why they persist in refusing to accept this Amendment, seeing that such differential treatment as it is aimed at would be essentially unjust?
MR. J. MORLEYThe course of legislation the right hon. Gentleman opposite fears might be adopted by the Irish Legislature in the case of Irish absentee landlords has been already adopted by the Legislature of New Zealand. There is no intention to prevent the Irish Government to put a tax upon possessors of land who do not reside on the land. I think that the Government have fulfilled all their pledges in relation to this matter, and therefore I cannot accept the Amendment.
§ MR. GIBSON BOWLES (King's Lynn)said, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten that on this clause and another clause attention was called to the fact that, as it stood, the Bill would enable the Irish Government to impose the differential treatment of fishermen. In the case of fishermen, their "business" was carried on at sea. English, Scotch, Manx, and French fishermen all fished off the Irish coast; and their place of "business" would, therefore, he supposed, be the same as that of the Irish fishermen, but their places of residence would be at Lowes-toft, Wick, or elsewhere. He understood that it was the intention of the Government to protect British fishermen in carrying on their industry. [Mr. J. MORLEY assented.] As the clause 774 stood it would not protect them; and he, therefore, hoped the Government would assent to the Amendment.
§ MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.)said, the Chief Secretary for Ireland had given a hint which was equivalent to an invitation to the Irish Legislature to put a tax upon landlords who were compelled to live out of Ireland. The Irish people had been told scores and hundreds of times that it was their duty and their interest to hunt the landlords against whom this threat was directed out of the country. An organisation had been put in force against the landlords which, in some instances, had proved effectual; and he thought it ought to be made quite clear that the House was face to face with a situation in which the practice of making life intolerable to a certain class of Her Majesty's subjects would be supplemented by a statutory penalty, inflicted, on the invitation of the Government, upon that class because, to use the words of the Nationalist Members—"Ireland had been made too hot to hold them." So great had been the power of hon. Members that they had induced the Chief Secretary for Ireland to introduce this vindictive provision into the Bill.
§ MR. SEXTON, (Kerry, N.)referring to the speech of the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Gibson Bowles), remarked that the sea was not the only place where a fisherman's business was carried on. Although ho caught his fish on the sea, he sold them on shore. If he sailed from and returned to Wick, that would be his place of business, and he would be protected under the subsection as it stood. The addition of the proposed words would make the subsection absurd. It would be strange indeed if the sub-section were made to read in such a way as to infer that residence in Ireland was a reason why any advantage should not be given to a man under an Irish Bill. The hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Arnold-Forster) had spoken as if absenteeism was something that was imposed on landlords by the people of Ireland. The hon. Member was new to politics, and not very old in years, or else he would be aware that long before the Land League came into existence Irish landlords had a habit of living out of Ireland, and that absenteeism had given a great 775 impetus to the land movement. Absenteeism is one of the results of the Act of Union. He hoped that under this Bill the state of things would be reversed, and that landlords would be again content to live in Ireland. He asked the House whether it would be well to deprive the Irish Legislature of the power of providing that men who drew their incomes from the toil of the people and spent them away from Ireland should not be called upon to contribute some special aid to the Revenue of the country they deserted? The Imperial Parliament before the Union had more than once imposed taxes on absentee Irish landlords for the purpose of obliging them to stay in Ireland and to protect British interests. Ho thought that what the Imperial Parliament had done in this respect the Irish Parliament might do. It was calculated that out of about £12,000,000 of Revenue £4,000,000 were taken out of Ireland. That was one of the secrets of the poverty of the country. There was no principle more clear than that the Legislature of a country had a perfect right, if public opinion approved, to levy a fine upon these men. Of course, the landlords paid Income Tax upon the £4,000,000 a year taken out of Ireland, and the assessment of that income, from which Ireland had no benefit whatever, formed part of the Imperial Revenue. If the fact that rents were taken out of the country to be spent elsewhere was regarded as a reason why Ireland ought to contribute at a specially high rate to Imperial Expenditure, it was also a reason why the Irish Legislature should have the power to impose a tax upon those who spent their income out of Ireland.
§ MR. BYLES (York, W.R., Shipley)said, he had been somewhat surprised to hear the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Arnold-Forster) talking of Irish landlords as a hunted class. He himself had always regard the Irish tenants as a hunted class. He could take Members to places in Ireland where every human face wore a hunted look. [Cries of "Where?"] It was in County Kerry, on Lord Ormathwaite's estate. These people had been evicted from their homes and were afraid to let their children creep back to them for shelter, but lay in ditches night after night. The 776 tenants of Ireland had been hunted from their homes for generations past. In his own town—an inland English town— there was a population of 25,000 Irish people. This meant that these people had been hunted out of Ireland. The last time he went to Ireland he visited the estate of a landlord in the West, through whose property one could drive 40 miles in a beeline. He visited some of the tenants this landlord was threatening to evict. They were in the very lowest depth of poverty, were living on the slightest food, and were imperfectly clothed and sheltered; and yet the only home on that vast estate in which the owner did not desire to live was the home of the landlord, the Marquess of Sligo himself—a great square mansion in a magnificent domain with every comfort and luxury, and with beautiful scenery and plenty of fishing and shooting surrounding it. No doubt, he (Mr. Byles) took strong views on this question, but he asked the House what was the title of the Marquess of Sligo, or of any man, to own a vast country or a vast territory in Ireland, or anywhere else, if the only thing he did in relation to the population living in it was to extract rent from them. The people of this country would some day rise up and say— "Why should this man own this land; and why should any man own any land unless he returns to it something of that which he gets from it."
§ MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)said, he quite admitted that the hon. Member who had just sat down was entitled to express the most extreme views he held on any subject; but he was surprised that he had not expressed his horror at the holding of any land whatever. The hon. Member said he had seen in the West of Ireland people with terror-stricken faces. So had he (Mr. Macartney), but the terror was not of the landlord, but of the Land League.
§ MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he was very much afraid that the people he referred to did not look on the Land League as their only one salvation. The hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) desired to tax absentee landlords who had been driven out of Ireland. He (Mr. Macartney) should have thought 777 the hon. Member would not have ventured to bring forward that argument, because it was in direct conflict with the opinion of another distinguished Member of the Nationalist Party, the hon. Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy), who had declared that when he saw great houses untenanted in Ireland he said to himself, "Glory be to God." Ireland was not the only country in the world where there were absentees. There were numberless landlords in England who were not always to be found upon their property. There were many citizens of the United States who were not to be found in the country where they had made their fortunes. He could not conceive on what ground of justice or morality the House could authorise the Irish Legislature to pass a law against absenteeism, which they would only be enabled to enforce because the absenteeism they derided was simply the result of the policy of those who permitted such a law. If there were districts in Ireland where landlords were no longer to be found living on their property it was because Nationalist Members had never hesitated to attack those landlords. They had generally chosen the best landlords for attack because, as they had often expressed it, a good landlord was the greatest obstacle to the success of their policy in Ireland. He was certain that the House of Commons would never consent to perpetrate such an outrage as was now proposed upon all principles of morality and justice.
§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)said, it could not be denied by anyone who knew anything of Irish history that Ireland had been long regarded by many landlords as simply a place from which to draw money. One of the standing grievances of Ireland had been that the owners of largo properties returned nothing to Ireland but the commissions they sent to their agents. If the Amendment were adopted the result would lie to tie the hands of an Irish Legislature in such a way that it would be impossible for it to undertake any useful work in connection with the development of fisheries and other industries. For instance, it would interfere with the continuance and extension by the Irish Legislature of the work commenced on a very small scale at Baltimore in the shape of fishery schools, 778 where nets were made, fishing was taught to boys, fish-curing was taught to the inhabitants, and where loans were granted for the making of boats. The Amendment was utterly unnecessary, and would possibly work very great mischief.
§ *VISCOUNT CRANBORNE (Rochester)contended that, unless the Amendment were agreed to, it would be possible to inflict disabilities on Scotch fishermen because they resided in Scotland, and on English fishermen because they resided in England. The reason why the Amendment was resisted by the Government was that they wished to allow the Irish Legislature to attack those landlords whom the Prime Minister declared it would be an obligation of honour to defend. He (Viscount Cranborne) quite agreed that an absentee landlord was not as good as a resident landlord; and yet if a distinction wore to be drawn between the two classes of men the absentee landlord might be robbed of everything he possessed. Hid the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) wish it?
§ MR. SEXTONNot at all. I think a tax would induce them to live in Ireland.
§ *VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he thought a tax of the kind would have the effect of destroying the whole class of resident gentry in Ireland, which in his opinion would be a great disaster. The investor might be attacked as well as the landlord. If the sub-section passed in its present form it would be possible for the Irish Legislature to make a distinction between investors on account of their place of residence, and all dividends paid in England or Scotland, or even in Lister, might be heavily taxed. It was perfectly clear if the Government did not accept the Amendment they would have broken the spirit of their pledge. He knew that the landlords were unpopular on the other side of the House; but if hon. Members opposite had no sympathy with the landlords they ought to have some sympathy with the investors, because if the investors were oppressed it would be disastrous to Ireland by discouraging investments.
MR. MAC NEILL (Donegal, S.)Hear, hear!
§ *VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he did not think hon. Members from Ireland so wise as all that. If they were wise they would not have quarrelled with Eng- 779 land; and just as they had done their best to rob every landlord and drive him out of Ireland, they would do their best to rob every English and Scotch investor unless prevented by the insertion of the Amendment in the Bill.
MR. MAC NEILLsaid, he would appeal from one noble Lord to another noble Lord. In 1773 Lord Chatham recommended that a tax should be imposed by the Irish Parliament upon absentee landlords; and he recommended it, moreover, as an English politician. Another great man also—Adam Smith— recommended, as an Englishman, and in the interests of the British Empire, that a tax should be placed on absentee landlords. In 1773 Lord Harcourt, who was then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, sent over a recommendation to allow the Irish Parliament to tax absentee landlords 2s. in the £1 on their rental; and Lord Chatham, speaking of that recommendation when it was accepted, says—
My opinion, after weighing again and again the whole matter, is that it is most advisable not to meddle in urging the Royal Prerogative to repeal the Bill for taxing absentees, should such a Bill be sent over. The operation of the Bill is extremely severe, no doubt, against absentees; but the principle of that severity seems Founded on strong Irish policy, which is to compel more of the profits of improved estates in that Kingdom to be spent by the possessors there amongst their tenants, and on their own consumption, rather than in England and in foreign parts. England, it is evident, profits by draining Ireland of the vast incomes spent here from that country; but I could not, as a Peer of England, advise the King, on principles of indirect accidental English policy, to reject a tax upon absentees sent over here as the genuine desire of the Commons of Ireland acting in their proper and peculiar sphere, and exercising their inherent exclusive right of raising Supplies in the manner they judge best.The Irish Parliament was willing to act on Lord Chatham's opinion. Who obstructed them? The absentee English landlords, headed by the Marquess of Hartington. The tax was then rejected through English influence by the Irish Parliament. The Irish landlords themselves were in favour of an absentee tax, because the Irish Parliament at that time was practically a landlords' Parliament. In 1797 Mr. John Le Fouche, an eminent Dublin banker, proposed an absentee tax with the full consent of the Lord Lieutenant of the day, Lord Camden. Mr. Lecky stated that Lord Portland, who was Secretary of State in England, gave the Lord 780 Lieutenant peremptory orders that the tax must be rejected. Lord Camden, in describing the result, said that it was impossible to describe the ill-humour which pervaded all descriptions of persons, even in the Government Departments; and he referred tothe great disgust with which most of the friends of the Government support its present intentions,(that was in opposition to the measure). As the amount of rental taken out of Ireland 100 years ago was £1,000,000, and was now £4,000,000, the necessity for an absentee tax was now four times greater than it was then. Mr. Lecky attributed all the miseries introduced by middlemen and agents to the want of a resident gentry in Ireland; and it would be the first duty of an Irish Parliament to encourage, and to the best of their ability to promote, measures to bring all classes of society into harmony and peace in Ireland.
COLONEL SATJNDERSON (Armagh, N.)said, he thought the House would agree that the prospects of the Irish landlord under a Home Rule Parliament would not be one absolutely to be desired. If he remained in Ireland he ran a fair chance of being shot; if he got out of range he was to be taxed. That might seem the language of exaggeration. But those were the doctrines of the Land League, and they had been informed by Nationalist Members that if the Irish people stuck to the doctrines of the Laey League the result would be that the would get rid of landlords altogether So the Irish landlord in the future had not a very rosy look-out. He wished to be allowed just to quote a speech by the Leader of the Home Rule Party. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) said—
Now, I would tell Lord Granard's tenantry, in dealing with unjust landlords, that I would feel no more compunction in seeking my own rights than I would in driving a rat out of a hayrick. I look on them exactly in the same light; but, of the two, the rat is the more respectable animal, because, at any rate, God made the rat, but the landlord is a human invention. A rat eats nothing he has not stolen. A landlord could, at any rate, do a day's work, and very soon I hope to see the courage of Maynooth squeeze him out as you squeeze out a lemon or orange, and when they throw away the skin I hope to see you give it a kick and send it to its proper place.That was how the hon. and learned Member for North Louth intended to 781 encourage absentees to live in Ireland. He did not approve of absentees. They were a misfortune, but there were other absentees besides landlords. He should like to have a Return of the number of absentees who sat among the Nationalist Party. If a Return were asked for and accurately made, it would surprise them, as it would show the number of Irish patriots who were absentees to such an extent that they proved their love of their country by living out of it. The Attorney General for England said not long ago that the landlord class was a class for whom nobody had any sympathy. He had just as little sympathy for the Irishman who came over to England, made a large fortune in this country, and spent not one farthing of it in his own country. Such a man was the Attorney General himself. To bring absentees back to Ireland they must insure them the just protection of the law, and make Ireland a happy and peaceful country. But the idea of encouraging absentees by placing supreme authority in the hands of the leaders and guides of the Land League was the most astounding proposal ho had over heard. Only a fortnight since we were told that if the Irish people stuck to the tenets of the Land League they would sweep the landlords away altogether. Yet the Government now blamed the landlords for not going to a country where they were to be treated like rats. The hon. Member for South Donegal took an unhappy step in holding up the Duke of Devonshire as an absentee.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, that the present Duke, on recently visiting his Irish tenantry, had a most cordial reception from them. But it was proposed that ho should be taxed by the future Parliament in Dublin, lie could not understand how the Government could persuade themselves that it would be for the good of Ireland to give the future Home Rule Government, which they fondly hoped might come, a power which, to his mind, would be absolutely destructive of the existence of the landlord class in Ireland, without which it was impossible to establish in Ireland those social relations and social conditions 782 which alone could tend to the prosperity of the people of Ireland.
§ MR. VICARY GIBBS (Herts, St. Albans)said, ho desired to ask the Attorney General what the position of Insurance Companies would be if the clause of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was passed? Would they be protected from exceptional taxation by the Irish Parliament? As was well known, the Insurance Societies had large mortgages on the Irish land; and the Building Societies, which held the money of the poor, had also large sums invested in land in Ireland.
§ MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid, he should like to know how a distinction was to be drawn between the legal owners of the land, such as Insurance Companies, and the ordinary owners, the landlords, if exceptional legislation was to be enforced by the Irish Parliament on holders of laud non-resident in Ireland? If the mortgagees wore to be protected, and the ordinary private owners not to be protected, ho would like to know on what ground the Government thought it just to put exceptional legislation in force against single individuals who owned land, and unjust to enforce it against Corporations who owned land in the same manner?
§ MR. W. REDMOND (Clare, E.)said, the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh had treated the House to a recital of old speeches by Members below the Gangway. He did not think there was much to be gained by quoting from old speeches; but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman wished the House to believe that the practice of making violent speeches was all on the side of the Nationalist Members, he was asking them to believe what was not true. Within the last year—within the last few mouths, he might say—quite as violent, quite as dangerous, and quite as disloyal speeches had been uttered by hon. Gentlemen belonging to the Party of which the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh was the Leader. He had quoted from the speeches of one or two Members below the Gangway in which some violent expressions were used in reference to certain landlords. He (Mr. W. Redmond) asked the House to bear in mind that the worst of the strong lan- 783 gnage used by these Members against landlords was used at a time when the Irish people were absolutely threatened by the shadow of another famine in the country.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONThe date of the speech from which I quoted was 1887, and there was no threatened famine then.
§ MR. W. REDMONDsaid, if the hon. and gallant Member had done him the honour to listen to what he said, he would have found that he did not make particular reference to the speech which the hon. and gallant Member quoted, but to the language which was used 10 or 12 years ago, and now quoted so frequently by him and his friends. In the circumstances which prevailed at that time in Ireland, with famine threatening the people, with the knowledge of what the people had suffered before from such visitations, with an eviction campaign in full swing, people being driven from the country, and starvation staring them in the face, surely a large excuse could be made for the use of strong language, if, while all those things were occurring in Ireland, the Irish landlords were drawing princely incomes from the Irish tenants and spending them in England and elsewhere, utterly indifferent to the fact that their dependants, who had earned the money by the sweat of their brow, wore face to face with terrible suffering. A good deal had been said about the terrorism of the Land League. It was his opinion that if there had been no absentee landlordism, with all its attendant evils in Ireland, there would not, in all probability, have been a Land League in Ireland at all. The Land League and all similar tenant combinations were the direct result of the neglect of Irish landlords to perform those duties and obligations which the landlords of all other countries recognised as belonging to their position. Twenty years ago the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh and his friends had the whole representation of Ireland in their own hands; they could drive their people to the polls, and they drove them to the polls. There was no Ballot Act and no Land League to protect the voter.
§ COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, the Ballot Act came into operation in 1870.
§ MR. W. REDMONDsaid, the Ballot Act did not come into operation till 1872. Ho was, therefore, right in speaking of 20 years ago. At that time there was no cheek whatever—no organisation or league to impose any check—upon the power of the landlords in Ireland. They had the absolute and unfettered control of the representation of the country, and the management of everything connected with it. And what better was the country then? Would anyone deny that the suffering of the Irish people, and the misery of the Irish people, was immensely greater at that time, when they were under the control of the landlord? The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh was himself a landlord; but he was not an absentee landlord—he lived in his own country— and he knew perfectly the truth of the statement ho now made; that if every landlord had lived on his estate in Ireland and become acquainted with his tenants, and shown some sympathy with the people, who were spending their lives from early morning to late at night reclaiming and cultivating the land, there would have been a good feeling between landlord and tenant, and the Land League would not have been necessary at all. The hon. Member for South Antrim denounced the tyranny of the Land League in Ireland. It was a strange fact that the very people who had taken the greatest advantage of the benefits obtained for the tenants by the Land League lived in the very constituencies represented by the hon. Member and his friends. Let them remember the legislation that was the direct results of the operations of the Land League. The successive Irish Land Acts were passed as the direct result of the agitation throughout Ireland, and they were never dreamt of until the Land League came into existence. If that legislation could be blotted out, and the landlord once more endowed with an unfettered control over the people, and an unlimited power of fixing rents; and if a proposition were made to that effect, what reception would that proposition meet with at the hands of the constituents of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh? Those men who denounced the Land League were the first to go into the Courts and take advantage of the benefits which were the 785 direct result of the action of the League. They were asked to believe that the Irish landlords were a long-suffering class. What was the history of landlordism in Ireland? During the last 50 years the population of Ireland had been reduced by one-half. The half of the people either died in the fields or were driven to America and other parts, and this was the direct result of absentee landlordism. One of the most glaring cases was that of Lord Dillon in the County of Mayo. This was a man who exercised power over the lives and fortunes of a great many people whom ho did not know living on an estate he had never seen. He had never been to it, and he had never bought so much as a box of matches in Ireland. Yet this man drew an income of £20,000 a year from these people, and spent it in England and other places out of Ireland. The Plan of Campaign was established on this estate, and its operation was necessarily followed by trouble and turmoil and disturbance. This was what absenteeism had done for this part of Ireland. Another great offender was Lord Clanricarde, who never visited his estate, who never went to Ireland at all, but who drew a magnificent income from Ireland, and never spent 1s. there, and never had any communication with his people except to extort out of them in rent more than they were able to pay. Yet these men, who drew the last penny they could out of the people of Ireland, and never spent 1s. among them, were to be treated in the same way as those Irish landlords who lived on their property, knew their tenants, and tried to do their duty, as most English landlords did. To deprive the Irish Parliament of the power of dealing with this matter would, in his opinion, be a grave mistake, for absenteeism had been the cause of most of the trouble in Ireland. It had been said that the tenants had been led away by agitators. The Irish people were very much like other people. They would not join any organisation or elect a Member of Parliament of a certain Party unless they saw good reason for doing so; and there never would have been a tenant Representative in this House or any tenant organisation in Ireland had not the people been forced into these measures by the absentee landlords. The defence which the hon. and 786 gallant Member gave of absentee landlordism in Ireland was a very weak and milk-and-water defence indeed, because the hon. and gallant Member could not deny, could not pretend to deny, that absentee landlordism was one of the greatest curses from which the Irish people had ever suffered.
§ MR. CHAPLIN (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)If I understand the position correctly, it is that Her Majesty's Government object to accepting the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend on the ground that it would be unduly limiting the powers of the Irish Parliament. It has been intimated, I believe, from the Irish Benches, that circumstances might arise which, in their opinion, would make it desirable and justifiable, or necessary, that taxation of some kind or other should be imposed upon absentee Irish landlords. From that view, and with that policy—which, I understand, is evidently contemplated in the future— Her Majesty's Government in no way dissent. I should be the last person in the world to stand up in this House for the purpose of defending absentee landlords, whether they be absentees from Ireland or from their estates in England or elsewhere. I am bound to say that if that is to be the principle on which we are going to act on tin's occasion, it opens up some very serious questions indeed, and questions which up to the present time have not received one single moment's consideration during the whole course of these Debates. The first question I must ask Her Majesty's Government is this— What do they mean by absentee landlords? If you are legislating upon these principles, you must have a definition of absenteeism, undoubtedly, in your Bill. We cannot generalise from one or two individuals, such as those which have just been quoted by the hon. Member who has just sat down. There are black-sheep, undoubtedly, in every flock; and I have no doubt that in England, as well as in Ireland and all other countries in the world, it would be perfectly possible for you to find some landlords who deservedly may be stigmatised as absentees. But what is an absentee? How many months' residence do you require to prevent a landlord being an absentee? How long and how often is he to reside upon his own estate? I take the case of a 787 Member of Parliament. In the present state of things in the House of Commons we are called upon to sit here, at all events during the present year, for something like nine mouths. Is the Irish landlord to be debarred from fulfilling his duties as a Member of Parliament; and because ho does fulfil these duties and sits for nine months in the House of Commons is he, therefore, to be termed an absentee and be subjected to all the pains and penalties that the Irish Parliament in the future may inflict? These questions, which are decided so hastily, ought at least to receive the attention of the Government, and they should certainly do something to define in their Bill what is meant by an absentee. I should like to ask another question. Many of those landlords in Ireland are absentees. What are most of them? Most of them are great proprietors who own great estates, and who also have great duties to perform in this country as well; but nobody would deny that it is from that very class that the best landlords in the whole of Ireland are to be found, and these are the men who are to be selected for taxation or for fines at the discretion of the new Irish Parliament, and as to whom the present Government have not a single syllable to utter in their defence. The hon. Member alluded just now to Lord Hartington, and spoke of him as one of those conspicuous instances of absenteeism—
MR. MAC NEILLI did nothing of the kind. I spoke of the Duke of Devonshire of a century ago, who was an absentee landlord, and who prevented, through his influence, the absentee tax.
§ MR. CHAPLINOf course, I accept anything that the hon. Member says; but I think I heard him mention the name of Lord Hartington, and it may be thought excusable under the circumstances. But I take the present Duke of Devonshire as a type and instance of the class of landlords of whom I am speaking. If you go through the whole of Ireland at the present moment you will not find one estate, North, South, East, or West, which has been more admirably managed than that of the present Duke of Devonshire, or a landlord who has dealt with greater liberality with the tenants of every class. I heard a rather humorous story told of a visit of the present Duke to Lismore 788 which happened some time ago. He had a very great reception—perhaps a reception which at this moment is significant in that part of Ireland. But even the gathering 011 that occasion was not altogether free from agitators, and an agitator in the crowd cried out, "Three cheers for Homo Rule," whereupon he was surrounded by a large mob, who said, "Say it again," and he said it again. Unless I am very much mistaken, ho very shortly afterwards found himself in the river. I do not think a more unfortunate proposal than that of taxing every absentee could be made. I want to ask another question. If the Irish landlords are absent, who is responsible for it? What has been the character of our laud legislation in Ireland during the last few years? What did you do in the Act of 1881? You took all control of his property from the landlord; you absolved him from his duties, and loft him in the position of having nothing but a rent charge upon his estates. How is it possible, under these circumstances, that owners of property in any country in the world should continue to take in the future the same interest in their property as they have done in the past? I do not wish to defend absenteeism; but if justification was needed for the landlords in Ireland who are away from their properties at the present time I should point to the Land Act of 1881, and should say by that Act alone they had been absolutely absolved from any charge of absenteeism whatsoever. But, supposing this Bill is carried in its present shape, supposing this Amendment is refused, supposing the number of other Amendments which have been put forward time after time during these discussions are thrown aside by Her Majesty's Government, do you think that this is the kind of legislation which will encourage landlords to be more resident in Ireland in the future than they have been in the past? Under whom will they hold their properties, and upon whom will their fortunes depend in the future? Upon that new Executive of which we have heard a good deal in the course of these Debates. Although, owing to the system of Closure, we have not yet had an opportunity of raising the whole question of the position of the landlords under the new Executive, as I had hoped and intended to have done, everybody 789 knows of whom that Executive will be composed. Everybody can form for himself a fair anticipation of what their probable action will be in the future, and what else are we to judge from than from the old speeches of hon. Members? We have heard declarations made over and over again by them; and they, in all probability, will be Members of the Irish Executive. We have never hoard one syllable of these speeches publicly withdrawn; and, although they have been challenged over and over again to do so, not one of them has over repudiated the intention of taking any line in the future different from that which he has adopted in the past. I cannot conceive how it is possible for men in their senses to look otherwise than with the greatest suspicion and apprehension and alarm upon the fact that the landlords' fortunes will in the future be in the hands of men such as these of whom we have every reason to suppose the new Irish Executive will be composed. I wish also to ask another question. If you are going to apply this principle to Ireland are you going to do the same thing to England or are you not; if not, why not? The House, I hope, will think, and even the Government will admit, that I am justified in submitting this ease and putting these questions to them. I am not speaking at the present moment—I hope I have never spoken—from any motive whatever of unduly delaying the business of the House; I am trying to the best of my ability to defend the interests of the class of that country which I think has been too often most cruelly treated in the last few years. Not so very long ago the Prime Minister found himself in great difficulties and iii conflict with the Representatives of the Irish people, and he did not scruple then to appeal to the landlords to come forward to his assistance to enable him to govern Ireland not in accordance altogether with Irish ideas, but ideas which animated him and his colleagues at that time; he did not scruple in those difficulties to appeal to them on those occasions. Now, what regard at all has he shown to the interests of the Irish landlords. Their fortunes and their futures are to be entrusted to a small body of men whom he has described as men who are "preaching the doctrines of public plunder." I know perfectly well that the right hon. Gentleman on a 790 former occasion in this House repudiated that statement, except so far as it related to Mr. Parnell. I grant you that is true; he never identified any of the gentlemen who we may expect will be Members of the Irish Executive; but he did identify them as a small body of men "preaching the doctrines of public plunder" in the most emphatic way, because he imprisoned them at the same time as Mr. Parnell. Therefore, I think, the right hon. Gentleman will not be surprised with regard to men, whom he himself found it necessary to imprison for preaching the doctrines of public plunder, that I, speaking as a landlord myself, and as one endeavouring to defend the rights of my brother landlords in Ireland, should call the attention of the House of Commons to the difficulties in which they must inevitably be placed. I hope Her Majesty's Government will take this matter more deeply into their consideration; and that they will, at all events, take care that there are inserted in this Bill provisions which will make it impossible that the Irish landlords should be taxed for their absence from their country. Failing that, I am bound to say, badly as they have been treated in the past, the right hon. Gentleman will have inflicted another injury upon a loyal body of men in Ireland.
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY, Forfar)The right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down appears to be under the impression that this Bill contains legislation prejudicial to landlords, and especially to absentee landlords, and he said more than once that we ought to put into the Bill a definition of an absentee landlord.
§ *MR. CHAPLINI said if you refuse this Amendment.
§ *SIR J. RIGBYExactly so. If we refuse this Amendment we must put into the Bill a definition of an absentee landlords. Why in the Bill? We are saying nothing about that; we say nothing about absentee landlords in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that this question is now being mooted for the first time. We are asked to excuse from all possibilities of legislation on the part of the Irish Legislature anything that shall place the non-resident landlord under disability. Now, I should just like for one moment to recall to the House what has taken place before. An hon. Gentle- 791 man got up and said that there was a law in New Zealand that taxed the absentee landlord at a different and a higher scale to those who were resident. He demanded to know whether there was a prohibition in this Bill against any such legislation; and there and then he was told—and it was not the only time on which a similar statement was made— that the Government had no sort of intention of legislating in that way. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge suggested that this had been forgotten, and that, no doubt, the Government would do at once what they had always said they did not intend to do, and accept, as a matter of course, the words "or resident." We have intended, so far as relates to any legislation which must take place in the Imperial Parliament, not to interfere in those matters at all. When it is considered of what importance it will be to Ireland, and, therefore, to the Executive Government of Ireland, that matters shall proceed there as regards people in England or elsewhere on terms that will be advantageous to Ireland, I think it is too much to suppose that they should not fairly be left to deal with these matters. With regard to the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Albans Division respecting mortgages, I would ask the hon. Gentleman to consider whether it is likely that any Irish Legislature would undertake to pass laws which would prevent money going into Ireland. Could there be any clearer interest than that they should make the laws, as far as possible, advantageous to such mortgages? The hon. Gentleman asked me, I think, what I considered would be the position of a mortgagee as to the possibility of legislation against him. Well, I think that was pointed out on Clause 4 as to Insurance Societies, and the distinction between Insurance Societies and individuals. I do not think there would be any legislation that could take effect in regard to mortgages of individuals which would not operate at the same time with regard to mortgages of Insurance Companies. But when we are asked to prohibit all legislation in regard to persons who are not resident, whether they be mortgagees or others, you have got to consider that you exclude equally 792 beneficial and disadvantageous laws. If there were a clear danger that the Irish Legislature should be so foolish and absurd as to endeavour to keep capital out of their country, it might possibly be right to guard against that danger; but I say there is no danger of that, and it would be utterly wrong to attempt to provide for any such thing.
§ MR. DARLING (Deptford)said, it seemed to him a pity that the Solicitor General should have taken, as a matter of fact, a somewhat narrow view of this question. If they excluded altogether the speeches that had been made from below the Gangway, it would be possible to persuade the House that the Irish Parliament would not do anything to prevent English capital being invested in that country. But the Solicitor General argued with regard to Irish character from what he knew of the ordinary litigants in the English Court of Chancery. They were usually, if not Scotchmen, of a more cautious race from Palestine, who were accustomed to conduct their affairs according to business principles. Irish methods of procedure were very different. The hon. and learned Gentleman could not imagine that the Irish would be so foolish as to do anything that would impede the flow of money into Ireland, yet this very afternoon they had heard the hon. and learned Member for South Donegal enunciate a policy which must narrow the market for Irish properties, and, therefore, lower the price. The result of that must be disastrous to Ireland. This Bill was put forward as one not to widen the breach between England and Ireland, but to draw still closer the people of the two countries. But what would be the result? If an Englishman, choosing to live in England, was not to get his income from property which he owned in Ireland, as the man localised there would get his, it would lead to this: that the laud of Ireland would be owned by people settled there, who would have no connection in England, Scotland, or Wales; and the effect of that must be to make the Irish people more and more a separate nation. Under those circumstances, how could the Bill draw closer the relations between the two countries? If the Party opposite wished to do Ireland one more favour, they would make it as simple for a man to live in one country as in another.
§ MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square)I do not see the hon. Member for Bedford in his place, and I see from the empty state of the Benches opposite that hon. Members, too, believe that there is nothing in this Bill that has not been discussed over and over again. Yes; but we have not had a discussion on this subject.
§ SIR J. RIGBYYes, we have.
§ MR. GOSCHENIt was touched upon in the briefest possible manner; there was no regular Debate on the question, and it has been a revelation to us on this side of the House that the Government intended to leave the power avowedly to hon. Members below the Gangway to tax absentee landlords.
§ MR. GOSCHENIt is very extraordinary, if it has been stated again and again, that hon. Members on this side of the House have so small a recollection of it. Will it also be maintained that the hon. Member for North Kerry made a declaration then that it would be the intention of the Irish Members to tax absentee landlords? No; that was at a time when there was no guillotine in prospect, and when there was silence among the Irish Members; but the moment it is known there is only a certain time to be occupied we are then to be privileged, and, I must say, to have the advantage of hearing the views of hon. Members from Ireland.
§ MR. SEXTONI did not declare that the absentee landlords would be taxed. What I said was that it would be improper to withhold the right to tax them from the Irish Legislature.
