Commons Sitting of 24 August 1893

STANDING ORDERS.
Standing Order 194 read.
MR. J. STUARTsaid, he wished to move an Amendment to Standing Order 194. This Order was only two years old, and was introduced in relation to Bills of the London County Council such as dealt with the borrowing of money. The Standing Order introduced considerable changes in the procedure which had up to that time applied to Bills of that description, and with those changes the Loudon County Council was not satisfied. Nor could he express himself, on behalf of the London County Council, as satisfied with the position in which their Bills relating to the borrowing of money stood.

ROYAL ASSENT.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
The House went;—and, being returned:—
Mr. Speaker reported the Royal Assent to—

1. Congested Districts Board (Ireland) Act, 1893.

2. Improvement of Land (Scotland) Act, 1893.

3. Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1893.

4. Conveyance of Mails Act, 1893.

5. Law of Distress and Small Debts (Ireland) Act, 1893.

6. Liverpool Court of Passage Act. 1893.

938

7. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 15) Act, 1893.

8. Salmon Fishery Act (1873) Provisional Order (Tees Fishery District) Confirmation Act, 1893.

9. Education Department Provisional Order Confirmation (London) Act, 1893.

10. Education Department Provisional Order Confirmation (London) (No. 2) Act, 1893.

11. County of the City of Glasgow Act, 1893.

12. Tramways Orders Confirmation Act, 1893.

STANDING ORDERS.
Debate resumed.
MR. J. STUART(continuing) said, the Standing Order to which his Amendment referred was introduced after considerable correspondence between the parties concerned respecting the Bills for the borrowing of money of the London County Council. It was understood by the London County Council, and intended by the then President of the Local Government Board, that the Standing Order should only apply to such Bills. On the 29th May, 1891, the date of the Standing Order—or before the introduction of the Standing Order —a draft of it was conveyed to the London County Council by Mr. Ritchie, who wrote to say that it would be understood that the proposed Standing Order would not affect in any way whatever the authority which the County Council possessed to execute any works within their statutory powers, the cost of which would be defrayed out of the rates. It was only in respect of works constructed out of borrowed money, the cost of which would fall upon future ratepayers that it would apply. Though that might have been the understanding, the effect was different. The first words of the Standing Order was—
"All Bills promoted by the London County Council containing power to raise money shall be introduced as Public Bills."
And then followed certain exceptions with respect to these Bills which affected the borrowing of money. It had been understood, until quite recently, on account of the letter of the President of the Local Government Board, that the raising of money there was intended to

939
refer to the raising of it by means of borrowing; but, as Mr. Speaker, in the earlier part of the Session, in a remarkably lucid ruling, ruled, and as the plain sense of the words indicated, the Standing Order was a prohibition, and prevented the London County Council from introducing a Bill of any kind for the raising of money as a Private Bill. That being so, what he begged to contend was this—that in the change then introduced by the Standing Order the County Council was deprived of a power which its predecessor, the Metropolitan Board of Works, had possessed for 35 years; and, in the second place, that the County Council was placed in a different position by the Standing Order from that in which other Municipal Bodies were placed, because, as ho had submitted to the House at the time the Standing Order was passed, there were many instances in which Bills affecting the distribution of rating and the raising of money had been brought in by Municipal Bodies and actually passed into law which the London County Council was prohibited by the Standing Order from bringing in. If the Standing Order were altered as he proposed, it would read thus—
"All Bills promoted by the London County Council containing powers to raise money by the creation of stock or on loan shall be introduced as Private Bills."
Amendment proposed, in line 2, after the words "raise money," to insert the words "by the creation of stock or on loan."—(Mr. J. Stuart.)
*MR. COHENsaid, his Friend, in moving his Amendment, said he did so on behalf of the London County Council, whom he described as being dissatisfied with the existing order of things. No doubt the County Council had expressed itself in favour of altering the Standing Order; but his hon. Friend would recollect that their decision was by no means unanimous. It was strongly opposed, and the result at which it arrived was only arrived at after a Division. But however that might be, he (Mr. Cohen) had risen to oppose the present proposal in no spirit of hostility to the County Council. He had had the honour to be a member of the Council since the first days of its institution—longer, he thought, than his hon. Friend—and he should be the last per-
940
son to do anything which he thought prejudicial to its interests or reputation. He recollected in the Debate in that House on the Thames Conservancy the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local. Government Board cast some reproaches not very relevant, as it seemed to him at the time, and certainly unjust as regarded himself, against those who he said were hostile to, and were constantly attacking, the Council. In his (Mr. Cohen's) belief, such a Motion as that of his hon. Friend was calculated to give ground for—perhaps to produce—these attacks from those who might be unfriendly to the Council; and he thought, in opposing the alteration, ho was doing what he could to disarm such attacks, and to sustain, and even to enhance, the reputation of the London County Council. Let the House consider only for one moment the effect of his hon. Friend's Motion. The Standing Order, as it now stood, prohibited the Council from raising money by Private Bill, except by borrowing, through the creation of stock or otherwise. His hon. Friend's Motion would forbid what was now permitted, and would permit what was now forbidden. He did not want to prevent the Council from doing what it could now do, and he did not want it to be able to do what was now forbidden. Ho thought the House would see that the Standing Order as it now stood was justified by equity as well as by practice. It was right in practice that the Council should be empowered by Private Bill to create stock subject to present conditions as to Government sanction, and in conformity with the existing provisions as to Schedule, because the means were simple, and the method certainly, as far as regarded the Council with its £30,000,000 of debt, could not be said to be novel. But to enable the Council to raise money by Private Bill, through any moans other than by borrowing, by means of the creation of stock or otherwise, appeared to him wrong in equity and not justifiable by practice. The hon. Member had said this power was vested in other Municipalities. But surely he must recognise the difference between London and other Municipalities. They scarcely resembled each other in any respect at all, while in all matters that governed the subject now before the

941
House they were diametrically different. For his hon. Friend's illustration to be in point ho should have cited counties, and not Municipalities which consisted of small wards or parishes all homogeneous, and whose various interests were not only similar, but probably also identical. Could this be said of London? It was quite conceivable—it was even probable—that the interests of Kilburn might conflict, say, with those of the Borough, and that Hackney might know nothing and care nothing about the wants of Battersea; and if, as was doubtless intended, and as they knew was attempted, it was sought to alter the incidence of taxation and to change the system of levying the rates, those were great questions of public policy which did not arise in small Provincial towns, which affected the interests in different ways of the various divisions of the County of Loudon, containing a population of 5,000,000 people, and which ought to be debated and decided in public Debate on the floor of the House. The hon. Gentleman had referred to what he considered was the intention of Mr. Ritchie at the time the Standing Order was framed. Ho regretted his right hon. Friend was not here to explain for himself his intention, but he hoped they would hear on this subject his hon. Friend the late Secretary to the Local Government Board. He submitted the interpretation put on the Standing Order by Mr. Speaker was the only one that the words of that Order admitted of; and he submitted, further, that the intention of its framers must be taken to be that which was the natural, and, indeed, the only meaning which attached to their words. The Loudon County Council did not in 1891 make any attempt to introduce by Private Bill an Improvement Rate. If they had done so he ventured to say neither his hon. Friend nor anyone else would have been left in doubt as to what would have been ou such procedure the opinion of the late President of the Local Government Board, who, he was convinced, never contemplated for one moment the introduction by Private Bill of such legislation as would be possible were the House to accept the Motion now before it. He apologised to the House for having detained it. He would conclude by saying that he wished in no sense to be understood as arguing against an Improve-
942
ment Rate or a Betterment Rate in principle. Those important questions were not now before them. His object only was to guard the Council from acquiring a reputation of trying by clandestine and side methods to pass legislation which involved great questions of more than municipal, even of national, policy. He believed that such a procedure as his hon. Friend the Member for Shoreditch contemplated was not likely to enhance the reputation of the Loudon County Council, which was as precious to him (Mr. Cohen) as it was to his hon. Friend. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be in the interest of the Loudon County Council and of the authority of the House that the Motion should be rejected by an emphatic and decided majority.
MR. PICKERS GILLobserved, that the opposition of the London County Council to the Standing Order did not originate when the Owners' Improvement Rate Bill was thrown out this year. On the contrary, the Council was opposed to the Standing Order in 1891, and he had a most distinct recollection of a very strong speech made in opposition to it by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Loudon University (Sir J. Lubbock). The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Cohen) said it was right and equitable to impose restrictions on the Loudon County Council in this matter. But why should a restriction he imposed on the London County Council from which other Local Bodies were free? It seemed to him that the argument which the hon. Member had founded upon equity must go by the board when it was remembered that this was a special restriction imposed upon the London County Council. No doubt London was technically a county; but it had far more in common with the great cities of the country than with the counties. The hon. Member (Mr. Cohen) insinuated that the former power of the Loudon County Council on this subject was withdrawn because it had been abused. That was a most unjust insinuation to make against the London County Council. In the discussions that took place in reference to the change in the Standing Order in 1891, the point now raised was never debated at all, the discussion being limited to the right to raise money by