§ MR. GOSCHENI thought bespoke not only of taxing them, but even of fining them. [Mr. SEXTON: No, no!] At all events, no one will deny that this question of the right of taxing absentee landlords is a very important one. I see the Prime Minister is in his place, and I would ask him, does he think that the relations of the Imperial Government to the Irish landlords are such that it is right to expose them to this not very remote risk—the probability that there is to be taxation of absentee landlords? We know that the honour which is pledged to the landlords in Ireland 794 was only a pledge of honour given under special circumstances; but, without wishing to say anything that would be too censorious, may I not suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that, if they are going to place the loyal minority of Ireland, including the Irish landlords, under the power of hon. Members below the Gangway, at all events this Amendment is a precaution which we might fairly ask them to take. I do not believe for a moment that the taxation of absentee landlords would be an advantage to Ireland. I do not believe that this method of protecting the Irish landlords who live in Ireland would be successful. I do believe that if this power were exercised it would be a baneful power in disturbing the relations between landlords and tenants. It might be well to try to tax absentee landlords when separated by such distances as we are from our Colonies; but how are absentee landlords to be defined in Ireland? The point I wish to make is that it would be futile really to tax them, whilst, at the same time, it would create a feeling much to be regretted. Suppose hon. Members were to put a tax on absentee landlords, how will they define them? I admit the Government may fairly decline to answer that, and say it is left to the Irish Parliament to settle what an absentee landlord is. Is he a landlord who does not live there for a year or two years or more? Is he to qualify by residence like a canon who has to spend a couple of months in a Cathedral town? What kind of residence is it to be? If he goes and shoots for a month is he to be free from taxation? If he goes there with the whole of his family is he to be free from taxation? It appears to me it is almost ridiculous to think that any definition of taxation of absentee landlords could be found which would not lead to every kind of evasion and difficulty and inconvenience, and would bring no advantage whatever to the Irish Exchequer. It is easy enough to elaborate this question. Supposing, as the right hon. Member for the Sleaford Division put it, that a man spends six months hero in the House doing Parliamentary duties, and at the end of the Session goes for the benefit of his health to the South of England. Is he to be taxed because he is an absentee landlord? Or suppose you 795 provide for all these cases, is it not certain that it would be easy—looking to the closeness between the two countries —to find methods by which the tax would be evaded? Hon. Members may, perhaps, say—"Why protest against the tax?" because it is not likely to bring in much money. Is that a great financier's view? Is that the view of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) that in that case the tax is a sound and useful one. If there is one single man in the House who I should have thought might protest against the view that a futile tax might yet be proposed, it would be the right hon. Gentleman. I thought that one of the chief doctrines he would have laid down would have been that a tax which gave rise to friction and inconvenience, and was not remunerative, would be the last tax he would desire to see imposed. The argument has already been used that some of the best landlords in Ireland are those who do not reside there. The case has been mentioned of the Duke of Devonshire, and there are Lord Leconfield and many others who spend as much and more on their estates in Ireland than many a landlord resident in Ireland does. Suppose you were to tax the absentee landlords, on whom will that tax fall? The result will be that such landlords as I have indicated will have so much less of revenue from their estates to spend upon the improvements which their tenants desire; and this taxation of the best absentee landlords would be likely to have that very result which the action of much of the land legislation has been having—namely, to relieve the landlords in Ireland from doing their duty by their tenants as is generally done by landlords in England; therefore, I say, from the point of view of expenditure on Irish estates, the taxation on absentee landlords will be a fatal mistake. There is this further point: a question has been raised with regard to mortgages. Suppose that you tax the absentee landlords, will it not shake the credit on which money has been lent by Insurance Companies and others, and does the Solicitor General wish to establish this state of things—that the portion of the rents which passes over to the Insurance Company is not to be touched, but that the free rents are to be touched? If so, every possible difficulty will arise. I understand the Solicitor General to say 796 he does not believe that this would lead to taxation of mortgages. But if you tax the absentee landlords it will lead to the taxation of mortgages also. It may startle the Solicitor General, but I think he may know that, in those countries where absentee landlords have been taxed, there, also, there is a question of taxation of mortgages. A good deal has been said as to the alternatives offered other landlords—I will not say the best landlords—but resident landlords in Ireland who may desire to leave Ireland. I wonder what is the choice, that is going to be given by hon. Members below the Gangway. Hitherto, during these last years, language was held by them which was to frighten and drive the English garrison out of Ireland. Hon. Members below the Gangway do not deny that their policy has been to drive out the English garrison and the English landlords; and they stated that they would not rest until they had accomplished that object. Now suddenly there seems to be a change; and through the taxation of absentee landlords those who formerly were to be driven out are to be attracted to stay in Ireland. Is that the real reason why this power of taxing absentee landlords must be exercised? Is it in order to attach to Ireland those landlords against whom the Land League has been employed and every device practised which might alienate them from their estates and drive them out. Another idea might be that the taxation of absentee landlords might compel them to sell under disadvantageous circumstances; and I should be very much mistaken if the taxation of absentee landlords was not one of those methods of squeezing to which my hon. and gallant Friend behind me alluded in an earlier part of the Debate. They were formerly to be squeezed in one way, and now the Government are perfectly prepared, as it would seem, to baud them over to the power of the Irish Legislature to squeeze them in another manner. I am bound to say that, looking to the assurances which have been given us of equal protection of the laws, and that property should not be taken without due compensation, I confess I am surprised at the new prospect that has been opened out. Why, this is as effectual a way of depriving them of property as you can 797 well devise. I do not think it is within the spirit of equal protection of the law to say that the landlord who resides in Ireland for a certain time, either in the year or in the course of a year, is to be treated in one way, and that the landlord who dwells in England or Scotland for a part of the year is to be treated in another way. That is not the equality which we have been induced to look to. Of course, the great difficulty in this as in all other cases is that you are trying to have separate legislation between the two countries which ought to have the same legislation. It crops up on every occasion. Why is there this great difficulty. Because the interests of the people of Ireland are so interlaced with the interests of the people of England that it is deadly to separate them, otherwise it might be easy enough. Her Majesty's Government take a different view of the case. They are willing that Ireland should be treated as a separate country, because when you speak of absenteeism, which is to be absenteeism in England from Ireland, you are treating Ireland as a separate geographical whole, and you are showing by your resistance to this Amendment, as you have shown by your resistance to others, the extraordinary difficulty which exists when you leave that freedom to the Irish Parliament which they desire, and give them the right at the same time to protect all those interests which have grown up under your care, and for which you are responsible as much as you are responsible for the interests in this country—and which will suffer under the legislation which you set up.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEThe declarations of the Government on this subject were long ago made, and the House has considered and decided the matter. The right hon. Member for Cambridge University submitted the Amendment without any attempt at re-discussion. But the speech of my right hon. Friend stands with hundreds of others in this respect—that it was a re-discussion of the general subject. It has been an argument in favour of absentees. The absentees are in most cases excellent landlords—
MR. GOSCHEX (interposing)said, that ho never uttered a single word in favour of absenteeism. What he said was that there were good landlords as 798 well as bad who were absentees. He was as much opposed to absenteeism as the Prime Minister.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEThe declaration which the right hon. Gentleman has just made—that he is just as much opposed to absenteeism as I am—is a valuable declaration. But having heard the words of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman—to which I listened with attention—1 must say that the whole speech sounded to me as an ingenious and elaborate plea against legislation in regard to absenteeism. The right hon. Member for Sleaford appeared to think that absenteeism in Ireland was fully justified by legislation. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suppose that absenteeism began in 1881. Absenteeism has been a great, a gigantic fact, staring him in the face for years and years. It would be premature, and quite unnecessary, to enter into any defence of taxation of absentees. It is a very difficult and very important social question; but in principle a tax upon absentees is not unsound. In principle it is right to hold that distinct and definite duties are inseparably connected with the possession of land. The right hon. Gentleman says that there are absentee landlords who have been good landlords, and that there are resident landlords who have been good landlords. I entirely and cordially agree with him to this extent, that they are good landlords so far as their position of absentees admits. They are good landlords in respect of all that relates to money; but I think that Mr. Carlyle was right when he said that cash payment was not the only means between man and man. There are social and political arguments against the tax which may be conclusive, but I do not enter into that question at all, nor say whether it is right or not. This I will say—though I may be accused of irrelevancy in saying anything which refers to the history of the past, which, according to hon. Gentlemen opposite has nothing to do with the present or future—that, in my opinion, it is a noble feature in the history of the old Protestant Ascendency Party in Ireland that, during the latter half of the last century, the were strongly in favour of a tax upon absentees. That did them high honour, even if their political judgment was not sound. What we 799 contend is this—that the Irish Legislature are the proper persons, if they are to come into existence, to consider whether or not the duty of residence ought to be required of the owners of laud, and whether habitual non-residence should not be sufficiently defined so that it might justly and properly be discouraged in the form of taxation. That I say is a question we ought to leave to them, and that is a question which we have already decided to leave to them. It is all very well to say there are absentee landlords in England. Is there £1,000 of income to absentee landlords in England for £10,000 in Ireland? The landlords of this country are generally resident, whilst a very unfortunate proportion of the Irish landlords have been habitually non-resident. Our contention is this— that the Irish Legislature is the party, and the sole party, that can properly deal with this question, which is one that ought to be dealt with with great knowledge and great care. It may be there are some who believe—I do not myself altogether reject the belief—that after the controversy has settled down in Ireland the adsentees will be much fewer than now. [A laugh.] The right hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. D. Plunket) smiles; but he will recollect this historical fact, and I am sure he will not deny what I am going to say. When the Union was about to be passed, and when arguments in favour of the Union were made, it was generally admitted that the Union would bring about an increase of absenteeism. That, I am sure, he must recollect; and, I think, unless I am very much mistaken, that is even admitted in the official pamphlet of MR. Cooke, with which he must be acquainted, and there is not the slightest doubt that that melancholy prophecy has been largely fulfilled. There is no other country that has ever had, so far as I know, as much of absenteeism as Ireland with the solitary and mournful exception of our West Indian Colonies, whore absenteeism was still more thoroughly and deeply rooted. But the question is, if this be a matter of simple policy, of consideration of practical arguments one way or another, then it is a matter that exclusively belongs to the Irish Legislature to deal with. If you choose to say that the taxation of absenteeism is a crime, that absenteeism is like some consecrated shrine which 800 you ought to defend from spoliation, you will say that it is an absolute duty to protect absentees against future legislation. But that is surely a doctrine that cannot be maintained. The right hon. Gentleman has himself said that he strongly disapproves of absenteeism, and that he regards it as in itself an injury. If it is in itself an injury, it is for the Irish Legislature to consider in what manner that injury should be dealt with. You cannot possibly give to Ireland the power and responsibility of making laws without admitting in the full that so vast and important a social question as this must go to the Irish Legislature, and cannot properly, or wisely, or justly be decided here.
§ *MR. D. PLUNKET (Dublin University)I desire to intervene but for a very short time in this Debate, and I wish to say, at the outset, that I have myself no special sympathy with absentees in the sense of those who are voluntarily absentees from their property; but even with reference to those, I think that some of the language which has been used by the right hon. Gentleman to-day is of rather a dangerous import to the laws which have hitherto protected property in this country. The right hon. Gentleman has said the House has already decided this question. The right hon. Gentleman must, no doubt, have in his mind that in the course of the Debates some such decision was arrived at; but I have been in constant attendance in this House, and I have no recollection of this question being brought to a decision in any former stage of the Bill. I do not wish to be dogmatic; I only say I have no recollection of it, and I should be glad if right hon. Gentlemen opposite will refer us to the occasion when this question was raised and decided by the House. It is, at all events, a new question so far as the laws of this United Kingdom are concerned. The right hon. Gentleman has said that the Irish Parliament is the proper party to settle this question—the question whether taxation should be applied to absentees. He said the question ought to be referred to that Parliament. That is the point upon which I desire to join issue with him. I may say, in passing, that he laid some stress on the fact that there was a great ten- 801 dency at the time of Grattan's Parliament—
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEAnd before it.
§ *MR. PLUNKETThat it was before the Union the habit of the Irish landlords to reside on their property, and he seems to think that there would be a tendency again for them to return to Ireland and reside on their property if this Home Rule Bill should pass into law. But surely he knows that the case would now be wholly different —he has told us so himself—that the Irish Parliament in those days was mainly a landlords' Parliament. He has often told us that the Irish House of Commons was as much identified with the landlords as was the Irish House of Lords. Passing from that, I ask, is it right that this power should be delegated to the Irish Legislature, or that it should be reserved from them for treatment by this Parliament? Lot me say, in passing, that with regard to the proportion of absentees— I may be wrong, but in proportion to the total number of Irish landlords—I consider such a statement as we have heard to be wild and misleading. But is it just to give to the Irish Parliament—is it right to give them the power of imposing taxation upon the whole class of non-resident landlords, because a certain small proportion of them are voluntary absentees? This is not only a question for the landlords who for whatever reason do not reside on their properties in Ireland, but for those similarly situated in England and Scotland, and also for those English and Scotch mortgagees who have charges upon Irish land. There are, it must be remembered, absentees and absentees. We know that in England and Scotland there are classes of landlords who cannot always reside on their property if they would. For instance, there are in Ireland, as there are in England, landlords who have several estates—on one estate they have a residence; on others they have no residence. And the question arises whether the Irish Parliament is likely to follow up the principle of taxing these as absentees, and, if so, whether they are likely to do so with moderation and justice? The Irish absentee landlords have been the subject of denunciation for years, for generations, by the very Party who will have control of the Irish Legis- 802 lature of the future, and, not only the Irish absentee landlords, but those very persons in England and Scotland who have mortgage charges upon property in Ireland. Having been so denounced and held up to obloquy in the past, does no risk exist for them in the future? The Solicitor General asked, was it possible that the Irish Parliament would tax such mortgagees and so prevent the flow of capital into the country? But, Sir, it is only within the last five years, or six, or ten years, that this very case arose. There was a movement at that time amongst a certain number of the landlords of Ireland demanding that there should be a reduction of family charges pro rata according to the reduction of routs. What was the attitude of the Nationalist Party? It was, I think, The Freeman's Journal —at all events, it was one of the Irish Nationalist papers—that called upon the landlords to join with the tenants for the purpose of reducing the charges of Englishmen and Scotchmen who had Irish property. I did not know that this discussion was coming on, or I might have had the quotations with me. But certainly the appeal was made to the landlords to join with the tenants in order to cut down those mortgage charges of people residing in England and Scotland. This is not a matter of speculation, but a matter of fact. That was one of the first inducements held out by the Irish tenants, or by their organs in the Press — an inducement to the landlords to join in fleecing those Englishmen and Scotchmen who have placed their money in Irish investments. I do not want to prolong the Debate; but I would point out that it is impossible you can confine this proposal to Irish landlords—if a tax is to be put on them it will, assuredly, also be put on these Englishmen and Scotchmen who have their money invested in Ireland. Probably it mar be put on with greater stringency in their case. The question is—Is the House prepared to take this view—that those, whether Englishmen, Scotchmen, or Irishmen, who invested their money —and were often invited, as in the time of the Landed Estates Courts and the Encumbered Estates Courts, on the title of your own law and on the inducement that their investments would be safe— are you going to say that you will not keep 803 these under your own protection, but that you are going to put them under an Irish Parliament where the overwhelming majority will be the Representatives of those who have been denouncing indiscriminately for years the absentee and the investor? Are you going to say that these people deserve no special protection? If you do that, you cannot confine it entirely to Ireland—you cannot confine ex post facto legislation of that kind to one side of the Channel. The Nemesis of such legislation will soon pursue you into your own country, and, whether it be right or wrong, Parliament must at some future time pass laws of this character for England and Scotland. However that may be, there is grave risk that injustice may be done unless Parliament, by some such provision as that now proposed, prevents the interference of those Leaders of the Irish Legislature of the future who have long been engaged denouncing wholesale Irish absentee landlords, and also all those who have made mortgage investments on Irish properties, as not entitled to the ordinary protection of the law.
§ COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R., Holdorness)said, the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. V. Gibbs) asked whether Insurance Companies and other Corporations of that class would be exempted from the operation of this provision. The Chief Secretary, in reply, said he had an Amendment down on that subject, and, after that, the Solicitor General said that these companies would be placed on the same footing as private individuals. There was a difference between the two answers. The Attorney General shook his head. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman would point out where the similarity lay between the two.
§ COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, he would like to understand whether he understood the right hon. Gentleman to convey that his Amendment met the views of the hon. Member for St. Albans?
§ COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, it was so understood at the time.
§ Question put, and negatived.
804§ SIR J. GORSTmoved, in line 5, to leave out "by virtue of," and insert "in accordance with." He said, it seemed to him that the words "by virtue of" did not appear to be quite clear in their application. He wished to substitute words which he thought would make it clear as to the position of institutions, say, under the Companies Acts, or incorporated by Royal Charter. He presumed the institutions it was intended to cover were voluntary institutions not incorporated by Statute; but he did not think the words "by virtue of" would include charitable or philanthropic institutions which were not incorporated. He begged to move his Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 5, to leave out the words "by virtue of," in order to insert the words "in accordance with."—(Sir J. Gorst.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words ' by virtue of' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ *SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, the clause mainly referred to associations which were incorporated either by Charter or Act of Parliament, but it was not intended to bring within the purview of the clause foreign associations not existing "by virtue" of our law, though they might be in accordance with it.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanark, Partick)said, he rose to move in page 3, line 12, at end, insert—
Whereby the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended; or whereby any Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law may be passed; or.The Amendment in its present form was open to the charge of multifariousness; but, although the various points raised had been discussed separately in Committee, he thought they were so important that they might be discussed together. [Interruption, and cries of "Order!"]
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!
§ *MR. PARKER SMITHsaid, he was quite sure the Government, and especially the Prime Minister, would not deny the importance of these questions. The right hon. Gentleman, not long since, in 805 answer to the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell), declared that there was no question more vital than that of the liberty of the subject. That was the question he wished to raise now. And he must say that it was strange that gentlemen who voted against the Criminal Procedure Bill of 1887 could support a proposal which virtually affected far more people than that Act did. The question was whether they should give over their right to deal with this question—whether they wore to retain their right to deal with the liberty of the subject, or whether they should allow another body to deal with it. It seemed to him that this was as great a question as the other question as to the alteration of criminal procedure. It was their duty, therefore, to endeavour to press the question, and to see whether, in the changed circumstances in which they were placed since they had been in Committee, they could not, at any rate, arrive at some understanding in the matter. There was one argument that might have been used at the earlier stages of the Bill—the argument of finality; that they were getting rid definitely of the Irish problem and the Irish Question. But that argument could not be used now, for this Bill allowed the Irish Question to stand over—it proposed to re-open Irish questions in the future, and not to get rid of them. They were to have in Ireland a mere Provisional Government. It seemed to him, while that was so, that the very last thing that should be handed over to the Irish Government was the power of dealing with habeas corpus. They might grant other powers, but they should retain this under their own control. There would be Irish Members here in this House; and it seemed to him only right in those circumstances that they ought to take this most delicate and tender subject under their control in this House. The writ of habeas corpus had been from the earliest times the bulwark of our liberties; and it had been hold by Constitutional writers as the strongest and simplest method of sustaining liberty. During the century it had been once suspended in this country, and frequently suspended in Ireland. The Irish Legislature, therefore, would have plenty of precedents; and, as the speech of the hon. Member for South Donegal showed, they 806 would be prepared to act on them. Those precedents might be good or bad, but, seeing that they existed, it seemed to him that the discretion of acting on them should he kept in the hands of the Imperial Parliament. What would be the protection of the Irish minority against abuse of the power of suspending the Act on the part of the Irish Legislature? The Attorney General had argued that it would be the Royal veto; but it was not for matters of this kind that the veto was intended. How could they interfere by veto? If the Government of Ireland went to them and told them that it was essential for the good government of the country that they should have power under special circumstances to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, how could they interfere by veto? It could only be by constant intervention after full Debate—in which the Irish Members would take part—that there would be any possibility of interference with the discretion of the Irish Government. The Prime Minister had used the same argument. He had said on the 19th June—
Were this Irish Legislature to be capable of capricious, wanton, and needless suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, with no circumstance to warrant or demand it, our Bill, as it is framed, would not allow it. Such an Act, even if it could receive the Royal Assent, which I believe to be impossible, even if it could escape the intervention of the House, which I believe to be impossible also, the action of the Courts of Ireland by the appeal that would be made to them, and by the final judgment of that Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, would entirely quash and nullify that not only unwise but wicked Act of the Irish Legislature.No Irish Parliament would suspend the Habeas Corpus Act under the circumstances described by the right hon. Gentleman. They would only be likely to do it where there was a certain amount of cause, but cause which the Imperial Parliament would probably think insufficient. Still, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council could not interfere. Their interference would only come in where there was no cause for the suspension of the Act —where, so to speak, there was no case to go to the jury. If there was any evidence at all, the ease would be one not for the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, but for a, Legislative Body to consider. What was the law on this matter in other countries? Take the case of the United States—a country 807 which had framed its institutions on ours. It was part of the original fundamental Constitution of the United States that the writ of habeas corpus should be embodied in both the Federal and the State laws. The 9th section of the First Article said—The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it. No Bill of Attainder or ex pout facto law shall be passed.Dealing with the powers of States the words were—(10) No State shall enter into any Treaty … pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts.And these provisions were embodied in the Constitutions of the various States. Both the Federal Government and the States Governments were prohibited from suspending the writ of habeas corpus in any case save those of rebellion or actual invasion. He should like to know whether that was the view of the Government of the circumstances which really would justify the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus? They knew that it had been suspended in Ireland under other circumstances; but was it the view of the Government that in the future it should only be suspended in cases of rebellion or actual invasion? It seemed to him that the line that had been taken by Members of the Government and their supporters with regard to the Crimes Act would lead to the conclusion that under no circumstances should the writ of habeas corpus be suspended save in cases of rebellion and actual invasion. If they thought there were other circumstances which would justify it he should like to hear what they were. If they did not think that, then the Amendment became a corollary of an Amendment which was accepted by the Government the other day—an Amendment moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James), to give the Executive power to suspend the issue of the writs of habeas corpus in eases of rebellion and invasion. The Law Officers fought against that Amendment.
§ *SIR C. RUSSELLI fought very mildly.
§ MR. PARKER SMITHBut the Solicitor General had fought vigorously. It seemed to be the function of the Solicitor General to act as watch-dog. 808 He barked violently at every Amendment moved, but presently along came his owner prepared to deal with the matter in hand with a certain amount of reasonableness. After the Solicitor General had spoken, the Prime Minister got up and said—
The hon. Member for North Kerry argued— and argued boldly—that the matter of exception from the right of habeas corpus made by the proclamation of the Executive was, or must be, an Imperial matter. He confessed he thought there was very great force in that statement. The Attorney General absolutely demonstrated that this was an Imperial matter; that foreign invasion was war, and, as war, it was shutout from the powers of the Irish Legislature; that rebellion was rebellion against the Crown, and that proclaimed rebellion striking at the very heart and centre of the Government was likewise war levied against the Queen, and was distinctly and indisputably an Imperial matter. As I listened to the argument of the Attorney General, I was confirmed in my acceptance of what has been said by the hon. Member for North Kerry. My hon. and learned Friend has so entirely cut the ground from beneath the feet of myself and the Chief Secretary that we feel we cannot carry out our desire to leave this matter to the Irish Legislature, and I think the best course is to do what we have done in relation to the supremacy, and what we have done to the best of our ability upon every occasion without exception on every Amendment and every clause that has been proposed during the course of the Bill, and that is to accept it unless there is a good case against it. In that manner we wish to deal with the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, and we shall, consequently, not oppose it.It seemed to him that the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman was very different to that taken up by the Government when dealing with this question of the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in Committee. The present Amendment should be accepted, as the previous one had been. So much for the case of habeas corpus. He would now deal with the other point which was included in the Amendment. In the first place there was the Bill of Attainder, which was a comparatively small point. It was a sentence passed on an individual not by a Court of Justice, but by an Act of Parliament. Such a sentence was one which, no doubt, everyone in the House would regard as absolute, and would agree should be struck out of any fresh Constitution. Sir Thomas Erskine May said in his Parliamentary Practice, with regard to Bills of Attainder—In evil times this summary power of Parliament to punish criminals by statute has teen perverted and abused. In the best of times it should be regarded with the severest jealousy.809 This matter was provided for in the Federal Constitution of the United States of America, and he thought in most of the State Constitutions, and it had been found very useful even in modern times. Cooley said with regard to it—The conviction of the propriety of this Constitutional provision has been so universal that it has never been questioned either in Legislative Bodies or elsewhere.Through this provision various unconstitutional and improper acts of the various States had been held to be ultra vires. Then there was the question of ex post facto laws. So contrary were these laws to the spirit of our Constitution that the other day it was ruled out of Order even to propose an Amendment to this Bill, because it contained the principle of ex post facto law. If that was the case, surely in making a fresh Constitution and stating general principles this point ought to be specifically covered. The restriction existed in the United States— in the Congress and in the various States, and it was particularly desirable that it should exist in Ireland, seeing that there would be a special proneness on the part of that Legislature to pass ex post facto laws in consequence of old quarrels and bitternesses the memory of which had not yet altogether died out. Ex post facto laws might refer to Criminal or Civil Law. As to criminal matters, it was held to be too monstrous to suppose that the Irish Legislature would desire to pass ex post facto laws; but it appeared to him that, when they were dealing with general principles in a measure like the present, they should cover the whole of the ground. On a parity of reasoning, if the Attorney General had to draw up a new Decalogue he would hardly leave out the Commandment, "Thou shalt not kill." It was necessary to lay down the law in general terms. It might be held that that Commandment covered a vast number of minor offences which approached to murder. So also the words he proposed would cover a great many cases which, in the absence of such words, the Courts would find it very difficult to decide. In regard to Civil matters, ex post facto laws might bear with great hardship on individuals, which laws made for the future might not. Therefore, the discretionary power of making such laws should not, it seemed to him, rest in the hands of the Provisional Government 810 that was being constituted. It was one of those supreme discretions which they at Westminster ought to keep in their own hands. All these matters which he had grouped together were questions dealing with the liberty of the subject. In the absence of his Amendment, indignation might be aroused, and forcible resistance might be offered to enactments of the Irish Legislature, and whilst they were protecting themselves, in many respects he thought that this was a matter in which they should not omit that precaution. Some of the matters in which they had protected themselves —for instance, as to the payment of the financial contribution from Ireland— seemed to him trifling as compared with the matter here involved. In the one case it was the public who were interested, and the public could take care of themselves; but in the other case it was private individuals who might suffer injustice. He begged to move his Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 12, after the word "or," to insert, as a new sub-section, the words,— "Whereby the writ of habeas corpus may be suspended; or whereby any Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law may be passed; or."—(Mr. Parker Smith.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ *SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, that the Government could not accept the Amendment, the subject having been fully discussed in Committee. Ho could not admit that the matter wore a new aspect because points which had previously been treated separately were now grouped together. The hon. and learned Member had taken another remarkable ground in justification of further discussion—he had gone the length of saying that the Government ought to accept the Amendment because it was a corollary to the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury, which was accepted a few days ago. What was that Amendment? The right hon. and learned Gentleman had discovered—or some industrious friend had discovered for him—that in 1781 an Act was passed by the Irish Parliament, a clause of which gave to the Irish Government the exceptional power of suspending the 811 habeas corpus by an Executive act— namely, by proclamation with the assent of the Lord Lieutenant or the Irish Privy Council. He (Sir C. Russell) and his lion, and learned Friend the Solicitor General both spoke when the Amendment was moved, and pointed out that the proposal was one of really no importance, for the reason that the Statute had existed more than 100 years without being enforced. On further discussion the Prime Minister realised the fact that the matter was not one of serious political importance. In fact, this subject had been amply discussed. On the 19th June, the hon. and learned Member for East Down (Mr. Rentoul) moved an Amendment to prevent the Irish Legislature from suspending or prejudicially affecting the right of any person to writ of habeas corpus. He (Sir C. Russell) replied, the hon. and learned Member for Mid Armagh (Mr. Dunbar Barton) continued the discussion, the right bon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury then read him (Sir C. Russell) a lecture against what he called the political speech he had made, the Prime Minister followed, and the discussion was brought to a close by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington. The discussion occupied a considerable number of pages in The Parliamentary Debates. On the 20th June there was a discussion on the question of excluding ex post facto legislation from the Irish Legislature originated by the noble Lord the Member for West Edinburgh (Viscount Wolmer). He (Sir C. Russell) had replied, he was followed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigan (Sir F. S. Powell) then spoke, and the hon. and learned Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane). The Loader of the Opposition joined in the discussion; he was followed by the Prime Minister, and the Prime Minister was followed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury. Considerable time was occupied by the Debate. And, in addition to these Debates, on the 14th June a similar discussion took place on the subject of Bills of Attainder. Surely it would not be considered unreasonable if the Government held that these subjects had been discussed at adequate length, and if they declined to enter into them fully on the present occasion. Hon. 812 Members professed to be anxious to get to the discussion of the important matters of the Bill, and the Government were anxious to assist them if possible. Why, then, were they to have repeated the discussion of matters which had already been dealt with? What was now proposed was that the Irish Legis lative Body should have no power to pass any law suspending the Habeas Corpus Act. Why should they not have that power? Why was such a matter as this, whenever it should arise, to be sent back to the Imperial Parliament, which would not possess as much knowledge of the local facts as the Irish Legislative Body and the advisers of the Lord Lieutenant? With regard to Bills of Attainder, his answer was not only that the matter bad been discussed before, but that the Bill already contained a provision whereby no person in Ireland could be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law. As to ex post facto legislation, it was of two kinds—that was to say, it could deal with criminal and with civil matters. The criminal aspect of the case would come under the answer he had just given; and as to the civil, as the Government had stated before, they did not intend to deprive the Irish Legislative Body of the right to pass an Act of Indemnity. Upon all these grounds the Government could not accept the present Amendment.
§ SIR H. JAMESsaid, he thought the House would be disposed to agree with the Attorney General that they should not unnecessarily discuss matters twice over. If, however, they felt a matter to be of such importance that injustice might be done unless a remedy were found, they were justified in taking every opportunity to discuss it, and in pertinaciously trying to prevent the danger. With regard to the Habeas Corpus Act, so far as he could understand, it was proposed to allow the Irish Government a free hand to suspend it in Ireland. The Attorney General seemed to have lost sight of the reason why the clause was eventually accepted by the Prime Minister. The Attorney General and the Solicitor General had said that the matter was one of small importance; and he pointed to the fact that, although the Irish Act had been in existence 100 years, it had not 813 been acted on. But in gauging the importance of the matter they could not have regard to past experience. They were now establishing a new subordinate Executive; and the question was whether they should give to that Executive the power of suspending the Habeas Corpus Act? The reason why the last Amendment was accepted was not on account of the distinction between the Legislative and the Executive power, lint the conversion of the Prime Minister rested on the ground that the hon. Member for North Kerry and the Attorney General had convinced him that dealing with the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act was an Imperial matter, and not an Irish matter. It was quite true that the discussion was then confined to two conditions of things—namely, the existence of rebellion and invasion, which were put forward as being Imperial matters—and he quite appreciated the fact that it was on consideration of those two questions that the Prime Minister said the subject was Imperial; but it must be remembered that in the case of rebellion or invasion the whole of the people of Ireland would be affected. They now arrived at this material question — Under what conditions did the Government expect that in the future the Habeas Corpus Act would be suspended in Ireland? If it was to be suspended when invasion and rebellion existed, then the Prime Minister had admitted—and the Attorney General and the hon. Member for North Kerry had asserted—that it was an Imperial and not an Irish matter. And what was the consequence of that? Why, that Imperial and not Irish legislation should alone be competent to deal with it; and yet the Government were going to allow the Irish Legislature to deal with this—according to the Prime Minister—purely Imperial subject. If the Habeas Corpus Act was to be suspended in consequence of rebellion or invasion, they must leave the matter to the Imperial Legislature; and yet they refused the Amendment. They were going to give to the Irish Legislature an unfettered hand to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act in regard to matters other than rebellion and invasion? If so, what were the other circumstances which the Government considered would justify the Irish Parliament in suspending the Habeas Corpus Act? They must be something particular. 814 Were they cases of great crimes? He hoped the Prime Minister would not suppose he wanted for a moment to suggest that there was blame attaching to anyone in respect of the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland during recent years. He did not wish to separate himself from responsibility as to the passing of Coercion Acts; but, speaking generally with regard to what had occurred, he would ask the House whether they wished to see the Habeas Corpus Act suspended in Great Britain or Ireland? If it were done at all, it should be done for great cause and after great deliberation. Great safeguards would require to be taken in the case of Ireland, and the responsibility ought to rest on the shoulders of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It certainly ought not to rest with a new Parliament without experience in dealing with such questions, and where there was not likely to be unanimity amongst the various sections of the community. Ho did not wish to be a prophet of evil; but surely it was possible to suppose that the men who would advise the Lord Lieutenant to assent to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act would be the very men who would have been instrumental in passing it, for reasons, possibly, merely political. Why should the Lord Lieutenant be left in a position to come into conflict with his Executive Ministers? And why should he be asked to act unconstitutionally in not following their advice? The Lord Lieutenant must either accept the advice of his Ministers, or say—"I dismiss you." It was to be hoped that this matter would yet be dealt with seriously by the Government in the light of the admission already made—that this was an Imperial question. As to a Bill of Attainder, the Attorney General had reduced his opposition almost to a nullity, because he said the Irish Legislature could not possibly pass such a measure, as it could not be called "due process of law." But he (Sir H. James) was very much inclined to believe that an Act of Parliament, whatever its character, would represent "due process of law." But if the Government had any objection to Bills of Attainder being passed, why not embody their view in the Bill— why not render certain that which to some minds, at any rate, appeared un- 815 certain? With regard to ex post facto laws, they had had a strong example of the objection of the Government to them in 1883 in connection with the question of preventing certain Members from taking their seats. They had held that such legislation should only apply to the future. The House then said that, however desirous it might be to make the House as pure as possible, it would not allow Reports of Commissioners to affect the status of any persons in that House. When powers were being conferred on a Legislative Body by express enactment, why should not the proper limit of those powers be fixed? The Irish Legislature might exercise ex post facto legislation in its days of inexperience.
§ MR. MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)made an observation which did not reach the Reporters' Gallery.
§ SIR H. JAMESsaid, the expression used by the hon. Member for South Donegal would emphasise the argument. When there were to be 103 Members entertaining the same views as were expressed by the hon. Member for Donegal in a manner that was peculiar, but that could be comprehended by the House, it was well to take care that ex post facto legislation should not come within the range of powers of the Irish Parliament.
§ MR. BUCKNILL (Surrey, Epsom)said, the Attorney General (Sir C. Russell) had said that the question before the House had already been fully discussed, and ho had referred to the great number of pages of The Parliamentary Debates which were occupied by the report of the discussion. As a matter of fact, however, the discussion on the question of habeas corpus on the 19th of June had occupied exactly two and a half hours and no more. Everybody must admit that the suspension of habeas corpus was an all-important question, and that such a remedy should never be applied if any other remedy could be found. He wished to say nothing offensive to the Nationalist Members; but there was a possibility that in times to come, when the present Nationalist Members had all been called to their long rest, the Irish Legislature might be hurried into hasty legislation arising either out of the subject of land or the subject of religion, which were the two subjects that the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Bryce) said were specially in the mind of the Government 816 in connection with safeguards, and an Act might be passed suspending habeas corpus. If, then, the Lord Lieutenant should advise the exercise of the veto, and Her Majesty's Government should advise Her Majesty directly to the contrary, there would be a charming instance of a deadlock. As there were to be 80 Irish Members in the Imperial House of Commons, it surely was not correct of the Attorney General to say that the House could not be nearly as well informed as the Irish Legislature as to the facts bearing upon a proposed suspension of habeas corpus. Surely the Irish Members would be able to give the House all necessary information on the subject. Inasmuch as the English Members would have the Welsh and Scotch, as well as the Irish, Members to assist them in their deliberations there would be no fear of injustice being done.