943
loan. The Loudon County Council was really placed in a great difficulty by the provisions of the Standing Order. If the Council introduced a Private Bill authorising them to levy a rate, they were told that they could only proceed by means of a Public Bill. If they introduced the Bill as a public measure they were referred to Standing Order No. 1. The hon. Member for East Islington (Mr. Cohen) seemed to think that if the Standing Order were amended in the way suggested, the House would be depriving itself of all control over the Bills of the London County Council, and of all opportunity of discussing their projects. That was not the case. All the Council desired the House to do now was to settle the question of order, and to enable them to introduce Bills of the kind referred to—the question of merits would be reserved for the decision of the House. If the Council ever introduced a Private Bill of too large a character, the House could, of course, throw it out. He did not think there was any machinery in the world that was more adapted for threshing out a difficult question than a Committee of the House of Commons, to which, in the ordinary course, a Private Bill would be referred. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cohen) said the Council was proposing to introduce a Bill by clandestine moans. It would be for the House to judge whether a description of that kind could be properly applied to such an Amendment of the Standing Order as was now proposed. He trusted that the Motion would be carried.
MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid that, although he was not a member of the London County Council, he had some personal knowledge of the system of Local Government in London in the past, and especially in regard to the finances of the Metropolis. He wished to know why the hon. Member for Shoreditch (Mr. J. Stuart) should, at the end of a somewhat weary Session, bring forward a Motion of this kind, and in consequence keep the House from the discussion of the important Bill that was now before it?
Mr. J. STUART: The hon. Gentleman asks me a question, and I will answer it. It is because before the beginning of November we have to introduce our Bills, and it is desirable
944
that we should know the circumstances under which we are to introduce them.
MR. R. G. WEBSTERwent on to say that it was not the case that under the old system the Metropolitan Board of Works had the powers now asked for by the London County Council. Not only on all questions of loans, but in respect of all additional expenditure, the Metropolitan Board of Works had to come to the House of Commons; and it was his duty, he believed, on three occasions, to defend Money Bills introduced into the House by a Member of the Government on behalf of the Board. The London County Council at the present time had an increasing expenditure. That expenditure now amounted to £2,000,000, which was a very heavy burden on the ratepayers of the Metropolis; and if, by means of the procedure of the House, some slight check could be placed on the expenditure, ho should not regret it. At present the whole Budget of the London County Council was brought before the House every year, but under the proposed system the money proposals of the Council would be sent up to a Committee, and the House would have no knowledge of the facts. He thought it was necessary for those Conservative Members who wished to do their best to guard the interests of overburdened middle-class ratepayers from the effects of the fads of the London County Council to vote against the Motion.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. Fowler,): The speech delivered by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down discloses, to my mind, a grave misapprehension of all the facts of the case, with regard both to the position of the London County Council and the position of Parliament. I must, therefore, recall the attention of the House to what is the position of the Council and of the House, and to show what would be the extent of the operation now proposed by my hon. Friend. Two or three years after the constitution of the Metropolitan Board of Works, it became the practice of the Treasury to bring in what was called the "Money Bill" of that Body. This was practically a Government Bill, and had all the facilities of a Government Bill in passing through the House. By means

945
of that Bill, no doubt, the House controlled the borrowing powers of the Metropolitan Board. A now state of things supervened when the London County Council was established; and several Members—I myself among the number—strongly protested against the Loudon County Council being placed in a different position from all the different Municipalities of the Kingdom, by having its Money Bills brought in on the responsibility and under the care of the Government of the day, without being subjected to the checks which were applied to the Bills of other Local Authorities. Mr. Ritchie gave the matter consideration; and in 1890, and I think again in 1891, he gave a pledge to the House that this most unsatisfactory state of things should be terminated; that the Government should be relieved of the responsibility of dealing with London finance; and that the Council should introduce their own proposals into Parliament as other Municipalities did. The Standing Order was arranged, I think, in the Session of 1891, under the supervision of Mr. Ritchie and the representatives of the London County Council, and with the assistance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney), then the Chairman of Committees. It was intended to meet—and it really seems to me it did meet—all the facts of the case. It provides that all Bills introduced by the London County Council for money purposes should be introduced as Public Bills, unless they complied with certain conditions, but that Bills authorising the borrowing of money and complying with those conditions should be introduced as Private Bills. This year the Loudon County Council introduced a Bill for the purpose of authorising the raising of a new rate. You, Mr. Speaker, held that the words "containing power to raise money" were not confined to raising money by borrowing, but extended to raising money by levying rates; and, if I may venture to say so, you, no doubt, most accurately ruled that under the Standing Order the Bill must be introduced as a Public Bill. It is not too much to say that in the present state of Public Business, or in any conceivable state of Public Business in this century, or in this decade of the century, it is useless to empower the Loudon County Council to introduce
946
Money Bills as Public Bills. They must either be Government Bills or Private Bills to have any chance of passing. All that is now asked is that the Standing Order should not be restricted to Bills authorising the borrowing of money by means of stocks and loans, but that the London County Council should be enabled to introduce a Rating Bill as a Private Bill. The hon. Member opposite says that, in that case, the House will have no control. The House will have a great deal of control. All Private Bills must be read here a second time; and if a novel principle is introduced into such a Bill, its opponents will have a better chance against it, because they will have this early period of the Sitting in which to bring forward their views. Certainly, we have this Session had enough experience of reviewing the action of the London County Council on Private Bills. After a Private Bill has gone before a Committee it is brought before the House on the Report stage, and again on the Third Reading. I can see no possible disadvantage that will accrue to London on the one hand and to the House on the other from the adoption of the course proposed. I absolutely repudiate the doctrine of the hon. Member that we in this House are to review the current expenditure of the London County Council. If so, why should we not do the same with regard to the Birmingham, or the Manchester, or the Liverpool Town Councils? The doctrine I venture to submit to the House is that the London County Council should have the same powers as, and neither more nor less than, other Municipal Councils. It should not be kept in leading strings, but should be put on the same footing and have the same powers as Glasgow, Manchester, and Liverpool. One of those powers is that of coining to the House by means of a Private Bill, in order to obtain powers to deal with the rates. The object of the Standing Order is to put Loudon on the same footing as other Municipalities, and so far as the Government are concerned they have no objection to offer to that. But I should strongly object to any change from the Local Government Board to the Treasury. On the broad principle that I wish London to be exactly where all other Municipalities are; and under the control of the same Government Department as Man-

947
Chester and Liverpool, I am prepared to extend to it the Standing Order which applied to all Provincial towns. I know nothing of the circumstances under which the Standing Order was originally introduced; but I have no doubt that Mr. Ritchie intended to do what was wise and just, and if that intention was not carried out it is only fair that the mistake should be remedied by the House. The question of the application of this special restriction to London is an open one, which the House may well decide, without in any way parting with any of the powers it now possesses of complete control over Private Bill legislation.
MR. LONGsaid, he was glad to recognise that there was no sharp disagreement between the two sides of the House upon that question. The President of the Local Government Board had based his support of the Motion of the hon. Member for Hoxton on the ground that he desired to put the London County Council on an equal footing with other Municipalities. But he would not secure that end by merely supporting the Amendment. It might possibly reduce the inequality, but it would by no means place London on all-fours with Provincial Corporations; and if once the House began to discuss that argument he believed they would soon be found to be in sharp disagreement. The description given by the right hon. Gentleman of the proposed change was, no doubt, absolutely correct; but the alteration was a serious one, and he could not help regretting the absence of the Chairman of Committees, whose guidance on these occasions was always received with respect and gratitude. They knew that the progress of a Private Bill through the House was much more simple and easy than that of a Public Bill, and that would account for the desire of the London County Council to effect this change. It was not for him, however, to suggest that it was an undesirable one to make; and, under the circumstances, he thought his hon. Friends might be content with having fairly and clearly stated their case, and not press their opposition to a Division.
Question put, and agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  PROPOSED FRENCH CABLE FROM AUSTRALIA TO AMERICA.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has observed in The Standard of Thursday, the 17th instant, a despatch from Berlin stating that the cable from Australia to New Caledonia, constructed by a French Company, is the first section of a cable service from Australia to America viâ Samoa and Honolulu, and that the German Imperial Post Office has expressed its readiness to grant a subsidy towards the construction of the Samoan connection; whether he has any information that would throw light on this alleged intention to construct a complete cable service under foreign management and control between Australia and America; and whether any steps have been, or are being, taken to give effect to the strongly-expressed wishes of the Australian and Canadian Delegates to the Imperial Conference held in London in 1887 in favour of the construction of a Pacific cable under British management and control?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. Morley,): The answer to the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question is "Yes"; but I have no official information which bears out the statement. As to the second paragraph, the agreement which has been entered into by the French Government with a Company for a cable from Queensland to New Caledonia has been published, and I shall be glad to let the hon. Member see a copy if he wishes. I am not aware of any steps having been taken to lay a cable under British management and control; but I ought to add that, as subsidies to Submarine Cable Companies are not borne on the Vote for the Post Office, the question is not one under my special control.

  THE "COSTA RICA PACKET."
  Mr. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether he has seen, in the The Sydney Daily Telegraph of 6th July, a further statement of Captain Carpenter, of the Costa Rica Packet relative to the losses, privations, and indignities to which he

  949
  was subjected during his unwarrantable seizure and detention by the Dutch authorities of the Moluccas; whether he has observed the allegation of Captain Carpenter, that the £2,500 suggested by the Foreign Office to the Dutch Government as personal compensation under the circumstances would be more than swallowed up by the expenses he has incurred, and the losses consequent on the disarrangement of his affairs; whether the Foreign Office will re consider Captain Carpenter's case in the light of this additional communication; and whether any decision has yet been arrived as in the matter of the claim of the owners and crew of the Costa Rica Packet for compensation from the Dutch Government for the loss of a whaling season, occasioned by the arrest and imprisonment of Captain Carpenter?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): I have seen the statement referred to; but, apart from the impossibility of founding claims upon a statement in the newspapers, we could not in reason have pressed for the amount demanded—namely, £10,000, as compensation for loss entailed upon Captain Carpenter personally by a detention of a few weeks. A further point as regards the claims of the owners and crew has been submitted for the consideration of the Law Officers, and is still being considered; but no new decision has been come to.

  THE LOSS OF THE "VICTORIA."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, by the regulations and custom of the Navy, it was nobody's duty, when it appeared that there was imminent danger of the Victoria foundering, to order the engineers and stokers to be called up from the engine room and stoke hold?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,): The circumstances attending the loss of the Victoria are well-known. At the moment of the final catastrophe the ship was being turned towards the land with the object of reaching shallow water, and the engineers and stokers on watch were at their stations carrying out their duties in obedience to the last orders received for
  950
  working the engines. It is doubtful whether, as the hon. Member implies, the imminent danger of the ship foundering was fully realised on board the Victoria, and the Admiralty are not prepared to impute blame to anyone as suggested by the terms of the question. If the case had been totally different, and all hope of saving the ship and the whole of her crew by means of her engines had been abandoned, the officer in command would undoubtedly have done all in his power to prevent a single man remaining below in the engine room or elsewhere.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: The right hon. Gentleman has not touched my question. He implies that I was making an imputation when I asked if it was anybody's duty to warn the engineers and stokers to come on deck.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I submit to the House that I have fully answered the hon. Gentleman.