§ MR. DUNBAR BARTON (Armagh, Mid.),who rose amid a few cries of "Oh," said, he was not surprised that some hon. Members should try and prevent a Member of the Irish minority from speaking on this subject. He would remind the Attorney General that he had omitted to tell the House that the former Debate on this subject was closured after it bad been a very short time in progress. Ho offered no apology for protesting against the insertion in the Bill of the most tyrannous and aggressive provision inserted in any great measure during this century. If it was a serious thing for any Government to propose a single measure suspending habeas corpus, how serious was it to give carte blanche to the Irish Legislature to do so at their own sweet will! The Attorney General had told them that ho was willing to give these powers to the Irish Legislature because he depended upon the veto. That argument, however, would apply to every paragraph in Clause 4. That argument seemed to him to show how necessary it was to prevent these provisions affecting the liberty of the subject from being inserted in the Bill. There were no safeguards in the Bill for the minority. He asked the Government for some better answer than the Attorney General had given. They, for their part, said that these were provisions that they were willing to go to the civilised world upon. They might go to the case of America. 817 They knew that the American people were willing to see Home Rule adopted. But they could tell the American people that the Irish Parliament was to have powers which no American State was permitted to possess. The Government told them that they were giving them the same Constitution as was possessed by the American people. He could only say that if they were turning out a Constitution for the people of Ulster ho would welcome some such provision as this. There was nothing humiliating in striking out of a Bill powers of the kind against which the Amendment was directed. If it was humiliating to the Irish people it must also be humiliating to every State of the American Union. It was because they meant to exercise these powers that they wanted the provisions retained in the Bill. The Member for North Kerry, in dealing with the subject of ex post facto laws, said it would be extremely unlikely that there would be no process of the sort. What could the Members of that House suppose the people of this country would do where they received such a warning? Ought they not to be ready? The present Government, and any Government of Great Britain, would have to frame a Constitution very different from this before they could honestly ask any free people to accept it, or to acknowledge any obligations under it. He had looked through some recent cases in the American books, and he found that down to comparatively recent years every one of these provisions had been used for the protection of the subject. Since the American Civil War, however, special laws had been declared unconstitutional because they suspended habeas corpus. They had from American experience the fact that in that free country Governments and Parliaments and Constitutions in moments of excitement might pass laws of this kind; and it was, therefore, no insult to the Irish Legislature to say that they might be carried away in the same manner. He deeply regretted that the Government would not accept his Amendment. Indeed, he was very much surprised that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway had not welcomed it, and that the hon. Member (Mr. Blake), who had experience of the Canadian Legislature, had not come forward and asked the Government to 818 accept it. He believed they would remove one discreditable stain upon the measure if they acceded to that Amendment. At any rate, he and his friends would go with the country; and, as Irish Unionists and Members of a minority in Ireland and a majority in England, they would believe that the Government, by refusing this Amendment, and by the language with which they had accompanied that refusal, bad given them deliberate notice that this was a Bill for the suppression of the liberties of the minority.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided: — Ayes 122; Noes 166.—(Division List, No. 277.)
§ MR. BYRNE (Essex, Walthamstow)moved an Amendment to add the following to the restrictions on the powers of the Irish Legislature embodied in Clause 4:—
(6.) Whereby any special rights, powers, privileges, or immunities now possessed or enjoyed by Judges, jurors, witnesses, and officers concerned or engaged in the administration or execution of the law may be prejudicially affected; or.He said, this was an important matter affecting the Judiciary proposed to be sot up in Ireland, and which had been hitherto left entirely without discussion. To his mind, the question of the rights and privileges of those concerned in the administration of the law were only second in importance—if, indeed, second —to the powers of the Executive itself. The object of his Amendment was to preserve to the class of persons he had mentioned those rights and privileges and immunities which had assisted to make the Judiciary hitherto existing in Great Britain and Ireland so strong and so universally respected. Whatever might be thought of the necessity or propriety of this proposal, ho thought all would agree that one of the most important things was to have an absolutely independent Judiciary—he meant Judges who could not be touched by the Executive—Judges who were beyond the powers of those who had to administer Executive functions in the House. There could he no greater or better protection for minorities, or a greater safeguard for minorities, than the absolute independence and absolute freedom from risk on the part of those who administered the law. He 819 could, in a very few words, illustrate the nature of those rights, privileges, and immunities which he desired to be preserved, and to be dealt with by the Imperial Legislature if at all. Some of these rights had grown up without Statute Law. Others depended upon Statute Law, and he thought no man in that House could get up and say positively what were the exact limitations of these rights and privileges. He could only give a reference or two—first, with reference to the Judges. At the present moment Judges had absolute immunity in respect of all they might say in the course of their duty; and it was a principle of our law that no action would he against a Judge of the Superior Courts for a judicial act, though it might be alleged to have been done maliciously and corruptly. The public were deeply interested in this rule, which existed for their benefit, and especially in securing the independence of Judges and preventing their being harassed by vexatious actions. He did not anticipate, and he would not be so false to his own profession as to think, that their successors would be degenerate men. He had the highest respect for the Irish Bench and Bar, and he had no reason to suppose that they would not endeavour to preserve their independence; but if they once removed these safeguards, which had rendered them independent, and so rendered them dependent upon the Government for the time being, they would be taking the first step towards bringing matters to a different pass. So long as a Judge knew that he was not liable to dismissal or reproof, he cared not what winds blew round him. He knew that what he had to do was to do his duty straightforwardly, and nobody could touch him. Was it certain that this would be the case in a country which had been so troubled as Ireland, and where there would, no doubt, be troubles in time to come? He hoped their fears might be falsified; but they would not be dealing justly if they allowed the rights of the Judges to be attacked and abolished at the instance of those who, in times past, had often spoken in improper terms of the Judges. What state of affairs would be brought about if an Act were to be passed which would allow an action to be brought against a Judge for something he had said in course of his Charge 820 to the jury, or in course of summing up? He had heard words made use of in that House which made him believe that actions would be brought. The Judges had now power to preserve order in their Courts. What was to become of order if that power should be taken away? He asked the House, therefore, to reserve this power to the Imperial Parliament. Nor would the matter be less grave when they came to deal with the case of juries. To threaten or assault a juror for his verdict was high misprision and contempt, punishable by fine and imprisonment. Was it impossible that if jurors gave offence in Ireland they might suffer some persecution, and be subjected to some threats for what they had done in the course of their duty? Then with reference to witnesses. At the present moment witnesses were not required to answer questions which might incriminate them, and they were not liable to answer questions which might tend to show the channels through which information had been given to officers of justice in criminal prosecutions. Was it not possible that that privilege might be taken away from witnesses in the future? Had they not heard of attempts made again and again in Courts of Justice, even as the law stood, to get from witnesses whence they had had their information? This power was, therefore, of the highest importance, and ought to be reserved to the Imperial Parliament. At present officers were compelled to disclose matters of State, the publication of which might prejudice the community. That surely was another of the things that should be preserved. He passed by Magistrates, Sheriffs, and other officers concerned in the administration of justice, and came to the Constabulary, in respect to whom there was special legislation now existing in Ireland. He appealed to the House to continue to the Constabulary, so long as they should exist, that protection which had hitherto been considered necessary for them. It was provided that no action could be sustained against a constable for any act done in obedience to a warrant of a Magistrate, and that he should not be held responsible for any irregularity in the warrant, or for the want of jurisdiction in the Magistrate who signed it. He had heard observations made in the House which showed that actions against constables in connection 821 with irregularities in warrants would be possible in Ireland, and, therefore, it was most essential that this right of constables should be preserved in the future. He would anticipate two things that might be urged against his Amendment. In the first place, it might be said that the Amendment did not give sufficient trust to this Irish Legislature, upon whom they wore conferring great powers. That argument had had a much greater effect before they knew what Clause 9 was going to be. Hut now they wore to have 80 Members at Westminster, who would have power not only over Irish local affairs, but also over Imperial affairs, amongst which might very properly be included the matters referred to in his Amendment. The Prime Minister, in a speech at Edinburgh, in which he foreshadowed the Home Rule Bill, had said that every safeguard for the minority would be introduced into the Bill. Some safeguards the Government had given; some they had refused; but they should, at least, reserve a safeguard for those who could not protect themselves, and who, by virtue of their respective offices, were open to the most villainous and the wickedest attacks from all those who hated order and desired disorder to reign. It might be said, also, that the words of his Amendment wore too large. He thought that as the Amendment was phrased it was perfectly clear; but he would not object to the introduction of words which would make its meaning clearer.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 12, after the word "or," to insert the words —"(6) Whereby any special rights, powers, privileges, or immunities now possessed or enjoyed by Judges, jurors, witnesses, land officers concerned or engaged in the administration or execution of the law may be prejudicially affected."—(Mr. Byrne.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ THE SOLICITOE GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY, Forfar)In the latter part, of his address my hon. and learned Friend has accurately foreseen certain of the answers that would be made to his Amendment. First of all, these words are undoubtedly wide; and my hon. and learned Friend very properly admitted that it would not be at all within the power of any lawyer to define the extent to which they would go.
§ SIR J. RIGBYThat is much stronger. You say there are so many powers, immunities, and privileges, that no lawyer could be expected, except he spent a great deal of time in studying them, to enumerate them. A very good reason why you should not, by a sweeping clause of this kind, deal with so many questions that you cannot even enumerate them. Then it was said that we would bring forward an argument which is none the worse for being repeated, which if sound in one case is sound in all these cases, and which we are not to be prevented from using simply because the Mover of an Amendment sees that it is appropriate to his case. I do say that it is a very serious objection to this Amendment that it is only one part of a very great structure—one brick, as it were. What my hon. and learned Friend wants is that we who have devised the Bill, and are supporting the Bill as a reasonable and logical Bill, should insert in it these fragments of law, picked up at random from a measure here and a measure there, taking away from the Legislature we are creating powers even smaller than those which would be left to them, even if those particular measures had been dealt with. I have no doubt that there are hundreds of other cases in which, if you admit the theory that the Legislature was unfit to legislate, you might propose Amendments as reasonable as the present. Of course, if we admitted, in a single case of this kind, where the elementary ideas of justice are concerned, that the Irish Legislature is unfit to legislate, we should be condemning our own Bill, and that we are not inclined to do. I agree that to maintain the position of the Judges is important; that the administration of justice is important; that the protection of witnesses and officers of the law is important; that, in fact, there is scarcely any part of the Constitution that does not contain matters that are of importance, and it is really too much to expect that we should include in a Bill like the present side issues of this kind, in regard to which, if we admitted them, the discussions on the Bill would never come to an end. Great as is the importance of the position of the Judges and the position of juries, it cannot be said that 823 legislation dealing with them is either so important, or so delicate, or so open to misconstruction, or so open to temptation, as in the case of the Amendment with which we have last dealt— namely, that of the law of habeas corpus. It would be idle for us to say that we intend to entrust the Irish Legislature with that most important and delicate part of legislation which must necessarily be used, or will be most likely used, under circumstances of great difficulty and temptation, and then to say that we cannot trust them to deal with legislation in regard to Judges of the ordinary Courts of Justice. During the Debates on this Bill we have successively rejected Amendments withdrawing from the cognisance of the Irish Legislature the whole criminal law and procedure and the whole criminal administration. Here we are dealing with the question of the status and procedure of the Courts, and if we admitted words of this sweeping character into the Bill we would be laying traps for the Irish Legislature in regard to matters in which they would be acting in perfect good faith and in perfect innocence; and it is not rational and it is not wise to attempt to surround this Legislature, to whom we intend to entrust great powers, such minute swaddling-bands as are suggested in this Amendment. I have already said, in answer to an Amendment brought forward in Committee, that if we were to proceed on the scale indicated by that Amendment our Bill would soon fill out to the extent of Stephen's Commentaries. We cannot now accept this Amendment, not because we think the matter of small importance, but because we think it inconsistent with the general framework of the Bill, and because it aims at depriving the Irish Legislature of any sort of control over matters of the utmost importance to the peace, order, and good government of Ireland.
§ MR. RENTOULsaid, the Solicitor General, on behalf of the Government, who founded an answer to his hon. and learned Friend who moved this Amendment with regard to the carrying out of the law in Ireland, was certainly vague enough in his remarks, and certainly as unsatisfactory to them in the answer he gave as he could possibly be. The Solicitor General said the words of the Amendment were very wide, and the 824 reason why he considered the words were very wide was that the Mover of the Amendment said he could not enumerate the various Acts of Parliament and the various laws at present in existence which bear on the persons who were enumerated or contained in the Amendment. But if that was a reason why the Solicitor General should not accept the Amendment, then, if he turned to the Bill of the Government and to the 3rd clause, to the subjects that were taken away from the cognisance of the Irish Parliament, he would find, for example, in Section 3, Sub-section 1, the Crown, or the succession to the Crown, or a Regency, or the Lord Lieutenant, as Representative of the Crown—
§ Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
§ MR. RENTOULproceeded. He said, the Acts of Parliament bearing on the very first sub-section of Clause 3 of this Bill themselves were covered by perhaps some hundreds of Acts of Parliament, and so with regard to several other excepted matters under this 3rd clause—-the Army, Navy, Militia, and Volunteers, Treaties with Foreign States, and so forth; treason, treason-felony, alienage. All these things were subjects of an enormous mass of legislation that made up the Statute Book of this Empire. If the functions of the Courts and jurors, and witnesses, and those connected with the administration of law in the Courts— if their functions were the subject of large numbers of Acts of Parliament, and that was the reason why the Amendment of his hon. Friend should not be accepted, it was a strong and important reason why the whole of the exceptions under Clause 3 of this Bill should be entirely withdrawn. But the Solicitor General said that was only one part of the legal system which the hon. and learned Member for Essex (Mr. Byrne) had brought forward; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had applied his mind to this matter, ho would have found that there were 999 other matters of equal importance and equally subject to amendment. But that was exactly what they said; they agreed with the Solicitor General entirely on that point, that there were 999 matters or 9,999 matters in this Bill that ought 825 to be left out from their point of view. The Solicitor General taunted them with having tried a little while ago to take away the whole Criminal Jurisprudence from the cognisance of the Irish Legislature. They tried to take away the whole of the Criminal Law altogether from the Irish Legislature; they tried to prevent them passing any criminal enactments, or having any power over the administration of the Criminal Law; and having failed in these objects, as a last resort they came up and played their last card, as it were, and they asked for freedom for the officials, Judges, police, and those who were carrying out the administration of the Criminal Law in Ireland. The Solicitor General said if the Government were to accept this Amendment they would be admitting that the Irish Legislature were not fit to legislate on these matters, and that it would destroy the Bill. Their (the Opposition) contention was that the Irish Legislature was an unfit Legislature, and they wanted to destroy the Bill. They wanted no such Bill at all; but if they must have one, then they wanted the Bill which had been promised before the electors of this country, and on which they should be before the country again ere it became law—namely, a Bill in which the loyal minority were properly safeguarded. The Solicitor General said it was too bad that side issues of this sort should be brought in. The independence of the Judges of Ireland was a side issue to the Loyalists of Ireland! The independence of the whole administration of the law of the country, the safety of witnesses who did their duty, the safety of jurors who had been thoroughly and effectually intimidated in certain counties in Ireland —all this was merely a side issue! If this was a, side issue, what was the main issue? It would be impossible for any issue to be put before that House of more importance to the Loyalists of Ireland if they were to live under this Irish Legislature. The Solicitor General said if the Government accepted all the Amendments the Bill would be the size of Stephen's Commentaries. If the Solicitor General undertook to do an impossible thing; if he undertook to give to Ireland a subordinate Legislature which should be co-ordinate at the same sime—a, dependent Legislature which should be independent at the same time, then it 826 would require a Bill as large as Stephen's Commentaries, and a great deal more, to do that work. If the Government had failed in this matter, it was because they attempted what they themselves declared to be a thing which passed the wit of man, and which was absolutely impossible. [Sir JOHN RIGBY: No!] The Solicitor General said "No"; but with regard to what was the main provision and principle of this Bill—the position of the Irish Members in that House — it was declared to be a thing that passed the wit of man to have them there, and, at the same time, to safeguard the independence of this Parliament and leave it free for the people of this country. He was sure the Solicitor General would admit there was no class of men who should be more entirely above hope and fear than the Judges of the laud. Let them imagine the Irish Legislature had the power to remove a Judge, according to Clause 23 of the Bill, on an Address presented by the two Houses of the Irish Legislature. These two Houses would be composed of a majority of Nationalists, who had denounced the Irish Judges in all the moods and tenses in that House; and was it wise to have these Judges in any risk whatever of being under the power of those gentlemen? As to the jurors, look at the unfortunate position in which they had been placed, and the number of instances which had been brought before that House of jurors being unable to do their duty owing to the state of intimidation in which they lived. Was it not well to try and tie the hands of the Irish Legislature, the Members of which would be returned by the electors who intimidated the jurors in Ireland? Was it not well that every possible safeguard should be applied to these jurors, in order that they might feel they could conscientiously fulfil their duties, as be believed they would desire conscientiously to do? As to witnesses, they might be required by a rule or law of the Irish Legislature to answer questions which would criminate themselves. They might be asked also to disclose the source of their information. It might be made a rule of the Irish Courts under the Irish Legislature that methods could be applied to witnesses in cross - examination that could not possibly be applied to witnesses in cross-examination in this 827 country. He was sure the Solicitor General would say that the more independent the Judges, jurors, and witnesses were, the better it would be for the administration of justice in any country. [Sir J. RIGBY assented.] The Solicitor General assented to the proposition; and, that being so, was it not well to try and safeguard these persons in this Imperial Parliament, when there were several hundred Members entirely free from influences that wore likely to act— and especially to act at first—on an Irish Parliament? They all knew perfectly well how Members of Parliament wore, more or less, in the power of their constituents; and if these constituents were working in one particular way, and were making statements in one particular direction, how could Members who represented these constituencies do otherwise than go in the same direction? Surely, after the denunciations that had been hurled against the Judges, the Constabulary, and witnesses in Ireland for doing their duty, it was their duty in that House to see if it were possible to put I in safeguards of this sort, which would be a real, substantial, and gratifying thing to the minority in Ireland. The Government desired that this Bill should be accepted with contentment by the whole Irish people. The Nationalist Members in this Bill bad got a great deal of their own way. A large number of their demands had been satisfied to the full; and if there was to be any reconciliation between the Nationalists and Unionists in the acceptance of this Bill by the latter, was it not necessary that something should be done to meet them, and was there one thing that could be done which was more likely to be gratifying to the entire Unionist population of Ireland than if this Amendment were accepted? There was not an Amendment which had been moved to the Bill which would be received with a greater gratification and sense of security by the Unionists of Ireland than this Amendment, which he hoped would, therefore, be accepted by the Government.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ MR. RENTOULmoved the following Amendment to Sub-clause (7): "Whereby the Law of Conspiracy may be altered." He said, that certainly the Irish Legisla- 828 ture, from one point of view, would be a Legislature that was eminently qualified to deal with conspiracy, because the Prime Minister had himself in that House on many occasions pointed out what splendid adepts those who were likely to form the Irish Parliament of the future were in this matter of conspiracy. They all knew that criminal conspiracies in Ireland had flourished to a very extreme degree; and when this matter was before the House on the Committee stage, the Chief Secretary said that nobody could devise a surer means of producing friction than if this Amendment were received. But if there was no desire to tamper with the Law of Conspiracy—if the Irish Legislature were desirous of keeping the Law of Conspiracy in Ireland in the same position as it stood here there could be no possible friction. If there was a clause put in this Bill preventing them touching the Law of Conspiracy, which governed the entire United Kingdom at the present time, why should they feel any friction? A very small change in the Law of Conspiracy as it at present existed would take away the entire chance from the Irish landlords of getting any rent at all. Allow conspiracies for the non-payment of rent to be rampant in Ireland; allow them to exist without any restraint whatever, and the chances of the landlord getting his rent would be as small as when the Chancellor of the Duchy spoke of it and said that in such a case the Irish landlord might whistle for his rent. The Irish Government would be made up, to a large extent, of Members who bad been found guilty of conspiracy by the Parnell Commission. Surely the Law of Conspiracy was not an Irish matter, because one of the most fruitful sources of conspiracy might be a conspiracy affecting Great Britain, and which, from Great Britain's point of view, would not be an Irish affair. Was boycotting to be illegal in Ireland? Did the present Government desire that boycotting, which was illegal at the present time, should continue to be illegal in Ireland? If they did, did they believe for one single moment that any Irish Parliament would be strong enough—even if they desired—to pass a law declaring boycotting to be an illegal conspiracy? Ho could imagine that if they passed a law to the effect that boycotting was to 829 be prosecuted as a criminal offence many Members would lose their seats in the South and West. The history of the Land Question had been a history of conspiracy for the last 10 or 15 years. It was by means of illegal conspiracy that the whole land battle had been fought. One prominent Member had said that if they were deprived of this weapon they would be deprived of means of fighting the battle at all. The future legislators of Ireland had been imprisoned for indulging in criminal conspiracy. They were declared by the Prime Minister to be members of a criminal combination, whoso footsteps were dogged by crime. "Crime," said the Prime Minister, "dogged the footsteps of the Laud League." The Land League was a criminal conspiracy by the law of this country; but what Member of an Irish Parliament would dare to rise in his place and propose that the Laud League should be declared to be an illegal conspiracy and its members imprisoned? They (the Opposition) were sometimes accused of quoting old statements. For his part, he never quoted a single statement, old or new, if that statement had been withdrawn. The Prime Minister, however, had never withdrawn the statement that crime dogged the footsteps of the Land League. On one occasion he (MR. Rentoul) made a quotation from a statement attributed to MR. Davitt. MR. Davitt afterwards met him and told him the statement was not accurate, and he (MR. Rentoul) accordingly got the editor to withdraw the reference from the report of his speech in the official report. This statement of the Prime Minister, as he had said, had not been withdrawn. If these future Irish legislators had been members of that criminal conspiracy, what would be their views as regarded criminal conspiracy when they legislated for the people of Ireland? "Fellow-feeling makes us wondrous kind," and it was very unlikely those gentlemen who had indulged in this pastime would be very desirous of maintaining the law as it at present stood, and as it ought to be maintained, with regard to criminal conspiracy. There had been other conspiracies besides agrarian. In all sorts of ways the Irish people had shown themselves in the past very powerful; and now it was proposed to submit the Unionist minority 830 in Ireland to those who had been members of these conspiracies in the past. The Prime Minister's one answer to almost all the Amendments was that he trusted the Nationalists. But the Prime Minister, more than any other man, was the one who taught them in the past seven or eight years to distrust the Nationalists, and all the strong statements of distrust wore those which were made by the Prime Minister. The Parnell Commission, in one of their findings, said—
The leaders of the Land League who combined to carry out a system of boycotting were guilty of criminal conspiracy, one of the objects of which was, by a system of coercion and intimidation, to promote an agrarian agitation against the payment of rent.Was it any wonder, then, that the landlords of Ireland should have been so anxious in regard to having some safeguard applied to them? The Parnell Commission further found that the criminal conspiracy which these gentlemen were leading existed for the purpose of expelling landlords altogether from Ireland, and those very gentlemen were those who said if they gave up these methods they might give up the battle altogether. Seeing that the Law of Criminal Conspiracy was a law of great importance, which had been a subject of gradual growth through three stages in the development of the jurisprudence of this country, and seeing that it was a law very likely to be altered in Ireland, it was surely right that this matter should be kept in the hands of the Imperial Parliament, so that those who represented English, Welsh, and Scotch constituencies, who were impartial and who were away from Irish influences, should hold this matter in their control and should declare that the Law of Criminal Conspiracy should not be altered by the Irish Parliament, and that when any alteration wore made it should be trusted to Members of the Imperial Parliament and not to those who had certainly one qualification for dealing with the Law of Conspiracy—namely, that they themselves had been largely engaged in the matter of conspiracy. Ho begged to move the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 12, after the word "or," to insert the words "(6) Whereby the Law of Conspiracy may be altered; or." — (MR. Rentoul.)
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.
MR. J. MORLEYmoved the following Amendment:—Page 3, line 14, leave out from "Parliament," to "may," in line 16.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
The following Amendment also stood on the Paper in the name of MR. J. MORLEY:—
Page 3, line 21, after the word "precedents," to insert the words "and so far as respects property without just compensation: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall prevent the Irish Legislature from dealing with any Public Department, Municipal Corporation, or Local Authority.
MR. J. MORLEYmoved the Amendment as it stood on the Paper, with the addition of the following words:—
Or of any Corporation administering Public Funds so far as concerns such funds.He said, the additional words referred to certain Bodies which had to administer Public Funds—such Bodies, for instance, as the Royal Dublin Society, which received a grant of £5,000 a year for improving the breed of horses, and, therefore, to that extent, administered a Public Fund. He proposed that nothing in this sub-section should prevent the Irish Legislature from dealing with any Corporation of that kind administering a Public Fund in that way so far as concerned the administration of such fund. He begged to move the Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 3, line 21, after the word "precedents," to insert the words "and so far as respects property without just compensation: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall prevent the Irish Legislature from dealing with any Public Department, Municipal Corporation, or Local Authority, or with any Corporation administering Public Funds so far as concerns such funds."—(MR. J. Morley.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)said, the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the grant of £5,000 to the Royal Dublin Society for horse breeding. He would point out that the Royal Dublin Society had, in addition to the grant of £5,000, the administration of large funds which were applied for other purposes than horse breeding. He would like to know whether this clause would safeguard 832 those other funds? The Royal Dublin Society had been in existence for a very long time, and they should understand distinctly whether the whole of their funds were to be safeguarded, or only the portion derived from Public Funds for one purpose?
MR. J. MORLEYsaid, whatever could be defined as "Public Funds" would be within the purview of the Amendment.
§ SIR J. GORSTsaid, that, of course, raised the question as to what were Public Funds. If by Public Funds the right hon. Gentleman meant funds derived from the Consolidated Fund in Ireland it would be better to say so.
§ SIR J. GORSTsaid, it would be necessary if this Bill was passed. The fund for horse breeding, which at present was paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, would, if this Bill passed, be paid out of the public taxation of Ireland—
§ SIR J. GORSTsaid, when this Bill became law, the funds would be derived from the taxation of Ireland.
§ SIR J. GORSTsaid, if that were so, the fact might give the Irish Legislature power, in respect of that fund, to deal with the Society. But would "Public Funds" have no other meaning? Funds might be derived from endowments or manufactures, or in the same way in which Public Funds were dealt with by the Church of England. Was it not a fact that endowments from the public might give the Irish Parliament power to deal with this Society? Seeing that the words might give those powers, it appeared to him that they required further consideration.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, the sub-section as it stood in the Bill was a formidable instrument—one of a very generous scope, and it was hard just at present to say or determine the force with which it would operate. They discussed the matter under somewhat unfavourable circumstances in Committee, and it was suggested that the sub-section should be drawn so as to show what Corporations were to be excluded from the domestic Legislature. It was believed that would 833 be satisfactory to all the interests concerned. As it stood, the sub-section proceeded on general lines—there was no enumeration, and he confessed he felt great difficulty in determining what Corporations would be subject to the ordinary control of the Irish Legislature, and what Corporations would be subject to the special procedure provided in the sub-section. Practically, every Corporation which was within the sub-section would be subject to Imperial control. The Irish Legislature would, therefore, be unable to proceed in the ordinary way; they would have to get the consent of the Corporation, and afterwards Addresses of the two Chambers, and then the Assent of Her Majesty—that was, the Imperial Government. If the word "property" only had been mentioned, he should at once have conceded that the property of existing Corporations ought not to be dealt with except as provided in the sub-section; but "rights and privileges" were also referred to in connection with Corporations existing in the country, and thus a question of the widest scope and of the first importance was raised. He would ask the Solicitor General (SIR J. Rigby), if be took part in the Debate, to give the House a definition of "Corporation" as dealt with in the clause. "By Royal Charter or by local or general Act of Parliament"—that meant every Corporation or Institution that could possibly exist. It included all the great Institutions in Ireland, and be suspected that it included Railway, Gas, and Water Companies, and Chartered Companies at large. If so, such Bodies as the Trustees of the squares in Dublin and of Nelson's Pillar, which were incorporated by local Act of Parliament, could not be dealt with by the Irish Parliament—their rights and privileges could not be interfered with—without the consent of the Imperial Parliament. In the case of local Acts, they had the Railway and Gas Companies established under them; and if the Municipalities of Dublin, Belfast, or Waterford desired, for the good of the citizens, to acquire the control of such companies, ho thought they could not be dealt with without their consent, or without the Address of the two Houses and the leave of the Imperial Government. The condition of the railways in Ireland was one of the most grievous of the minor questions. The 834 Directors did not even act wisely in their own interests. The general result would be better if there was power to deal with rates and charges, which, if they were all agreed, were too high. To levy fares and rates was one of the rights and privileges of a Railway Company; but if the Irish Legislature could not revise such fares or rates without the leave of the Imperial Parliament that certainly seemed to him to contravene the idea of autonomy. Again, there was an almost universal desire in Ireland that the railways should be consolidated. Some of them even thought they should be managed by the State. So long ago as 1848 a Conservative nobleman in this House proposed that £16,000,000 should be granted for the purpose of purchasing the Irish railways. Would it be possible for the Irish Parliament to pass a law to consolidate these railways, or to have them worked by the State—would it be possible to pass a law affecting the rights and privileges of the Railway Companies without the leave of the Imperial Parliament? He hesitated to think that the Government intended to exclude the ordinary Commercial Companies from the Irish Legislature. Dealings with Public Companies were a matter of Private Bill legislation, and he would be surprised to hear that matters of that kind were excluded from the Parliament of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman proposed that Local Authorities should be subject to the Irish Parliament, but there was in the Bill no definition of "Local Authorities"; and the phrase might cover the Municipal Corporations, the Grand Juries, Boards of Guardians, Harbour Boards, Water Boards, Joint Sanitary Boards, Drainage Boards, and Burial Boards. He would be sorry to pin his faith to any Amendment that provided that those Bodies should not be subject to the Irish Legislature. The right hon. Gentleman now proposed to strike out words which he (MR. Sexton) thought were valuable. Ho had expressed that opinion in Committee. The effect of striking out the words which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to strike out would be that even though the Corporation might not be a Public Department which administered funds, raised either locally or from the nation, it would be excluded from the Irish Legislature. 835 It was proposed at the end to insert words to the effect that nothing in the subsection should prevent the Irish Parliament dealing with any Public Department, Municipal Corporations, or Local Authorities, or any Corporation administering public funds so far as concerned such funds. He admitted that these words wont far to limit his objection to his Amendment; but he would prefer that the clause should be allowed to stand as it was, because, if amended as proposed, it would only give them control of funds raised from the public. Beyond those funds Parliament would have no control over the action of any Corporation. His chief concern was as to the general character of the clause—
§ MR. BARTLEYrose to a point of Order. Did ho understand that they were now discussing, not the clause, but an Amendment?
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe discussion is upon the words suggested to be added to the clause.
§ MR. BARTLEYAt the end, Sir?
§ MR. SPEAKERAt the end. The words are—
Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall prevent the Irish Legislature from dealing with any Public Department, Municipal Corporation, or Local Authority, or with any Corporation administering Public Funds, so far as concerns such funds.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, if the hon. Member (MR. Bartley) would not let his zeal outrun his discretion he might see that it was perfectly possible for him to argue the clause at large. He hoped that was quite satisfactory to the hon. Member. He had only to add that the question he had raised was one which the Government should reconsider. They should like to have the definition of "Public Authority," and whether they were to have supervision of railways, and whether Commercial Companies were to be excluded? He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would give him an assurance upon these points.
§ MR. CARSON (Dublin University)said, on his side of the House they had considerable grounds for complaint of the way in which the Chief Secretary had brought forward this Amendment. It was supposed to carry out an undertaking that was given in Committee to put some common sense into the 6th sub-section. The Chief Secretary had 836 sufficient time for placing his Amendment on the Paper; but what had he done? At the very last momont—in the dinner-hour—he had got up and proposed an Amendment in terms which might vitally change the whole meaning of the sub-section. He did that in the most casual way, and without argument or explanation. There could be little doubt that the explanation would be found in the fact that the hon. Member for North Kerry (MR. Sexton) was not satisfied with the Amendment as it stood, and so, after a brief consultation, the right hon. Gentleman agreed to bring forward an addition to it.
§ MR. SEXTONThe hon. and learned Gentleman is quite wrong in supposing I had any consultation on the subject with the right hon. Gentleman. I had no consultation with him at all.
§ MR. CARSONsaid, he accepted the assurance of the hon. Member for Kerry. But here they were at the eleventh or twelfth hour, an Amendment being brought forward which would, he said, create confusion to the 6th sub-section. Having regard to what had passed in Committee the other night as to Trinity College, he could not but regard the action of the Chief Secretary as almost amounting to a breach of faith. Examining the matter as it stood, he found that there were at present two methods by which the Irish Legislature could deal with Corporations in any way they pleased; not only that, but they had a third method, by "due process of law." Now it was proposed to exempt from the purview of the sub-section all cases of Public Funds, which meant funds belonging to Public Bodies—Municipal Corporations and other Bodies.
§ MR. CARSONsaid, in that case what was the argument? They had not even a copy of the Amendment so that they could see its wording, but he had endeavoured to take its meaning as best he could. The Chief Secretary got up in his most innocent mood, which always made the Opposition suspicious, and moved this Amendment. He should like to know what were the Public Funds to which the Amendment referred?
MR. J. MORLEYThe Amendment affects the administration of Public Funds "so far as concerns such funds."
§ MR. CARSONsaid, he would like to know what funds were alluded to. What was meant by "Public Fund"? Did that mean funds voted annually by the House of Commons?
MR. J. MORLEYI define Public Funds as funds raised by taxation, or arising from property belonging to the estate.
§ MR. CARSONWhat estate?