  NAVAL SIGNALLING.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state, without prejudice to the Public Service, what is the T.A. system of signalling alluded to in the Victoria Court Martial as having been invented by Admiral Tryon, and in what way it differs from the ordinary naval signals; whether this T.A. system was first tried in the Channel Squadron, under Admiral Sir Michael Culme-Sey-mour in the years 1890–1; whether any Report upon it was made by the Admiral in command of that Squadron; and whether the Report was favourable or the reverse?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: As a general rule, it would be prejudicial to the interests of the Public Service to give answers relating to the Signal Books in use in the Fleet. But, in this case, there is no objection to stating that the T.A. system of manœuvring is only an elaboration of a signal that has been in the Signal Book many years. The effect is to manœuvre the Squadron by closely watching and following the Admiral's motions without signals. It was tried by Sir Michael Culme-Seymour in the Channel Squadron, and the Report, although favourable as a whole, suggested several minor alterations.

  THE NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the instructions, under which the officers commanding Her Majesty's ships on the coast of Newfoundland are now acting, can be made public; and whether the Naval Estimates are charged with the costs of printing executed for them in Newfoundland, or whether such charges are borne on the Colonial Vote?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: In the opinion of the Board of Admiralty it would be inexpedient to publish the instructions to the naval officers on the coast of Newfoundland. No expenses for printing in Newfoundland have been charged to Navy Votes. I presume that any such outlay would fall on other funds.

  THE BEHAR CADASTRAL SURVEY.
  COLONEL WARING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Government of India intends, for the purposes of the Behar Cadastral Survey, to re-iutrodnce the Patwari Bill in some modified form; and whether the Patwari Bill was vetoed by the Secretary of State in 1885 as an infringement of the permanent settlement, and on what grounds?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. G. RUSSELL,): (1.) The intentions of the Government of India in regard to the re-introductiou of a Patwari Bill have not been announced to this Office. (2.) The Patwari Bill was abandoned in 1886 in connection with the Muzaffarpur Survey, because, the measure being purely experimental, it was not considered right to lay the expense upon the people.

  COOPERS IN THE DEPTFORD VICTUALLING YARD.
  MR. DARLING: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there are any, and, if so, how many, coopers employed in the Deptford Victualling Yard at less wages than those agreed to by the London master coopers, and that the current rate of wages paid in their trade?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): Of the 34 coopers at Deptford
  952
  2 earn 30s. a week; 6 earn 26s.; and 26 work piece-work according to a scale of prices revised in 1890. This scale was proposed by the men and adopted by the Admiralty, who, however, increased the prices in some instances. Under the scale men can earn up to 36s. a week. It is believed that these earnings compare favourably with those of the private trade.

  SLAVERY IN ZANZIBAR.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Decree, issued at Zanzibar by the Sultan and Sir Gerald Portal, on the 11th September, 1891, forbidding the hiring of porters to proceed inland from the Sultan's dominions in consequence of the stimulus this practice gives to the Slave Trade, is still in force; and whether caravans organised in the British Protectorate of Zanzibar for travel in Africa are manned in part by hired slaves; and, if so, how many such caravans have started for Uganda and elsewhere since September, 1891?
  *SIR E. GREY: The Decree in question referred to the Islands of Zanzibar and Pemba, and, so far as Her Majesty's Government is aware, is still in force. It is understood that caravans organised on the coast are in some cases manned partly by persons who are technically slaves. But in all cases which come under the notice of British Authorities the greatest care is taken that the hiring is a direct transaction with the person hired, and his status as a slave or otherwise does not come in question. It is impossible to say how many caravans have left the coast since September, 1891.

  THE COURT MARTIAL ON THE "VICTORIA."
  SIR E. HARLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can now lay upon the Table of the House the Report in full of the evidence taken before the Court Martial on the Victoria and Camperdown disasters, especially that part relating to the manipulation of the bulkhead doors which was not reported in the newspapers; and in consequence of the finding of the Court being silent upon the question of the efficiency of their bulkheads or the doors through them, or if such doors were

  953
  or were not capable of being closed in time, will the Admiralty as soon as possible have these questions thoroughly investigated by a Committee in which independent outside authorities shall be invited to join?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The Minutes of the Court Martial on the loss of the Victoria will, as I have already stated, be laid upon the Table of the House; and they include full evidence with respect to the bulkhead doors. The time has been too short since the Minutes reached the Admiralty for the whole of them to be printed. As soon as the Board have the printed evidence before them, they will thoroughly consider all the questions arising upon it. But, until this can be done, it is impossible to determine whether it will be necessary to institute any special inquiry such as that which the hon. Baronet suggests.
  SIR E. HARLAND: About how soon is it probable that the Report will be on the Table?
  *SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: That depends on the printers. I cannot make any conjecture. I know, however, they are subjected to much pressure just now.
  MR. HANBURY: Are we not going to have this before the Estimates? It is a very important matter.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The Board of Admiralty has not yet seen it.

  HILLSBOROUGH POSTMISTRESS.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: In the absence of the noble Lord the Member for West Down, I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a Memorial from the inhabitants (of all denominations) of Hillsborough), County Down, praying that the daughter of the late Postmistress should be appointed to the post office; and whether, inasmuch as the daughter of the late Postmistress has performed the duties of the post office during the last three months in a completely satisfactory manner, he will grant the prayer of the Memorial?
  MR. A. MORLEY: There were two candidates for the post referred to—Miss Ingram, the daughter of the late Sub-Postmistress, and Mrs. Mulvaney, who
  954
  had been employed for 12 years in the Sub-Office at Ballynahinch, also under Lisburn. The late Sub-mistress was called upon to resign in consequence of serious irregularities in her accounts, and of general carelessness in the performance of her duties. Under these circumstances I appointed Mrs. Mulvaney, who was reported to be of exemplary character.

  THE TELEPHONE QUESTION AT GLASGOW.
  Mr. PARKER SMITH: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the agreement now in course of settlement with the National Telephone Company will prejudice the position of Municipalities in applications for telephone licences; and whether that agreement, if executed, would prejudice the Corporation of Glasgow in their recent application for a telephone licence, or would make that licence, if granted, less valuable; and, if so, whether he will consider the Glasgow application, and give it a full answer upon the merits before making any agreement with the National Telephone Company?
  Mr. A.MORLEY: The agreement now in course of negotiation with the National Telephone Company will not in any way limit or affect the right of the Postmaster General to grant licences to other persons.

  SIAM.
  MR. CURZON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether H.M.S. Linnet left Bangkok on 17th August: whether there is any British gunboat now in the Menam, or neighbourhood; and whether sufficient guarantees exist for the continued protection of British subjects and property?
  *SIR E. GREY: The Linnet left Bangkok on the 17th, probably for reasons of health, by order of the Commander-in-Chief of Her Majesty's Naval Forces at Hong Kong; but it is intended to supply her place by another vessel. There is no other British ship of war in Siamese waters at this moment; but Her Majesty's Minister at Bangkok reports that the condition of affairs there is quiet There are two gunboats now off Bangkok, one French and one German.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGE SCHEMES IN IRELAND.
  MR. KENNEDY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the Report of the Local Government Board for Ireland just issued, from which it appears that out of 25,975 cottages included in schemes which they have been petitioned to confirm, from the inception of the Labourers Acts up to 31st March, 1893, they have already rejected 11,376; whether the rejection of schemes depends on the individual discretion of the Inspector who holds the local inquiry; whether the great majority of applications are dismissed owing to informalities in the representation forms, caused by their being filled by the labourers themselves, many of whom have very slight education; whether the preliminary expenses up to the close of the local inquiry into the then rejected representations cost on an average £3 per head; and whether, in view of this loss to the Unions, he will direct Boards of Guardians to instruct their solicitors or clerks on application by the labourer to fill his representation form for him, and give him instructions as to the necessary signatures he will require to obtain for it?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The numbers given in the first paragraph are correct. The rejection or approval of schemes does not depend upon the individual discretion of the Inspector, but upon consideration of the evidence taken at the inquiry and the recommendations made by their Inspector. So far as the Board are aware, only a very small proportion of the houses have been rejected for the reason assigned in the third paragraph. A certain number have been thrown out consequent on informalities in representations, schemes, notices, &c.; but the great majority of cottages rejected have been thrown out on the merits. The Board have not sufficient data to say whether the fact is as stated in the fourth paragraph. In some Unions the preliminary expenses in legal, engineering, advertising, have been somewhat heavy; but where the Clerk of a Union has advertised the scheme, served the notices, and prepared
  956
  the petitions, the cost would not be as high as £3 per cottage. The Local Government Board think it would be objectionable that Clerks of Unions or other officers should be instructed to fill up the representation forms for labourers. The Board consider that representations should emanate from the ratepayers themselves, without the intervention of the Guardians or Union officials, before whom the representations would afterwards come for consideration.
  MR. KENNEDY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that after the Act was passed representations were made by agricultural labourers themselves to the affect that they did not understand how to fill in the forms, and could not afford to pay a solicitor to do it?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have looked at the forms. They seem to be simple enough, and I see no difficulty in filling them in.

  DISMISSAL OF A METROPOLITAN POLICE CONSTABLE.
  Mr. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to a case heard on the 8th and 22nd July at Westminster Police Court, in which two men were charged with disorderly conduct and assaulting the police, when evidence was given that a police constable assaulted the defendants and others without justification, and the Magistrate ultimately dismissed the charge, stating that the Commissioners of Police would make inquiry into the matter; and if he can state what has been the result of this inquiry?
  MR. ASQUITH: My attention has been drawn to the case. The Commissioner has made careful inquiry. There are many circumstances of doubt, and he arrived at the conclusion that the case would be met by compulsory resignation of the constable, and in this I concur.

  READING BOOKS IN IRISH SCHOOLS.
  Mr. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will explain on what grounds the Board of National Education in Ireland has recently issued a revised edition of the Fifth Reading Book, in which the articles

  957
  on The British Constitution, by the late Archbishop Whately, and the articles on political economy by the same author have been expunged, and which contains as new matter five articles by the Right Rev. Monsignor Molloy, two by the Most Rev. Dr. Healy, one by Cardinal Wiseman, one by Lord O'Hagan, and one by Cardinal Newman?
  DR. COMMINS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the discarded chapters on Constitutional Law and political economy are to be added to the advanced higher course in Trinity College, Dublin?
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: May I ask the Chief Secretary will he explain on what grounds the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland have omitted from the Fifth Book of Lessons The History of the British Constitution, by the late Archbishop Whately, and also 18 articles, by the same author, on political economy, and why five out of the eight lessons on Scripture history have been omitted, and writings substituted which are objected to by Protestants, and in the Third Reading Book for children from 9 to 12 years of age, the last verso of Moore's Canadian Boat Song, teaching the Invocation of the Saints, has been inserted; and if this change is made with the sanction of the Government?
  *MR. M. AUSTIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the last annual meeting of the Trades Union Congress, representing the organised workers of the United Kingdom, a resolution was unanimously passed protesting against the retention of these articles on political economy by Archbishop Whately; and has he not received a resolution passed by the Belfast Trades Council, which is largely composed of supporters of the hon. Member for South Antrim, also protesting against the retention of these articles as being pre-judicial to the interests of Irish working men?
  MR. BODKIN: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers these questions, will he say if lie is aware that the curriculum of intermediate education include the works of a certain Pagan, an alleged poet named Homer; is he aware that in this person's writing the doctrine is taught and encouraged of the invocation of heathen deities in-
  958
  cluding Jove, Venus, and Mars, and other objectionable personages, and in the interests of pure evangelical teaching will ho have these works removed from the intermediate programme with a view to substituting for them—
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The question savours somewhat of ridicule, I think.
  MR. J. MORLEY: With reference to this question, and the one which follows on the same subject in the name of the hon. Member for South Belfast, I am informed that, in consequence of representations urged on the Board of National Education from time to time, a revision of the Fifth Book was undertaken and brought to a completion in 1892; that at a meeting of the Board, held on January 31 last, a Committee of the Commissioners, consisting of four Protestants of various denominations and two Roman Catholics, was appointed to consider the draft of the book as revised; that this mixed Committee unanimously approved of the revised publication; and the Board at its meeting, on April 25, also unanimously adopted the Report of the Revision Committee. Now, as regards the matter expunged, &c, the articles on The British Constitution, I understand, were considered too difficult for readers of the Fifth Book, and more appropriate for pupils further advanced. As to the lessons on political economy, I find that on June 4, 1891, and again on May 5, 1892, dissatisfaction was expressed at these lessons, in questions addressed to my predecessors in office. Several passages in the lessons were considered prejudicial to the interest of working men who are Trade Unionists, and one passage made the singular observation that the effect of fixing a judicial rent would be to leave the farm idle on the landlord's hands. These doctrines are now clearly antiquated. As to the addition of the last verse of The Canadian Boat Song, all I can say is that the hon. Gentleman has waited a long time to make this discovery, the addition having been made and published as far back as 1884. Moreover, the song in its entirety is very commonly used in the public elementary schools of Great Britain. I may add that the Fifth Book was regarded as too extensive for the pupils' course, and, on the recommendation of the Revision Committee, the

  959
  Board decided to reduce it. The Scripture lessons shared in the reduction, I believe, though 18 pages still remain, and any new matter substituted for old matter has been selected for its excellence and for the distinguished character of the authors. I have examined these passages; they mainly concern physical and geographical matters, and seem to me not to contain a syllable of controversy or offence to the most sensitive mind. The Executive Government was not consulted before the publication of the revised book, nor is it considered necessary, under the circumstances of the case, that it should have been consulted. A discretionary power is necessarily vested in the Commissioners with regard to these publications, within the limits of which they may make such changes as to them appear desirable without previously communicating with the Government.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I shall call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

  PROHIBITED MEETINGS IN IRELAND.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he would state to the House what is the number of persons who have been committed in Ireland under the Act Edw. 3, c. 1, since the 22nd August, 1892; what is the total number of outdoor meetings which have been prohibited in Ireland by the Government since 22nd August, 1892; and on what grounds have such meetings been interfered with?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am not in a position to give to-day the information required by the first paragraph of the question; inquiry is still in progress. As regards the second and third paragraphs, it appears that 16 such meetings have been interfered with since August 22, 1892, on the ground of anticipated intimidation in connection with evicted farms.

  OUTRAGE ON A HORSE IN COUNTY TIPPERARY.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, within the last few days, near Fethard, County Tipperary, a horse belonging to Mr. Crooks, of St. Helens, Lancashire, was maliciously killed by
  960
  having its throat cut; and whether the police have been able to discover what was the motive for the outrage?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The outrage referred to was committed on the 4th instant. The police have their suspicions as to the cause and author of the outrage; but it is not considered expedient to make any statement on the subject which would tend to frustrate them in their endeavour to make the offender amenable.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether any contracts from his Department are placed with the Clyde-bridge or Mossend Steel and Iron Companies; whether such firms are nonunion, and pay considerably less than the Union rates of wages; and what action he proposes to take in the matter to enforce the Resolution of the House relating to the conditions of labour?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,): The War Department has had no contracts with the Clydebridge Company. The last contract with the Summerlee and Mossend Company of Glasgow was in August, 1892, and has now been completed. Nothing is known as to whether such firms are non-Union and pay considerably less than the Union rate of wages. The usual action has been taken in these contracts to carry out the Resolution of the House of Commons, the clause as to the wages paid being those generally accepted as current having been inserted.

  THE SLEAHEAD ROAD CONTRACT.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that William Long, of Ballyferriter, County Kerry, is contractor for the completion of the work known as the Slea-head Road under the Congested Districts Board; that all the land necessary for this road has been purchased and paid for, and conveyances duly executed by both owners and occupiers and deposited with the Congested Districts Board; whether he is aware that the contractor, having been duly authorised by the Congested Districts Board and by the engineer of the works to proceed with

  961
  the construction of the road, has been obstructed by the occupiers for whose benefit the road is being constructed, and obliged to seek police protection for himself and his men to enable him to carry out the works according to the terms of his contract, and that on the 18th instant he bad to dismiss 40 men whom he had engaged for the carrying out of the work owing to the violence and obstruction offered; and what steps he proposes to take in the matter?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The facts are as stated in the first paragraph. I understand that some six tenants, through whose lands it is proposed the road shall pass, objected to the work being proceeded with, on the ground that they had not received the full amount of compensation allowed by the Congested Districts Board. Five of these tenants have since waived their objection. On one day only, the 19th instant, were the men not employed, and at no time was actual violence offered to the engineer or contractor in the construction of the road. Two policemen were present on the 17th, the only occasion on which they attended, and matters proceeded most peaceably. The work is now in progress, and I have no doubt the scruples of the remaining solitary objector will soon be overcome.

  IRISH COPYING CLERKS AND HOME RULE.
  Mr. H. PLUNKETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the copying clerks of the Law Courts in Ireland, who are paid by progressive salaries and fees, are entitled to pensions under the provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill; and, if so, which clause or sub-section applies to their case?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Scrivenery clerks in the Irish Law Courts are paid by an annual retaining fee, calculated according to the number of folios written. The employment does not qualify for pension or gratuity on retirement; but under Clause 25 (7) and the Fourth Schedule (5) of the Government of Ireland Bill a scrivenery clerk, if removed for any cause other than incapacity or misconduct, may apply to the Treasury, who may award him compensation, having regard to the amount of his retaining fee received out of the moneys provided by Parliament.
  Mr. T. M. HEALY: Will pensions also be provided under the Bill for the charwomen employed at the Castle?
  [No answer.]

  GOVERNMENT PAINTING CONTRACTS IN IRELAND.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Government painting contracts have been given by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland to a contractor who disregards the Resolution of February, 1891; and whether he will take steps to have the wishes of this House carried into practice in those and all other Governmental contracts?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It is presumed this question has reference to the contract for the painting of two of the Training Colleges in Dublin. I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that the contractor for this work has assured them that he pays the workmen employed at the contract at the same standard rates of wages as are commonly paid by other firms in Dublin for the same kind of work.

  THE NEW SHIPBUILDING PROGRAMME.
  MR. FOR WOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he can now furnish the particulars omitted from the Navy Estimates, pages 210 to 220, in regard to the new vessels building or proposed to be built, especially as to their estimated cost, speed at natural draught, coal capacity, I and armament; also the estimated cost of reconstruction or repairs, speed, and principal armaments of the Sultan, Warrior, Northumberland, and Agincourt, which are included in the Navy Estimates; when will the statement as to the number of men employed at each rate of pay and number promoted be delivered; and when will he be able to state the decision of the Admiralty in regard to the abolition or otherwise of the graduated or classified system of day pay?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLE WORTH: The statement as to the number of men employed at each rate of pay and the number that have been promoted is in the hands of the printer, and will, I hope, be ready to-morrow or Saturday. On

  963
  the Motion of my hon. Friend the Civil Lord, a statement, showing the present and revised scales of pay for labourers and certain classes of workmen in the Naval Establishments at home, was ordered by the House to be printed yesterday. I hope that this also will be in the hands of Members before Monday next, when my hon. Friend will be prepared to give any more detailed information that may be desired.
  MR. FORWOOD: Will Vote 8 be the first one on Monday?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Yes; the Shipbuilding Vote will be put down first.
  MR. HANBURY: And in what order will the others be taken?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: In the regular order.

  CRANE ACCIDENTS.
  MR. YERBURGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can give the number of accidents that have been caused since 1st January, 1892, by the breakage of chains in mines, quarries, and factories, and on railways, canals, and all other places where cranes are used?
  Mr. ASQUITH: The Inspectors of Mines state that no fatal accidents from the above cause have been reported to them during 1892 either as regards mines or quarries. The Chief Inspector of Factories has no available figures on the subject; but he declares that such accidents from the breaking of crane-chains in factories, as the Factory Acts require to be reported, are very rare. The Board of Trade state that they are unable as regards railways to give details of accidents from the breakage of crane-chains as distinguished from other accidents. As regards wharves and quays, there is no statutory obligation under which accidents occurring there must be reported to a Government Department. The Government have introduced a Bill —the Notice of Accidents Bill—which would impose such obligation, but it has not yet been read a second time.