§ MR. CARSONsaid, the Chief Secretary did not say so in the Amendment. The words were "any Corporation administering Public Funds." That did not mean "Municipal Corporation." To take the very instance the right hon. Gentleman gave, the Dublin Society was not a Municipal Corporation. It showed the vast inconvenience of the situation that the right hon. Gentleman did not take the trouble to define in the Amendment what were the Corporations and what were the Public Funds aimed at. As the Amendment stood, every one of the endowments of Trinity College would come directly within the purview of the proposal except the private endowments.
§ An hon. MEMBER: It has an estate.
§ MR. CARSONsaid, yes; it certainly had an estate granted by the Crown. Was it meant to capture these endowments? If the Irish Legislature could deal with Municipal Corporations, surely they could deal with the funds of Municipal Corporations. Surely the Amendment was either unnecessary, or it went far and away beyond the words the right hon. Gentleman had thrown out since he (MR. Carson) had commenced to speak, he would suggest to him that, so far as these were matters of Revenue raised by public taxation, the Irish Parliament would have complete control over their own powers of taxation. Therefore, the Government could not mean Municipal Corporations, or the funds of those Corporations, or any of the taxation over which the Parliament would have complete control. The matter required some elucidation; they should know what the Government were driving at. They should not have matters of such far-reaching consequence brought forward in this manner. There was one other observation ho wished to make. The Chief Secretary said the Irish Legisla- 838 ture were to have power to deal with voluntary Corporations, such as the Royal Dublin Society, so far as they received Public Funds. Did that mean that they were to have power, so far as these particular funds were concerned, to alter the whole foundation and constitution of the Society? Did the words "so far as concern such funds" mean the granting of the funds?
§ MR. CARSONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman answered "No." What, then, was meant? Was it the administration of the funds?
§ MR. CARSONsaid, that if they were to interfere with the administration of the funds of the Royal Dublin Society they would go to the whole root of the administration of that Institution. The Irish Executive would have the power of appointing the persons who would be able to interfere with the whole Corporation. Having regard to the fact that this matter had already been discussed in Committee, that the Amendment was put down several days ago, and that the Irish Legislature had very slight restrictions put upon them by the sub-section, he must say that it was treating the House in a most extraordinary manner to spring this proposal upon it at the eleventh hour in this perfunctory manner.
§ SIR J. RIGBYsaid, be did not think there was much mystery about the Amendment. Long ago the Government pointed out at what they were aiming in the exceptions from this clause, although the words were not absolutely conclusive in their meaning. The general purport of the clause was that existing Corporations were not to be interfered with. But, obviously, that went too far, because there were many existing Corporations which had no sort of independent status or authority, and which were Governing Bodies. Of course, as regarded these, it was not intended that they should be in any wise independent of, or superior to, the Legislative Body. The words introduced would have the effect of preventing these Bodies from raising money by way of taxation and of administering such money. The Government had promised to take into consideration a better way of bringing about that effect. They set about considering 839 how they could do it, and they concluded they had better omit words from the clause, and effect their purpose by a Proviso, because it would then show that the sub-section had nothing to do with that class of Corporation. When the words of the Proviso were put on the Paper, they thought they had secured their object by referring to a Public Department of the Government Municipal Corporations and Local Authorities. There was nothing more remarkable about it or mysterious than this: that on reconsideration they concluded that there were other Corporations which were within the meaning of the words already in the clause; and then it was suggested that wherever there were Corporations dealing with Public Funds, the control to the extent of those funds should be with the Irish Legislature. His hon. and learned Friend asked, what were Public Funds? Was that his mysterious matter? What was meant was, whatever could fairly be described as Public Funds should be within the control of the Irish Legislature.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURWhat are Public Funds?
§ SIR J. RIGBYsaid, the Government meant by "Public Funds" whatever could be fairly and properly described as Public Funds. They had taken words corresponding with words already contained in the sub-section, words which were intended to have a wide effect. He could not give a full account of what could properly and fairly be called Public Funds, because he did not know. He could not undertake to go into the case of every Corporation. A great many of them were unknown to him; but he did say that they were on safe grounds when they divided Public from Private Funds. He did not fear for the result. [Laughter.] The result would work itself out. Wherever there was a Public Fund they must be prepared for it being under the control of the Irish Legislature, and wherever there was a Private Fund they might rest assured that it would not be under such control.
§ *MR. D. PLUNKET (Dublin University)said, that perhaps someone on the Treasury Bench would answer the specific question of his hon. and learned Colleague (MR. Carson) as to whether the new addition now proposed to 840 the sub-section would affect such property as that of the Royal Dublin Society and of Trinity College. The only answer they had got to that was that these words were to have a wide effect and extent. Over and over again the property of Trinity College, Dublin, had been spoken of by Irish Members and others as public property, in the sense that it was property conferred by the Crown. The hon. and learned Solicitor General was challenged to give an answer of any kind. If they were to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's silence, and from the words he had used as to the wide extent and effect of the Proviso that the Irish Legislature would control Corporations with Public Funds, so far as those Public Funds wore concerned, then they wanted to know whether the words proposed applied, or were intended to apply, to such Corporations as Trinity College and the Royal Dublin Society? If that was the intention, the effect of these additional words suddenly sprung upon the House would be to repeal the whole of the protection so long offered and so much relied upon in former discussions. [Mr. J. MORLEY dissented.] He understood from the gestures of the Chief Secretary that the words were not intended to have that effect. Then, would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to give them some kind of definition of what "Public Funds" were supposed to be? The House had a right to know what was intended by the words before it accepted them.
MR. J. MORLEYsaid, the Government certainly did not intend by the words to include Trinity College, and as to the Royal Dublin Society hon. Members had not understood what he had said. The Royal Dublin Society at this moment received a grant of £5,000 under the Act of 1888. That they called Public Funds, and as the administrator of such funds the Society would be under the control of the Irish Legislature.
§ MR. DARLING (Deptford)said, he could not help thinking that the explanation of the Solicitor General had not conveyed as much to the Opposition side of the House as might have been expected; and he rose to supply an omission in the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman. When the hon. and learned 841 Gentleman said that that was public which could properly be so called ho was using vague and inconclusive language. The hon. and learned Gentleman had been thinking of a maxim with which he was familiar in the Court of Chancery— namely, "that is certain which can be rendered certain." No doubt the hon, and learned Gentleman meant that that was public property which by Act of the Irish Legislature could be rendered public property. They would only have to pass an Act of Parliament saying that which was private was public in order to render it so, just as that which was uncertain became certain by a decision of the Court of Chancery. "That is public which can properly be so called" said the Solicitor General; but who was to decide what could properly be called public property? The Irish Parliament could pass an Act making that which formerly was private property public property, and the Bill contained no provision by which anyone could decide whether the Irish Parliament used its powers properly or not. The Irish Legislature might make use of idioms that were notrecoguised in this Parliament. They might do that with regard to property, lie hoped the Attorney General, or some other Member of the Government, would give some indication of what was meant by public property, in order that the House and those who had to construe the Act might know what was meant.
§ *SIR T. LEA (Londonderry, S.)said, that if hon. and learned Gentlemen had failed to understand the Solicitor General a layman could not be expected to do so. If they were not aware that the Chief Secretary was a man of the highest honour they would be disposed to believe he was endeavouring to obtain an advantage over the Opposition. He added words to the proposal before the House without notice or explanation. The right hon. Gentleman might have given some explanation. For once in his life he (Sir T. Lea) was in agreement with the hon. Member for North Kerry, who had said that railways ought to come under the State. A Bill to bring about the control of the Irish railways by the State would be far better worth discussing and supporting than any Home Rule scheme. Of course, Unionist Members would be suspicious of any Amendment adopted at 842 the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Kerry. He believed the Amendment would seriously damage the prosperous Harbour Boards of Deny and Belfast; and he would, therefore, offer it an earnest and hearty opposition.
§ MR. TOMLINSONagreed that the obscurity of the Amendment was not cleared up by the speech of the Solicitor General. He would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of a statement of his at an earlier stage of the Bill—that any words inserted must mean something, and what the meaning was would have to be determined by some internal authority. The only interpretation to be put upon that was that the meaning of these clauses would have to be determined by a long series of legal decisions. If the Public Funds referred to were funds to be provided by the Irish Legislature the Amendment ought to say so. He, therefore, moved to leave out "Public Funds" for the purpose of inserting "funds provided by the Irish Legislature."
§
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
To leave out the words "Public Funds" in order to insert the words "funds provided by the Irish Legislature."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'Public Funds' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the discussion showed the extreme inconvenience of dealing at this stage with matters that ought to have been dealt with in Committee, and the extreme inconvenience of the Government guillotining the Amendments. It showed, further, the inconvenience of the line pursued by the Government last night in insisting that the guillotine should be applied to the Amendments now on the Paper on Friday. Though it was decided that the Amendments of the Opposition were not worthy of being looked at it was assumed that the Amendments of the Government were perfect. But if all the Government Amendments stood as much in need of amendment as the present one, they would have made a pretty mess of their Bill. He doubted whether anyone could state from memory the effect of this Amendment sprung suddenly upon the House. It was not treating the House or the subject with proper consideration to submit an Amendment in this way within a few hours of the application of the Glad- 843 stonian garotte. What was the origin of the Amendment to the Amendment they did not know; but this they did know— that the hon. Member for North Kerry left his place; that shortly afterwards the Solicitor General retired; and that the hon. and learned Gentleman came back, like another Elisha, wearing the mantle of Elijah.
§ MR. SEXTONThe words were read out before the Solicitor General came back.
§ MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, that in that ease he was wrong and Elijah still wore his mantle. He (MR. Bowles) had risen mainly to emphasise the fact that within a few hours of the Government having declared, in effect, that their own Amendments were so perfect that they could be voted upon without discussion on Friday, they suddenly and most unexpectedly proposed an addition of a most important character to one of their Amendments. That being so, ho thought the time had arrived when the Government ought to withdraw the monstrous Resolution passed last night with a view to the discussion of their own Amendments at least, if not of the Opposition.
§ *MR. BUTCHER (York)said, ho found himself in cordial agreement with the hon. Member for North Kerry in thinking that the 6th sub-section was an ill-constructed provision. The House was to be congratulated upon the fact that, by a fortunate accident, they had the opportunity of considering the Amendment of the Government, or else this sub-section, with all its imperfections, would have been forced through the House without the opportunity for any discussion. The Solicitor General had been asked to define the important words proposed to be added to the section. What wore the words? The effect of the Chinese puzzle appeared to be that the Irish Legislature should be allowed to deal with any Corporation administering Public Funds so far as concerned such funds. He could imagine that that might mean that the Legislature might confiscate such funds. It was not unreasonable to ask the Solicitor General to offer some definition of the words "Public Funds." To-night, it must be confessed, they had received a lesson in the art of definition. If the Solicitor General was right, in future they would 844 be saved the necessity for anything like definitions in Acts of Parliament. The Solicitor General said that "Public Funds" meant, not what might be improperly termed Public Funds, but what might be properly termed Public Funds. A more simple method of reasoning had never been presented to an astonished House. He should like to be informed whether, in the opinion of the Government, the phrase "Corporations administering Public Funds" included Corporations such as Trinity College, Dublin? The Chief Secretary had said he did not think they would; but if that was so, would lie agree to insert words in the clause to make the point clear? They knew that Trinity College had been before now, in the course of these discussions, in very serious danger; and that unless it was very efficiently protected, it would certainly be attacked by the Irish Legislature. The hon. Member for East Mayo had said that if it had not been for an Amendmont introduced by the Chief Secretary the other night, Trinity College would have been in danger, and that a determined attack would have been made on its privileges and property. The hon. Member for East Mayo had said—
If the House will strike out Sub-section 6 altogether, we will agree that Trinity College and other threatened Institutions shall be adequately protected.
§ MR. DILLONsaid, that what he had said was that there were two methods of protecting these Institutions—namely, specifying each one, and adopting the proposal of the Government. The Government and the Irish Representatives believed that Trinity College was amply protected by the Bill as it stood; but the Irish Members were willing that it should be completely protected by name on condition that Sub-section 6 was struck out.
§ *MR. BUTCHERsaid, that he had, therefore, correctly represented what the hon. Member had said. If Trinity College and other Institutions were protected by name, the hon. Member was prepared to permit spoliation in other cases. That was his quid pro quo. But since the hon. Member had made his speech the other night, this new Amendment had been brought forward by the Chief Secretary; and he, therefore, appealed 845 to the right hon. Gentleman to insert words which would clearly and completely remove all fears that were entertained with regard to Trinity College. It seemed to him that the most satisfactory way of dealing with the matter would be to strike out the words "Public Funds," and use the words in a previous portion of the clause— namely, "taxes, rates, cess, dues, or tolls."
§ *SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, that what had happened was this—when Sub-section 6 was being discussed, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. George's Division (Mr. Goschen) called attention to what he considered the bad drafting of the sub-section. Ho (Sir C. Russell) shared the right hon. Gentleman's view, and perhaps attached more importance to it than ho ought to have done; and, as a mere drafting arrangement, he had undertaken that the matter should be dealt with on Report. Now, ho would ask hon. Members to read the Amendment. He submitted that it did not in any way depart from the meaning of the clause as it originally stood, and did not extend its operation. The broad character of the sub-section was this—it divided Corporations into two main classes—such Corporations or Bodies as were concerned with the general government of the country it was intended by the Government should be under the control of the Irish Legislature in the ordinary way so far as any other subject was under their legislative control; but, as regarded all other existing Corporations which did not come under that class, one of two courses would have to be pursued. Either there must be Addresses from both Houses of the Legislature, followed by the assent of Her Majesty, before the Irish Legislature could deal with the bodies, or, if expropriation was involved, the Irish Legislature would have to give fair and just compensation. The Government were asked what was the class of Corporation or Body comtemplated by the proposal. The Royal Dublin Society was an example of what was meant. That Society could not be dealt with under the clause as it stood, except in the two ways mentioned; but, as regarded the £5,000 voted to it by Parliament, it would be reserved to the Irish Legislative Body to say how it should 846 be dealt with. No jot or tittle of the protection the clause was intended to afford to Trinity College was touched by any part of the Amendment. A question had been asked as to what was meant by "Public Funds." It was always very easy to claim the right to a definition; but it was not always the part of a prudent man to commit himself to a definition as being exhaustive. He thought, therefore, his hon. and learned Colleague (Sir J. Rigby) was quite right in refusing to commit himself. But he thought there was no lawyer in the House who could not suggest au approximation to what was meant. He should say that "Public Funds" might be described as funds raised by taxation, or arising from property belonging to the State, or to any Municipal Corporation or other Local Authority. That would not be very far from a close definition of "Public Funds." At all events, he could not agree that there would he any real difficulty in the Courts arriving at the intention of Parliament.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI think it will be admitted that the House stands, in relation to this Amendment, in rather a peculiar position. Yesterday the Government restricted our powers of discussion on the 36 remaining clauses of the Bill—or the 42 clauses, if the Schedules were counted as clauses—to the next three days. The least we could claim under these circumstances—and I am sure the least the Government desire to give us—is every facility during the brief hours still remaining to us to discuss the questions in the Bill of great public moment and importance. What actually happens is that on the very day after the Resolution has been passed, the Government, who have had plenty of time to think of the question—because they have complained bitterly of the interval which we have obliged them to spend between the days of the Committee and the days of this Report—have not succeeded in finding words which carry out their idea. In a very thin House, during the dinner hour, they suddenly add certain words which, I will do them the justice to say, are intended merely to clarify their meaning, but which have thoroughly befogged the House. They cannot blame us for regarding a step of that kind as one big with unknown 847 meaning. With the limited time remaining for discussion, and with a great responsibility for the way in which it is spent, the Government would not drop casual Amendments upon the Table unless they had something to get by them. The question is what their object is. To that question we have yet received no satisfactory reply. The words "Public Funds" have never, so far as I know, been used in an Act of Parliament before. [Ministerial cries of "Yes!"] I am advised that they have not, and I am also advised that they have never been made the subject of any public decision. There is, therefore, hanging over them, from a legal point of view, very great obscurity. I have always held the view that when the meaning of words is plain to everybody lawyers hesitate too much in introducing them into Acts of Parliament, simply because Judges have never had to interpret such words. There is, however, clear common sense in the lawyers' objection to introduce into an Act new words which do not carry their meaning on their face, which have not been interpreted by the Courts, and which are ambiguous. Everyone must know that the words "Public Funds" are ambiguous. I appeal to hon. Members of this House whether they do not hear constantly, in ordinary political controversy, such funds as those belonging to great Educational Institutions, to Corporations like the City Companies, to Churches, and to Universities, rightly or wrongly described as Public Funds? If the Government do not include such funds, why will they not introduce words which would clearly exclude them? The Government have stated that they do not mean to include Trinity College, Dublin; but they have not explained how Trinity College is excluded. There are great Irish estates belonging to the London Companies. Are they to be regarded as Public Funds, or are they not? Many people call them Public Funds. Are they public or not? How are we to be guided? It is to be observed that the Government themselves, when they originally drafted this clause, must have known that ambiguity resided in these words, because, instead of "Public Funds," they deliberately used the words "taxes, rates, cess, dues, or tolls." Why 848 did not the Government use in their Amendment the words they originally used in the Bill? Can they complain of us if we feel suspicious on the subject? Our suspicions would be even more justified if we felt inclined to entertain them by the single illustration which the ingenuity of the Government has already used. The three gentlemen who have spoken on behalf of the Government have not been able to produce a single solitary case covered by the words, except the case of the Dublin Society. I may remind those hon. Members who were not here earlier that the Dublin Society get £5,000 annually voted for the breeding of horses. Under the Bill that £5,000 will no longer be voted by this House, but it may be voted by the Irish Legislature. We are actually told that these additional words are required in order that the Irish Legislature may have control over the Dublin Society in so far as the £5,000 are concerned. The Irish Legislature will vote the £5,000 if they desire to do so, and they will vote it under any conditions they like. They may make it £10,000 if they like, or reduce it to a farthing, and they may vote it for cattle instead of horses if they like. The additional words are absolutely inoperative, useless, and childish as far as the Dublin Society is concerned. That being so, is it unreasonable to ask what other Corporations the Government have in view? The hon. Member for East Mayo (MR. Dillon) expressed on the part of his friends their willingness to enumerate the Institutions which they desire to protect. I should like to put the converse, and ask whether the Government will enumerate the Corporations they desire to attack? If they do not mean to attack anything, why do they use the words at all? It was in their power to introduce these words into the original sub-section; but they did not do so. They now take a general and ambiguous expression; and all we can get out of the Solicitor General in the way of description or definition of what "Public Funds" are is that "Public Funds" are funds which may properly be described as public. That is the kind of elucidation of a difficult question given to us by the Advisers of the Crown. I think that if my hon. Friend who has moved the Amendment to the Amend- 849 ment would consent to substitute for his terms—which are, perhaps, too narrow —the words actually contained in the Bill, we should be able to see exactly what the Government are driving at. The effect this would have would be to ease a great many of the fears entertained in the House, and to add something not immaterial to what is meant by the description of "Public Funds."
§ MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he should be very glad to carry out the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
§ Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdraw.
§
Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
To leave out from the word "administering," to the end of the proposed Amendment, in order to add the words "for public purposes, taxes, rates, cess, dues, or tolls, so far as concerns the same."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
MR. J. MORLEYA great deal has been said by the right hon. Gentleman (MR. A. J. Balfour) as to the sinister intentions of the Government in proposing this Amendment. The history of the Amendment, however, has been already given to the House by the Attorney General (Sir C. Russell). The late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) found some fault with the words in the Bill as they stood. It was in order to meet the objections of my right hon. Friend that my hon. and learned Friend promised to find better words; and the Amendment to which so many sinister purposes have been attributed has, therefore, been brought forward in order to fulfil that pledge. As, however, hon. Gentlemen opposite do not fall in with our proposal, and as they suspect all kinds of obnoxious meanings in the Amendment, we are quite willing to go back to our original proposal. The form in which the right hon. Gentleman proposes to take us back is one to which we have no objection.
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to know whether companies incorporated by Local Act—companies incorporated by the Companies Acts and companies incorporated by Charter—were, or were 850 not, excluded from the sub-section? He wished also to know from the Government what was meant by "Local Authority"? Did the term include minor but still important Bodies like Harbour Boards, Water Boards, Drainage Boards, Joint Sanitary Boards, and Burial Boards, which raised money in some form or other from the public, and which, therefore, he assumed, ought to be included?
§ MR. DILLON (Mayo, E.)expressed the opinion that the alteration accepted by the Government would entirely alter the meaning of the sub-section as it originally stood in the clause.
§ MR. A. O'CONNOR (Donegal, E.)asked that the Amendment as it would, stand, if the last proposal were adopted, might be read out to the House.
§ *MR. SPEAKERIt would read as follows:—
And so far as respects property without just compensation: Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall prevent the Irish Legislature from dealing with any Public Department, Municipal Corporation, or Local Authority, or with any Corporation administering for public purposes, taxes, rates, cess, dues, or tolls, so far as concerns the same.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'for public purposes, taxes, rates, cess, dues, or tolls, so far as concerns the same,' be added to the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)moved to omit the words "so far as concerns the same." He said it was quite true that the Government had endeavoured to meet the views of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, of course, instead of expressing any satisfaction whatever, the Opposition had turned round and proceeded to kick the Government for having made a concession to them. He had not had an opportunity of sufficiently considering the Amendment; and, as the Opposition objected to them, he thought the words "so far as concerns the same," should be omitted. He did not remember the exact history of the Royal Dublin Society. His recollection was that in the last Parliament a proposition was made to the effect that the sum granted to the members of that Body, which had been founded for the benefit of agriculture, should be com- 851 muted by the Treasury into a lump sum. The late Colonel King-Harman proposed to give the Society £5,000 a year for the breeding of horses; and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer suddenly—towards Christmas, 1888—stuck in his Probate Duty Bill a grant for that purpose. The result had been that the £5,000 a year had been given to laud-grabbers, land agents, and other members of the obnoxious classes of Ireland, whilst none of the money had gone to the honest farmers of the country.
§ Amendment proposed to the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "so far as concerns the same."— (Mr. T. M. Healy.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment stand part of the Question."
§ SIR J. RIGBYsaid, the Government were not able to accept the Amendment, as it would not be reasonable. Wherever money was raised in the manner mentioned in the Amendment due control ought to be given to the Irish Legislature; but that control would necessarily stop at the point at which the administration of the funds ceased.
§ MR. KNOX (Cavan, W.)said, he thought it was worthy of consideration that there were a large number of Corporations in Ireland which did not exist in this country. He referred to the county infirmaries, which were incorporated by special Charters or special Acts. These infirmaries received money from the public cess. When it was desired to reform an Irish infirmary it was necessary to pass an Act through the Imperial Parliament; and he believed that in this Session a Public Act had been passed to remove a few abuses from the Gal way Infirmary. Unless the words proposed to be left out were excluded from the sub-section, the Irish Parliament would not lie able to reform abuses of administration in these infirmaries, although it would be able to stop the money. The consequence would be that year by year proposals would have to be male to Her Majesty's Government for assent to various Bills dealing with local Corporations. These were essentially questions which ought 852 to be referred to a Home Rule Parliament. The Solicitor General said the Amendment was unreasonable; but it was precisely the same proposal as had been made by the Government themselves.
MR. J. MORLEYIn answer to my hon. and learned Friend, I would point out that, in such eases as he refers to, there would be no difficulty whatever in getting the two Houses of the Irish Legislature to agree to such an Address as is suggested.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Question again proposed, "That the words 'for public purposes, taxes, rates, cess, dues, or tolls, so far as concerns the same,' be added to the proposed Amendment."
§ MR. SEXTONsaid, that for the third time that evening he had to ask for an answer to a question he had put. The Solicitor General had given him an answer respecting Local Authorities which was tolerably satisfactory; but he could not rest content without a reply to the question he had put respecting Public Companies. In order to obtain a reply, he moved to add to the Amendment, "or with any Public Company."
§ Amendment proposed to the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to add at the end the words "or with any Public Company."—(Mr. Sexton.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be added at the end of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment."
§ SIR J. RIGBYI regret that by inadvertence I did not on a former occasion reply directly to the hon. Gentleman's question. I do not think that there can really be any difficulty about it. If you except, as is proposed by this Amendment, every Public Company, that would include Railway Companies and Gas Companies; and all the rights of such companies would be subject, with certain exceptions, to the absolute power of the Irish Legislature, which might deprive them of their rights without giving a farthing compensation, and without due 853 process of law. Certainly, we never contemplated anything of the kind. As regards Railway and Canal Companies, we contemplate, and we understand that the clause as it will stand without this Amendment will provide, that you should only take their undertakings from them on giving them just compensation and providing the proper means by which that compensation should be estimated. With regard to regulations for the public benefit, in the way of the safety of the passengers and so on, I do not apprehend that any of these Companies has the right or the privilege of carrying on business in a way which would be disadvantageous to the public. As regards rates and tolls, they have by legislative enactment the right to make charges, and I apprehend that such rates could not be taken away from them except in the manner provided by the section for the protection of Corporations. The Irish Legislature would not be able to say that Public Companies should no longer be able to charge rates and tolls, and, by parity of reasoning, they would not be able to say that they should only claim one-half the authorised rate.
§ MR. KNOXsaid, he sincerely hoped that his hon. Friend would press his Amendment. The Nationalist Members had been told that they were to have power over gas, water, and electricity. It now seemed clear that they were not to have that power. As be understood, before the City of Dublin, for instance, would be able to obtain control of the Dublin gas undertaking, it would have to come to the Imperial Government for permission. It would have to draw up the heads of a Bill, and obtain the assent of the Imperial Government to them; and then the Bill would have to be passed through both Houses of the Irish Legislature without any Amendments. The same would be the case with regard to gas and water in every city in Ireland. So far as the property of a Corporation was concerned, he thought it quite fair that the Irish Legislature should be prohibited from taking it without due process of law: but he submitted that this was already provided for in Sub-section 5. The effect of his hon. and learned Friend's Amendment would be that the Irish Legislature might 854 deal with Corporations in the same way that it might deal with ordinary individuals; and he thought it a strange thing that a limited or any other company carrying on business in Ireland was to have rights and privileges which would be denied to a private individual. The result of such a provision would be the extension of the system of forming Limited Companies whenever the business was of such a kind that the owners or promoters did not want it to be under direct public control. Ho hoped, therefore, the Government would see that the restriction should be removed.
§ *MR. BLAKE (Longford, S.)submitted that the question was one of very great importance. It was really a question whether a large class of matters which properly belong to a local Legislature should come under the operation of the Irish Parliament, or should be taken direct to the Imperial Parliament. He looked at this matter with some alarm, because ho was not able to agree with the view suggested by the hon. Member for Dublin University (Mr. Carson) earlier in the Debate, when, pointing out that the preliminary procedure, before oven approaching the Crown, was to obtain an Address from both Houses of the Irish Legislature, that hon. Member alleged that an Address could be got when a Bill could be got. If herightly construed the clause, an Address could not be got whenever a Bill might begot, because there was no provision for collective action on the part of the two Houses of the Irish Legislature in regard to the Address to the Crown, such as there was in the case of a Bill; and, therefore, the Second Chamber might for all time prevent the Representatives of the people of Ireland from even approaching the Crown to ask its consideration of the question whether the Irish Legislature should be able to deal with local Irish Companies. He would submit, therefore, that there should be some provision for collective action with regard to Addresses to the Crown, so as to secure, as in the case of Bills, the reconciliation of divergencies of opinion on such matters. The proposal that would sot up the Second Chamber with an absolute veto on Addresses to the Crown was wholly indefensible, at any rate from those quarters which had already recog- 855 nised the propriety of providing a means, by collective vote, of overcoming divergence of opinion in the case of Bills.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINI have listened to this Debate with very great interest and no little amusement. I would preface what I have to say by suggesting that the Prime Minister should devise some form of Closure which would give us some compensation for the time wasted by his own supporters. We are discussing one of the safeguards—Heaven save the mark! — which the Government had put into this Bill. It does not say that the Irish Parliament shall not deal with the Corporations, or Companies, or Local Authorities, or anything else. But it does say that the Irish Parliament shall not deprive these Corporations of their properties and rights without due process of law and just compensation, unless the consent of both Houses of the Legislature is given. So that it only protects these unfortunate companies to this extent—that they are not to be robbed— that is not too strong a word; that their property shall not be taken from them without just compensation and an Address from both Houses of the Legislature. I do not think that that is much of a protection. When it came to robbing these Bodies I am not certain that the Address will not be forthcoming. But what is the position of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland in regard to this safeguard? With one accord, including that great Constitutional authority the hon. Member for North Longford, they demand that as many Bodies as possible shall be excluded from this minimum of protection. And this Debate has occupied an hour and a half of the time which properly belongs to the Opposition. The hon. Member for Cavan actually says that, if this safeguard is adopted, the Irish Legislature shall have no power over gas, water, and electricity—
§ MR. KNOXI expressly stated that one of the reasons why I supported the Amendment was because these Corporations could not, even if the Amendment were carried, be deprived of their property without due process and compensation, as that is provided for by Clause 5; and I say that it is an outrage for the right hon. Gentleman to accuse us of an intention to rob these Bodies when we have 856 expressly stated that it was not our intention to interfere in any way with the protection of their property.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINThe explanation explains nothing. The explana tion is a condemnation of the drafting of the Bill. The hon. Member for Cavan thinks that this section is absolutely unnecessary, as all the protection which it gives is given by Sub-section 5. Well, he differs with the Solicitor General and the Attorney General, who are responsible for drafting this part of the Bill—
§ MR. KNOXI am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to misinterpret me. If I may say so, my argument was this. There are three things raised—rights, privileges, and property. Property is fully dealt with in Clause 5. Rights and privileges are subordinate things, and the object of our Amendment is to remove the prohibition from the Irish Parliament of dealing with rights and privileges. I was not in any way questioning the general drafting of the Bill. I only said that we ought to have the power of dealing with the rights and privileges, even if restricted from taking away the property of those Bodies.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINThe explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman is longer than his original speech. I really believe that he has not read the sub-section. I noticed when he got up that he was entirely ignorant of Subsection 6 as drafted by the Chief Secretary, because he omitted altogether to deal with this question of just compensation until reminded of it by the hon. Member for North Kerry. Now, the hon. and learned Member gets up and tells us that all the protection that is afforded by Sub-section 6 would be afforded by Sub-section 5.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINI have to point out to him that that is not the case. Sub-section 5 provides a qualified protection for persons and for private property, and Sub-section 6 deals with Corporations. The two are entirely distinct and separate. One deals with individuals, and the other deals with Corporations.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINHaving explained this matter to the hon. and learned Gentleman on behalf of the right 857 hon. Gentlemen who have drafted the Bill, I proceed to consider the Amendment before the House. The hon. and learned Member gave us the impression that if this Amendment of the Chief Secretary were accepted in all its terms it would exclude the Irish Legislature from dealing with gas and water. Nothing of the kind. It would still be competent to the Irish Legislature to pass Bills regulating Gas and Water Companies in the interests of the public, and to take the property of such companies and transfer it to Local Authorities, provided that just compensation is given. I must say that, under these circumstances, the discussion raised by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite is an absolute waste of time and deliberate obstruction.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, as he understood the argument of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, a Member, if he came from Sheffield or Birmingham or the Borders, was entitled to talk on this Home Rule Bill; but if he came from Tipperary, or Cork, or Louth, or Dublin, then his function was to hold his tongue, and to allow Birmingham and Sheffield and Partick—especially Par-tick—to deliver long speeches by the hour and a half. He had thought, after listening for 77 days to the right hon. Member for West Birmingham making 777 speeches, that really in the eleventh hour hon. Gentlemen from Ireland should be allowed upon this question to say a few words. When the right hon. Member for West Birmingham got up, he (MR. Healy) thought he was going to say—"I am in favour, at any rate, of giving a Gas and Water Bill." He thought ho was going to refer to the Amendment, for which ho voted last week, of the hon. and learned Member for Harrow, and for which every Tory and Unionist voted, and said, "Here is our Homo Rule Bill."
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINThere was no Division on that Amendment.
§ MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he wished to know, was the right hon. Member for West Birmingham blaming the hon. and learned Member for Harrow because he would not support him, who was going to give over education and laud, and who now would not give them Private Bills? He would say, give them Home Rule according to Harrow. He had in his hand the 858 Standing Orders of the House, from which ho observed that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Harrow would give the Irish Parliament the power of dealing with Burial Boards, Charters, and Corporations, and enlarging or altering their powers; but they were told by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and the Government that it would be robbery to give an Irish Parliament that power. The point now made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was that if the Irish Parliament got this power they would rob those Corporations. All they claimed was to have power to deal with those Corporations, and if they took their property they would pay them for it. He would give the right hon. Member for West Birmingham—who was, no doubt, very learned in all these matters—an illustration of the effect of this clause if carried. There was at present a bridge across the Suir at Waterford, built, he believed, in 1777, and bearing an inscription to the effect that in that year Catholics and Protestants in Ireland became united. The bridge had fallen into a bad state of repair, and though the Judges at Assizes had frequently complained of it, nothing could be done on account of the powers vested in the Local Authority in respect of it. Last year they experienced a similar difficulty in connection with some of the infirmaries in Ireland. Ho might further mention that there were at least four squares in Dublin incorporated under Local Acts passed by the Irish Parliament; and now, as lie understood the proposal of the Government, it would be out of the power of an Irish Legislature even to deal with the paving of those squares. He would prove what he said, because, two years ago, when they wished to improve the squares of Dublin, they had to go to the Imperial Parliament for a Local Act. It might be said, in replying, that under similar circumstances they could easily come there again and get a Local Act; but surely they did not want the Irish Members coming there looking for Local Acts after they had got Home Rule. He regarded the clause under discussion as in an extremely unsatisfactory position, and he hoped the Government would reconsider it at some future time.
§ Question put, and negatived.
§ Words added to the proposed Amendment.
§ Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
§ On Clause 5.
§ MR. PARKER SMITHmoved to leave out the words "in Her Majesty's name," and to insert the words "as representing Her Majesty." That was not a mere verbal Amendment, for it would have the effect of altering the Advisers of the Lord Lieutenant in these matters from the Irish Parliament to the Imperial Parliament. The clause was a difficult one to understand, so far as the action of the Lord Lieutenant was concerned. There were three separate phrases used in the clause— "on behalf of Her Majesty"; "by Her Majesty"; and "in Her Majesty's name." As far as he could understand, the two phrases "on behalf of Her Majesty" and "in Her Majesty's name" were exactly the same; and he did not see why separate phrases should be used, except it was solely for the purpose of providing variety of expression.
§ It being Midnight, Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, stood adjourned.
§ Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.