  HEREFORD POSTAL QUESTION.
  Mr. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether ho lately received a Memorial, signed by 300 residents in
  964
  Hereford, asking that the sub-post office, situated in premises known as the Bartonsham Stores, occupied by Messrs. Reynolds and Phillips, should not be removed elsewhere; whether he is aware that the Memorialists comprised 90 per cent, of the residents in the district of Bartonsham; and whether, notwithstanding the wishes of so large a proportion of the residents, he has refused to accede to the prayer of the Memorialists, and has removed, or is about to remove, the said sub-post office to a less convenient situation in Green Street?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I have received and carefully considered the Memorial referred to by the hon. Member. The person who has been nominated by the Treasury as sub-Postmaster at Green Street, Hereford, resides in the same street as the late sub-Postmaster, and not more than 80 yards away, and he will afford satisfactory accommodation for the public. Under these circumstances, I should not be justified in disturbing his appointment.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: Was the removal of the post office decided upon by reason of any allegation of inconvenience?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The Postmaster nominated proposed to carry on the postal business in his own shop, and the Department came to the conclusion it was a suitable place.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: Before any nomination was made, did the right hon. Gentleman receive a Memorial asking that any change should be made?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I think the nomination was made by the Treasury before any representations reached me. I cannot disturb the present practice.

  BOMBARDING CRANMERE POOL.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to a letter in The Daily News of 23rd instant, signed J. A. J. Brindley, in which the writer states that a few days ago Cranmere Pool, a portion of Dartmoor much frequented by tourists and others, was for the space of half an hour bombarded with shells by 18 guns, without any notice being given or precautions taken for the safety of the public; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the truth of these allegations?

  965
  Perhaps I may be permitted to add that in The Daily News to-day is another signed letter, the writer of which says that proper precautions were taken by the military on the Okehampton side. The writer of the original letter, it appeared, approached the Pool from the other side.
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: A full Report has been called for from the Local Authorities. All at present known is that the position by Cranmere Pool was, on the 18th instant, the object of fire; that notice of this was given in the local papers, and that steps were taken to warn off the public.

  THE MILITARY AND THE LABOUR DISPUTE IN SOUTH WALES.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the statement that the officers in charge of the troops in South Wales have met in consultation with the Emergency Committee of the mine-owners as to the most effective method of disposing of their forces; whether the officers in command of the soldiers in South Wales are authorised to consult with the Emergeuc3r Committee of the mine-owners, and not with the Magistrates; whether the Secretary of the Mine-owners' Emergency Committee is allowed to accompany the General in command while disposing of his forces; whether he is aware that the General in command of the troops received an address of thanks from the mine-owners of South Wales, and stated, in reply thereto, that he would send more soldiers into the district, if necessary; and whether it was in order for the General to receive such resolution of thanks, and make such promise in reply?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BAXNERMAN: The officers in command of troops are only authorised to confer with the Magistrates and local Civil Authorities, and I have no reason to believe that there has been any departure from the usual practice; but it is natural that an officer should obtain all information, from whatever source, which would help him in discharging his duty. Before the General arrived the disposition of the troops had been already arranged. In visiting the troops he was accompanied by the Chief Constable and by Major
  966
  Williams, of the Monmouth Volunteer Artillery, a local Magistrate. Whether Major Williams is connected with the Mine-owners' Committee I am not aware. With regard to paragraph 4, I may quote the words of the General, who says—
  "I may have stated in the course of a private conversation with one or two gentlemen who came to see me at my hotel to explain the situation, and who I understood were local Magistrates, that I was ready to comply with legal requisitions for more troops, if, after my inspection, I found they were required to maintain order."
  We have no Report as to any address or resolution of thanks.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any disturbance occurred in South Wales which the local police were unable to cope with; and whether the services of the troops have been required since their introduction into South Wales; and, if not, whether he will order their immediate withdrawal, or cause an independent inquiry to be made as to the justification for their continued presence there?
  MR. A. WILLIAMS: I beg, at the same time, to ask whether all cause for alarm has now completely disappeared; and whether the Home Secretary will withdraw the troops which have been despatched to the colliery districts of South Wales?
  MR. ASQUITH: The duty of the Local Authorities is not merely to suppress but to prevent disturbance, and the despatch of troops was not sanctioned until the authorities had endeavoured and failed to supplement the local police by drafts from other police forces. There has been, I am glad to say, no collision between the soldiers and any part of the population. I am satisfied that the troops have been handled with great discretion, and that they have rendered valuable service in the protection of person and property. No one is more anxious than I am to see the troops withdrawn, and I have no reason to doubt that the Local Authorities share my wish. I am in constant communication with the Chief Constables of Monmouthshire and Glamorganshire, and I am glad to say that the intelligence received during the last two days has been more reassuring, but, though both districts are quieting down, I cannot yet say that all

  967
  cause for apprehension has been removed. There will be no avoidable delay in withdrawing the military force as soon as the necessity which led to its introduction has ceased.
  MR. A. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman put himself in communication with the representatives of the men, among whom is my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. W. Abraham), so as to be able to ascertain whether, in their opinion, there was any continued necessity for the troops remaining in the district?
  MR. ASQUITH: It is obvious I could not do that. If I were to put myself in communication with the men I should have to put myself in communication with both parties, and also with the employers. The only safe course to adopt is the course which has been adopted in this case as in all others—namely, for the Central Authorities to put themselves in communication with the Local Authorities, including the Chief Constable.
  MR. A. WILLIAMS: I am afraid I have not made myself clearly understood. In instructing the Chief Constable, who I understand is responsible for the military being in the county, and who is evidently in communication with the Coalowners' Association, will the right hon. Gentleman ask him to take care also to obtain the opinion of the representatives of the men?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have no reason to doubt, from the communications which have reached me, that the Chief Constables of both these counties have obtained their information from all available sources, and that they do not go to one side more than the other.
  MR. A. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the meeting on Wednesday of the Sliding Scale Committee, of which my hon. Friend (Mr. Abrahams) is a member, a resolution was passed in which they said they informed the employers on Saturday that they regretted that the employers had thought it necessary to resort to extreme measures. Does not my hon. Friend represent the men who are not on strike?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am not aware of that resolution; I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman does represent these men; but, as I have already stated, the
  968
  troops were sent not upon the requisition of the employers; and so far as I am concerned, I have no more to do with the wishes of the employers than with the wishes of the men.
  MR. BURNIE: May I ask whether 100 cavalry have been sent to Swansea, notwithstanding the objection of the Mayor?
  MR. ASQUITH: I saw a statement that a certain number of cavalry were being sent to Swansea, but I understand it was on the requisition of the local Magistrates.
  MR. A. WILLIAMS: But is the right hon. Gentleman aware that The Pall Mall Gazette states that the Mayor of Swansea has expressed a strong feeling of indignation that the military were sent to Swansea, and that they were sent without his knowledge, and that he considered he could maintain public peace and order without their assistance?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have not seen the statement referred to; but I must point out that the Mayor, whose opinion is entitled to the greatest weight, is only one of the borough Magistrates, and, as I understand, the requisition proceeded from the Borough Bench as a whole.
  MR. A. WILLIAMS: Is it not the fact that, under the Riot Act, the Mayor of the borough is specifically mentioned as the person responsible for calling out the military?
  MR. ASQUITH: That may be so.

  SOUTH DUBLIN UNION.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware of the fact that the Fair Wages Resolution is not carried into practical effect by the Guardians of the South Dublin Union; and whether there is any objection to allow those who desire it out of the 1,767 men and women inmates over 60 years of age a small weekly allowance of tobacco or snuff?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Resolution of the House on the subject of fair wages is clearly not applicable to Boards of Guardians. I am glad to say, however, that several Boards of Guardians in England are acting upon it. In reply to the second portion of the question, the Guardians have already power to make an allowance of tobacco to workhouse inmates on the medical officer's

  969
  advice. This plan has been found to work very satisfactorily, and the Local Government Board see no reason for making a departure from it in the case of the South Dublin Union.
  *SIR C. W. DILKE: As a Circular was issued to English Boards of Guardians freeing their hands in the direction of allowing tobacco and snuff to aged paupers, will the right hon. Gentleman issue a similar one in Ireland?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I will consider that.

  THE IRISH ORDNANCE SURVEY.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the Fair Wages Resolution is not carried into effect in the Irish branch of the Ordnance Survey at Mountjoy Barracks, Dublin; whether there is an undue proportion employed of boy labour to skilled hands, and what are their terms of employment; and when is it expected that the 25-inch scale of the Irish Survey will be completed?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD Of AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): The Resolution to which my hon. Friend refers does not apply to the members of the Ordnance Survey staff in Dublin, inasmuch as they are in the service of the Government itself, and enjoy many privileges which must be taken into account in comparing their position with that of persons doing similar work in private employ. I have no reason, however, to believe that such a comparison, even if wages alone are taken into account, would be other than favourable to those engaged on the Survey, and I may refer my hon. Friend to the conclusions arrived at by the Departmental Committee of 1891—a copy of whose Report was laid on the Table. The proportion of boy labour to skilled bauds is not greater than is consistent with the nature of the work to be done. Speaking generally, the boys are paid at the rate of 6s. a week at about 14 years of age and rise to about 15s. a week about the age of 18. The completion of the 25-inch survey of Ireland depends almost entirely upon the amount of money made available for the purpose by Parliament. The question is being fully considered by me, and I hope to submit certain pro-
  970
  posals to the Treasury in connection with the Estimates for 1894–5 which will secure the acceleration of the work.
  MR. FIELD: Then are we to understand that the Government employs labour in the country which is not subject to the Fair Wages Resolution?
  MR. H. GARDNER: No, Sir; and I have pointed out that the wages these men receive compare very favourably with the wages paid outside.

  THE COOTEHILL DISTURBANCES.
  MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland have any, and, if so, how many, persons been prosecuted in respect of the riotous proceedings at Lisnagoon, Cootehill, County Cavan, and with what result; and how, and from what fund, will the expense of the extra police employed in protecting labourers be defrayed?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Nino persons were proceeded against for assaults on the police arising out of the recent disturbances at Lisnagoon. Of these, five were fined 10s. each, or seven days' imprisonment in default of payment of the fine; one was fined in a similar amount on two different charges; one case was adjourned; and two cases were dismissed. The police employed in the locality in protecting the labourers were engaged in this duty from the 3rd to the 17th instant, and on the latter date returned to their stations in the county. No extra charge will fall on the county in respect of the temporary employment of this protection force.
  MR. DANE: Then how will the expense of the extra police be paid?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am not sure that there will be any extra expense.

  THE OUTRAGE ON MR. WELDON MOLONY.
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. Weldon C. Molony, who was fired at and dangerously wounded on 1st June last near Ennis, has been refused payment of his salary as Registrar of the County Court, Tipperary, although his absence from duty arose from no fault of his own; and whether this action has been taken with the authority of the

  971
  Government; and if there is any precedent for it?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed by the Treasury Remembrancer in Ireland, who is Accounting officer of the County Courts Vote, that no claim has been made by Mr. Molony for his services as Registrar of the County Court Judge of Tipperary since June 1 last.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: If I get an opportunity I shall call attention to this matter on the Estimates. My information does not agree with that of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I think the hon. Member is referring to an application which has nothing to do with the question.
  MR. ROSS: Is it intended to pay this gentleman's expenses in the same way as was done in another case by the last Liberal Government?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I believe in the case referred to by the hon. Member a medical fee of 100 guineas was paid. If any claim is made in this case it will be carefully considered.
  DR.KENNY: I hope such a scandal of paying an enormous foe will not be perpetrated again.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Has the salary due to Mr. Molony as Registrar of the County Court been paid?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot say; but I will inquire. It does not arise out of the question on the Paper.

  INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the industrial rule of the National Board of Education is compulsory or optional; and if managers desiring their schools to be exempt from the rule are liable to have it forced upon them by the Board?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Commissioners of National Education report that the rule determining instruction in the new industrial programme is not absolute. No manager who is able, giving due notice, to assign a satisfactory reason for having his school exempted, is refused. The number of schools in which the Commissioners for various reasons assigned by managers have dispensed with the alternative scheme for sixth-class girls is very considerable.

  BAGOT STREET REPAIRING WORKS, BIRMINGHAM.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is making arrangements for the sale of the repairing works, Bagot Street, Birmingham?
  MR. WOODALL: The right hon. Member is aware that the continued use of Bagot Street as a repairing factory has only been sanctioned for the current year; but the changes that may be necessary, in the event of its being closed, are still under consideration, and there is no present intention of offering the property for sale.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what arrangements can be made, when the Bagot Street Factory is closed, for carrying on the work of repairing now done there?
  MR. WOODALL: The right hon. Gentleman wants me to anticipate a decision which I have told him has not yet been arrived at. Repairing work will undoubtedly be continued in Birmingham, even if the Bagot Street Factory is closed.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: This is a matter of great interest and importance to my constituents; and I want to ask whether he will take it from me that it has been decided to close Bagot Street works at an early date?
  MR. WOODALL: No absolute decision has been arrived at; but I may remind the right hon. Gentleman of what he knows perfectly well—that Sparkbrook Factory was acquired many years ago with the intention of superseding the Bagot Street Factory, but that up to the present the Treasury have allowed the latter to go on working. It is only fair to say that the amount of work now required to be done does not justify the continuance of two factories.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGS: I gather from the answer that the Sparkbrook Factory is to be turned into a repairing shop in place of the Bagot Street Factory, and that it will be discontinued as a manufacturing establishment. In that case, will the hon. Gentleman say what is to become of the manufacturing machinery at Sparkbrook?
  MR. WOODALL: My right hon. Friend is premature in supposing that any such decision has been arrived at. I shall be glad to confer with him, if he will give me an opportunity, as to what is most expedient. There is no intention to dismantle Sparkbrook, although it may be desirable to continue there the repairs now done at Bagot Street.

  THE IRISH PRESBYTERIAN ADDRESS ON HOME RULE.
  Mr. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he has seen a letter signed "John Wilson, Carrickfergus" in The Times of Wednesday, 23rd instant, it which it is asserted that the so-called Presbyterian Petition or Address to the Prime Minister was not exclusively signed by Presbyterians; is he aware that when the Petition was brought into a family whose head was a Home Ruler, all the family who could write, no matter how young, signed it also; and whether he will refer it to the Committee on Petitions of the House of Commons to examine and report on the signatures?
  MR. ROSS: Is there any objection to publishing the names of the alleged signatories who have not expressly requested that their mimes shall be concealed?
  MR. McCARTAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a large number of Ulster Presbyterians in avowed sympathy with the Irish policy of the Government had no opportunity of signing this declaration? Has his attention been called to a letter from a Presbyterian Liberal published in The Belfast Northern Whig, in which the writer states that he is a Presbyterian; that he would have been pleased to sign the Address had he known it was in contemplation, and would have undertaken to procure within one hour the signatures of at least a dozen Presbyterian heads of families in his town?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): In reply to the first paragraph of the question, I am not aware whether any and what religious test was employed to ascertain whether these gentlemen were Presbyterians or not, but I doubt whether there was much inducement used to those who were not Presbyterians to sign and assume the
  974
  character for the purpose, considering the sentiments supposed to prevail in that portion of the country. With regard to the second paragraph, I do not read the letter as the hon. Member has read it; and as to the third paragraph, I apprehend the Committee on Petitions has no power whatever to investigate these matters. If I wore to refer the Paper to them I should feel myself to be guilty of a positive impertinence. I am not prepared to undertake the investigation of the separate wishes and opinions of the 3,500 persons who signed the Petition. It is impossible for me to enter into the investigation of minute particulars, but I have the utmost confidence not only in the good faith but in the prudence and discretion of those who signed the letter to me, and made themselves responsible for it, so far as I am capable of forming a decision on the subject. Further than that I cannot go, and I must leave the matter to be fought out between the respective Parties outside the walls of this House.

  THE LAND TRANSFER BILL.
  MR. KENYON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when the Land Transfer Bill is likely to be proceeded with?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The House is aware that this Bill stands for Second Reading to-night, and, considering the remarkable concurrence of opinion among many important authorities both in this House and in the other House, I hope it will be allowed to pass through the stage of Second Reading. The hon. Member is well aware that the mortgages on the time of the House at the present moment are so heavy that we could not, without causing general inconvenience and dissatisfaction, displace the appointed business during the hours at the disposal of the Government. If the Bill is allowed to pass its Second Reading, as I sincerely hope it will, it would be well worth considering whether we might not secure a discussion of its principles without delay by referring it to the Grand Committee on Law.

  WELSH TITHE DISTRAINTS.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that at the

  975
  meeting of the Cardiganshire Joint Standing Committee, held on August 10, at Aberayron, his letter to the Chief Constable, pointing out that the County Court bailiff was insufficiently protected on May 5, was not mentioned by the Chief Constable in his Report, and only produced on the demand of the Chairman of Quarter Sessions; that the Chairman of Quarter Sessions proposed two motions to the effect that the Chief Constable be ordered in all cases where the police were engaged in protecting the Sheriff's officers when carrying out the orders of any Court to employ such number of constables as may be necessary to ensure the proper protection of the Sheriff's officers, and the due execution of such orders; and that any existing orders or instructions of the Committee to the Chief Constable in any way repugnant to this order be rescinded, but they were lost by the votes of the representatives of the County Council, every Justice voting for them; whether he is aware that two of these County Councillors are also members of the Antitithe Committee; and whether he now intends to take any steps to get the intention of his letter carried out, and the law enforced, and, if so, if he will state what steps?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am informed that my letter, to which the hon. Member refers, was not mentioned by the Chief Constable in his Report, but was produced and read on the Chairman of Quarter Sessions asking if it had been received. It is also a fact that the Chairman of Quarter Sessions gave notice of the two motions referred to by the hon. Member, but on the first being defeated the second was not moved. The representatives of the Quarter Sessions, of whom five were present, all voted in favour of the motion, and the County Council representatives, 12 in number, who appear to have stated that they thought the motion unnecessary, voted against it. I have been informed (but I have no means of verifying the information) that one, and probably two, of these County Councillors are members of the Anti-Tithe Committee. The Chief Constable wrote to me, in reply to my letter, undertaking to give adequate police protection to the bailiff, and to prevent a repetition of such an assault as was committed on the 5th of May. No facts have
  976
  been brought to my knowledge which would lead me to suppose that the Chief Constable has failed, or will fail, to carry out the undertaking so given. I must express my hope that in so doing he will receive the co-operation and support of the Standing Joint Committee, who are responsible for the administration of the local police.
  MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in 1891 the Standing Committee passed a resolution instructing the Chief Constable that not more than three policemen were to be employed at tithe sales or distraints. If so, how is it possible, now the Committee have refused to repeal that instruction, to afford adequate protection?
  MR. ASQUITH: This is the first I have heard of that instruction.

  THE CORDITE DISPUTE.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War who were the members of the Explosives Committee other than Sir F. Abel and Professor Dewar; in how many and which foreign countries have Sir F. Abel and Professor Dewar, or either of them taken out foreign patents for cordite, and on what dates in each case; what was the date of the assignment to other persons of each of such patents; to what official of the War Office did they or either of them communicate the fact of having taken out such patents, and on what date or dates, and by what method; and when did this information formally reach the Secretary of State, and by what method?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In answer to the first paragraph, Dr. Dupré, F.R.S., was the third member of the Committee, and Captain Thompson, R.A., was Secretary. As to the subject of paragraphs 2 and 3, we have, as I have already stated, no information. With regard to numbers 4 and 5, there is no record of any formal communication of the fact that foreign patents were taken out, but the assignment of these patents was, as I informed the hon. Member, intimated to the Director of Artillery on March 25, 1891, by letter.
  MR. HANBURY: When was the intimation conveyed to the Secretary of State for War?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If the hon. Member means the Secretary of State for War personally, I cannot tell him. He probably heard of it in conversation with the Director General of Artillery. If the hon. Member merely means official conveyance, then the imparting of the information to the Director General of Artillery would be equivalent to giving it to the Secretary of State for War.
  MR. HANBURY: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that information in regard to the foreign patents was not given to the War Office until two years after they had been taken out? And was the late Financial Secretary to the War Office correct when he said that the Director General of Artillery did not convey it to the Secretary of State for War till a further year had elapsed?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There is no official record. I can only judge by the Papers, and I cannot tell when the Secretary of State was personally informed of the assignment, as it is not alluded to in any official document at the War Office.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, to what Military Authorities, if any, did Sir F. Abel and Professor Dewar, or the Explosives Committee, submit the result of their trials of various explosives, and what Military Authority decided that cordite was distinctly superior to the other explosives, and thereupon recommended it to the Secretary of State for adoption; did such or any Military Authorities investigate the other explosives independently of Sir F. Abel and Professor Dewar before giving their decision; on what date was it finally decided to adopt cordite into the Service; and on what date did Messrs. Abel, Dewar, and Anderson apply for a patent for machinery for its manufacture?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The results of the trials wore reported by the Committee to the Director of Artillery, who submitted his recommendation on the subject through the Adjutant General to His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, and the Secretary of State approved cordite for manufacture and for further experiments on November 14, 1890. The Reports submitted by the Committee embraced all the ex-
  978
  plosives under competition, and the Military Authorities considered that no further investigation was necessary, except as to cordite. Subsequently to this approval of cordite, it underwent further tests in various climates and under varying conditions. The results of these being satisfactory, it was finally and formally adopted as a Service store in May, 1893. The date stated by the hon. Member on the 15th instant as that on which the patent for machinery was taken out—namely, July 22, 1889—is correct.

  FAILURE OF THE CHELSEA WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. FISHER: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been directed to the failure (owing to an accident) of the Chelsea Water Company to supply water during 48 hours to the inhabitants of Fulham and to the inadequacy of the notice of such accident given by the company; and whether, looking to the extreme risk, through the bursting of boilers and otherwise, which is incurred by the inhabitants under such circumstances, he will direct an inquiry to be held into the cause of the accident and the nature of the notice given to those affected by it, with the view of pressing upon the Water Companies the best means of avoiding such accidents in future, or, in case of their occurrence, the speediest and most effective methods of warning the inhabitants whose supply is temporarily cut off?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: A communication was addressed by the Local Government Board to the Chelsea Water Company with reference to the temporary failure, owing to an accident, of the water supply to Fulham. The secretary of the company furnished an explanation similar to that in the letter which he addressed to The Times. The serious difficulty occasioned by the failure of the supply is much to be regretted. I do not think that any practical advantage would result from such an inquiry as is suggested.

  THE AMERICAN MAIL SERVICE.
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that on the arrival of the Majestic at Queenstown on Tuesday evening last, carrying American

  979
  mails, the mails had to be taken on to Liverpool, the ordinary train having left, and there being no special service; whether, if there had been a special service, letters could have been replied to by the mail leaving Queenstown on Thursday; and whether this was possible after the delivery of the mails through Liverpool?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The Majestic did not bring full mails for the United Kingdom, but only mails for Ireland and such correspondence for London and other parts as had been addressed specially to be sent by the Queenstown route. This, therefore, was not a case in which the through special service to London would have been used. In addition to certain closed mails for through conveyance to the Continent, the Majestic only brought for delivery or treatment in London 10 small bags containing about 2,500 letters.
  MR. M. HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Majestic brought mails for Lancashire and North of England and Scotland other than those mails specially addressed?
  MR. A. MORLEY: She brought 151 bags of mails altogether—91 for Ireland, which were landed at Queenstown, 60 bags which wore carried on to Liverpool, and 36 bags which were dropped there for delivery or direct despatch. There were 24 bags, including some closed mails for the Continent, and a number of specially addressed letters which were brought on to London for delivery.
  MR. M. HEALY: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has answered my question, which was whether the Majestic brought mails for the North of England other than mails specially addressed; and, if so, does that indicate any change in the practice of the United States Post Office?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The Majestic only brought mails for Ireland not specially addressed. The mails for England were all specially addressed.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman state at what time the Paris, which left New York about an hour-and-a-half before the Majestic, arrived at Southampton, and how much time elapsed between the landing of the mails and their delivery?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I cannot answer that question off-hand; but if the hon.
  980
  Gentleman desires to know I will endeavour to get the information.
  MR. FIELD: Can the right hon. Gentleman say if the special service will be continued in future under the circumstances which gave rise to it?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I have already stated that I hope in a very short time to make a statement on the subject.

  THE BEHAR CADASTRAL SURVEY.
  MR. KENYON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the attention of the Secretary of State has been drawn to a statement by the Judge of Patna, in a letter to The Times on the Behar Cadastral Survey, that in Behar the fields, each with its 12-inch separation from the next, are often not larger than a gentleman's drawing-room, and the farmer who holds 10 acres has to find his total from, it may be, 20 or 30 patches lying all over the country; whether the Report of the Sone Irrigation Survey shows that the actual cost of the Cadastral Survey of such holdings, with its record of rights, sometimes exceeds the fee-simple value of the land; and whether the Secretary of State will permit the Government of Bengal in such cases to make a compulsory survey at the costs of the landlords and tenants?
  *MR. G. RUSSELL: Yes; the attention of the Secretary of State has been directed to the letter written by Mr. Tweedie which appeared in The Times of the 19th August. My answer to the second and third questions is that the Secretary of State has not in his possession any evidence showing that in the Sone Canal District the cost of the Cadastral Survey will exceed the fee-simple value of the land.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: May I ask the Under Secretary of State for India what would be the total cost of the Behar Cadastral Survey in its eight stages, as indicated in the notice issued by the Director of the Survey in February last, including the settlement of "fair rents" in the fifth stage of the Survey; whether this cost is to be defrayed by fresh taxation on the laud of Bengal; what will be the annual cost of the maintenance of the record of right; from what source will this cost be defrayed; and will any legislation on the subject be submitted to the Legisla-

  981
  tive Council of the Viceroy or the Legislative Council of Bengal, with permission to the official members to vote as they liked; whether the proposals of the Government of Bengal involve the abrogation or modification of the permanent settlement of Bengal; and will all the Papers be submitted to Parliament before the sanction of the Secretary of State was given?
  *MR. G. RUSSELL: The cost of the Behar Survey has been estimated at eight annas per acre. As at present arranged, a portion of the expense will fall upon the landholder and the ryot, and a part will be defrayed by the State. The cost of maintaining the record of right would be about three-quarters of an anna per rupee of rent, an amount which would be defrayed by a cess. The Survey of Behar is an outcome of the Bengal Tenancy Act of 1885, and any questions respecting the permanent settlement must be considered to have been determined by the passing of this latter Act. The Secretary of State has already given his sanction to the survey: but he has inquired whether further Papers can be presented.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I ask the Prime Minister whether after the proceedings to-morrow night on the Government of Ireland Bill are closed he will move the Adjournment of the House? It would be of convenience to many hon. Members who desire to go into the country to know.
  MR. W.E. GLADSTONE: Yes, Sir; I think it would be quite proper that I should do so.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL. (No. 428.)

    CONSIDERATION. [THIRTEENTH NIGHT.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed [23rd August] on Consideration of the Bill as amended.
    And which Amendment was, in page 3, line 38, after the last Amendment, to insert the words—
    982
    "(3) The Lord Lieutenant shall not do or omit to do any act upon the advice of the Executive Committee, or otherwise than as representing Her Majesty—

    (a) In respect of any of the matters upon which the Irish Legislature are disabled from legislating under Section 3 of this Act; nor

    (b) Whereby any person or corporation would be injuriously affected in respect of any of the matters in regard to which they are protected as against legislation by the Trish Legislature under Section 4 of this Act;

    and it shall be unlawful for any Executive officer in Ireland, except by the direction of the Lord Lieutenant representing Her Majesty, to do or omit to do any such act."—(Viscount Cranborne.)
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Debate resumed.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid, that last night he founded the hope that the Government would see their way to accept, at least in part, the Amendment of his noble Friend on the speech of the hon. Member for North Kerry. To-day he returned to the charge fortified by a declaration of the Chancellor of the Duchy—a declaration of such importance that it confirmed his hope even to the point of anticipating that the Government would not only accept part, but would accept the whole, of the Amendment before the House. But before he read the words of the Chancellor of the Duchy he should like to dwell upon the conditions and the circumstances under which they were delivered, for those were hardly less significant than the declaration made by the right hon. Gentleman. He did not know whether the House recollected that they approached for the first time the 5th clause at half-past 12 o'clock on a Wednesday in June, and that at half-past 5 on that day notice was given of the first Closure Resolution. The first hour of that day—the 28th of June—was occupied in discussing an Amendment which the Government accepted, after challenging a Division, an action which the Opposition not uncharitably attributed to the fact that the Government were at that moment in a minority in the House. They then went on to consider an Amendment kindred to the one now before the House, but covering a wider field, which had been moved by the hon. Member for Preston. The hon. Member wished

    983
    that the Lord Lieutenant should act as the Representative of Her Majesty not only within the limited sphere contemplated by the Amendment of his noble Friend, but in all matters and at all times. That Amendment was debated practically the rest of the day, and was only rejected by a majority of 29. The smaller contention of his noble Friend did not, therefore, come before the Committee. His noble Friend was treading on virgin ground, and laying before the Government a proposal to which the Opposition, on the whole, attached the very greatest importance. It was upon the large Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston laying down that the Lord Lieutenant should at all times act as the Representative of Her Majesty that the Chancellor of the Duchy made a memorable speech—memorable for its length, which might, perhaps, be justly attributed to the same cause which led the Government to accept the previous Amendment rather than accept defeat in the Division Lobbies; memorable for its interesting view of the Constitutions of Germany, the United States, and our Colonies; but in connection with the Amendment before the House, the speech was, perhaps, most memorable because of its conclusion. This was it—
    "We consider—and this is my concluding answer to one of the complaints of my right hon. Friend—that the Executive will be subjected within the sphere of its action to exactly the same restrictions as are by Clauses 3 and 4 imposed as respects legislation on the Irish Legislature."
    That was precisely the object aimed at by his noble Friend; and all he had to do, he thought, in order to gain its acceptance at the hands of the Government, was to show that the Amendment attained that object, and no more than that object. Perhaps before he argued in favour of that contention he might be allowed to suggest a very slight verbal alteration in the Amendment, to which his noble Friend did not object. It was to leave out the words "upon the advice of the Executive Committee, or." The Amendment would then run—
    "The Lord Lieutenant shall not do or omit to do any act otherwise than as representing Her Majesty, &c."
    By leaving out the words he suggested all misconception would be avoided. Either these words had a definite Constitutional meaning, as argued by the
    984
    right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James)—that was to say, that if the Lord Lieutenant took the advice he must act upon it, or else call upon the Ministry to resign; and if the words bore that definite Constitutional meaning they were not needed there, because the phrase "as representing Her Majesty" covered the whole ground, by excluding the responsibility of the Irish Parliament, and substituting, in these particulars, the responsibility of the Imperial House of Commons. If, on the other hand, the opposite contention were true, that the phrase was a mere colloquial expression, and could be held to mean that the Lord Lieutenant would take counsel with his advisers in Ireland, then most certainly they would be mischievous. He chiefly wished to see the words eliminated because of the view taken yesterday by the Attorney General, who rightly said that it would be absurd to suppose that the Lord Lieutenant would act in a time of crisis without talking over the difficulty with the men best able to advise him on the state of Ireland. He should like to commend the Amendment to the examination of the Government in compartments. He did not think there should be any difficulty at all in accepting the Amendment down to the sub-section marked (a), which referred to matters excluded from the powers of the Irish Legislature under Clause 3. They had in favour of this part of the Amendment not only the support of the Chancellor of the Duchy, but the support in substance, if not in form, of the hon. Member for North Kerry.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. Member is altogether mistaken. I think it most inexpedient that the words should be inserted, because occasions may arise when the Imperial Government may think it well that the Lord Lieutenant should consult the Irish Government, and I said that the matter could be better dealt with in the instrument of delegation.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid, that explanation showed that the hon. Member for North Kerry was in favour of the first part of the Amendment, as he had said, in substance if not in form. The hon. Member, whilst agreeing that in the matters excluded under Clause 3 the Lord

    985
    Lieutenant should act as the Representative of Her Majesty, held that it should be laid down, not in the Bill, but in the instrument of delegation. The hon. Member differed, therefore, only on the question of form. But he submitted that those safeguards had not been introduced into the Bill in order to calm the fears and lull the suspicious of the hon. Member for North Kerry. They had been put in in order to allay the just fears and the reasonable suspicions of the loyal minority in Ireland, and, so far as important matters were concerned, of the British people; and, that being so, he thought that upon a mere question of form the wishes of the loyal minority and of the British people were to be consulted in preference to the wishes of the hon. Member for North Kerry. But he was not content to rest his argument on a mere question of form. There was much more than form in this matter. They all knew that this Bill would not pass into law; but, having once received the assent of the House of Commons, it would become, as regarded the relations between England and Ireland, an historic document of importance only less to that of the Act of Union. There were many provisions in the Bill to which the minority in this country and the majority in Ireland objected; there were many provisions to which the majority in Ireland and the minority in this country objected; but there were some few provisions upon which they had arrived, on the whole, at the same conclusion. He laid it down with great confidence that in the future neither Party would ever accept less than they received in this Bill. Arguments would be founded on the concessions in the Bill both by Nationalists and Loyalists. If that were so, and as the Chancellor of the Duchy and the hon. Member for North Kerry were willing to concede the principle that in all the excluded matters in Clause 3 the Lord Lieutenant should act as the Representative of Her Majesty, he did not see how the Government could refuse to allow that principle being enshrined in the Bill. In the future, if they were not allowed to enshrine this principle in the Bill, it would be said that as between England and Ireland the Lord Lieutenant was not to act as the Representative of Her Majesty's Government in all matters enumerated in Clause 3, but as the Representative of the
    986
    Irish Legislature. He now came to the second compartment of the Amendment marked (b). In that paragraph his noble Friend extended the limitation upon Executive action to the matters under Clause 4. Again, he could call the Chancellor of the Duchy as his witness, for the application of the principle of the right hon. Gentleman to Clause 4 would mean that the Executive would under Clause 4 be subjected to the same restrictions as were imposed upon the Legislature. But that was not in the Bill, and the hon. Member for Kerry was anxious that it should never be put into the Bill.
    MR. SEXTON: My argument was that, whilst all the laws under Clause 3 would be Imperial, all the laws under Clause 4 would be Irish laws, but that the Irish Legislature must observe certain provisions in passing them; and that, therefore, in regard to Executive action arising out of Clause 4 Irish advice was necessary.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid, the hon. Member for North Kerry drew what he called a fundamental distinction between Clause 3 and Clause 4. Supposing the Government gave way on Clause 3, the hon. Member might object, but he would object not quite so much as were the Government to give way on Clause 4.
    MR. SEXTON: Hear, hear!
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid, that the hon. Member for North Kerry, dealing chiefly with the questions under Clause 4, drew a picture of an officer who trespassed within the powers under Clause 4 and was proceeded against. But any such officer would be no worse off than any other officer of the Royal Irish Constabulary under the 2nd sub-section of the 27th clause. Under Clause 27 the Lord Lieutenant would have control of the Constabulary, so long as the force existed, as the Representative of Her Majesty. The hon. Member for North Kerry had said that under Clause 4 there were not exceptions and restrictions, so much as principles which the law should not violate. He did not think that description was quite applicable to the policy of Clause 4. What principle was violated in establishing a religion or in endowing a denominational school? It was far more accurate to say that under Clause 4 legislation was not to pass certain

    987
    limits, and what his noble Friend urged on the acceptance of the House in the second part of the Amendment was that for any action outside those limits the Irish Executive should be responsible to this House, and not to the Irish House. Take some of the dangers guarded against by Clause 4—disabilities or privileges imposed on account of religious belief. Would anyone pretend that those dangers were not greater from Executive rather than from legislative action? The Opposition had been taunted with being distrustful and suspicious of the Irish House of Commons. But he, for one, would never believe that they would pass a law against Protestants. What was feared was that in the administration of the law men might be made to suffer, or might obtain benefits on account of religious beliefs. Was not that likely? Unless this Amendment were accepted the Lord Lieutenant would be the blind band and instrument of the Irish Legislature placed between the two alternatives of accepting their advice or accepting their resignation, and that was not a position in which they could fairly place the Lord Lieutenant. If they put the Lord Lieutenant in that position, it would be found before very long that disabilities would be imposed and benefits conferred on account of religious beliefs in Ireland. At any rate, it did not lie in the mouth of right hon. Gentlemen opposite to say that this was unlikely. If they argued in the case of the Executive that those crimes and outrages were unlikely, then by that very argument they admitted that every outrage of tyranny and favouritism under the legislative province of the Bill was not only a possible but a probable consequence. If those dangers were unlikely, why, in Heaven's name, had they inserted Clauses 3 and 4? He believed the dangers were likely; but supposing they were fanciful and unfounded—mere phantoms bred in the horrors that haunted the gloom of a past religious and racial animosity. But the Government claimed to have redeemed and abolished that past by this policy of conciliation; and yet while endeavouring under Clauses 3 and 4 to allay that phantom, how could they object to insert provisions in the Bill against dangers much more substantial? He passed to the last compartment of his
    988
    noble Friend's Amendment, which laid down that it should
    "Be unlawful for any Executive officer in Ireland, except by direction of the Lord Lieutenant representing Her Majesty, to do, or omit to do, any such act."
    He would leave the arguments on that clause to lawyers, who were more able to deal with it than he, though he thought it was easy to show the necessity of such a provision. He would point out that under the 27th clause any Constabulary officer who went outside the law was proceeded against in a Court of Law, whether he was acting by orders of the Lord Lieutenant or not; and all that the Amendment would provide was that any official whatever within the sphere of this restriction who injuriously affected or conduced to injury against one of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland should be amenable to the law just as a police constable was now. They were told by the Attorney General that the Lord Lieutenant must be allowed to have the advice of his Irish Ministers, and allowed to act with despatch. Both these advantages were left to the Lord Lieutenant under this Amendment. In times of crisis, or foreign invasion, or insurrection, or in any difficult problem arising out of the state of Ireland, he would act at once, should the necessity arise, on his own responsibility. If the Amendment were accepted in these matters alone, the Lord Lieutenant would be in the position of the Viceroy of India—that was to say, he would be responsible to and would be represented by a Minister in this House, and his action through that Minister would be open to their criticism. He would in the interest of the Amendment—to which they attached a great deal of importance—deprecate the attitude of suspicion so constantly taken up by the Government towards any suggestion coming from that (the Opposition) quarter of the House. They must surely by now be familiar with the aspect of their Amendments by the hundreds of them that had appeared, and yet they believed in every one of them there lurked some pitfall and some hidden trap. Whatever might be said of the merits or demerits of their opposition to this Bill, he thought they could not be accused of Machiavellian subtlety in their mode of attack, and least of all in the Amendment they were bringing for-

    989
    ward that afternoon, and yet the Government had to be soothed and coaxed like a shy horse before they could be induced to approach these subjects because of their suspicion and alarm. He could assure the Chief Secretary he would find in this Amendment no hidden trap, but merely a straightforward declaration of the principle already enunciated by the hon. Member for North Kerry and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
    MR. W. AMBROSEdesired to say a word upon this Amendment, because he could scarcely think it possible that the House would pass this 5th clause and deal with these enormous powers of the Executive without putting some sort of restriction upon the power of delegation and the powers which were thereby to be vested in the Irish Government. They had had various explanations as to what would be the effect of this Amendment. The Chief Secretary had given one to the effect that the Irish Government would be restricted in regard to the 3rd clause of it by the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston. They had had another opinion from the Attorney General to the effect that the Lord Lieutenant might take the advice of the Irish Government upon these questions arising in Clauses 3 and 4, but that he would not be bound to act upon it. They had had an opinion from the hon. Member for North Kerry to the effect that the matters in Clause 3, being Imperial, would necessarily be outside the competence of the Irish Government, and they had the opinion of the Chancellor of the Duchy which had been read by the last speaker. He desired to point out that there was nothing in this Bill to justify any one of these opinions. Why? Because the House would perceive that the questions of the Executive which were to devolve upon the Irish Government were not laid down in this Bill at all, but were to be dealt with in a document not now before the House—namely, the instrument of delegation. It was the instrument of delegation which was to settle what were to be the powers of the Irish Executive. What was the House asked to do? The House was asked to give a letter of unlimited credit to the Government of the day in the framing of this instrument of delegation. They wore asked to give a blank cheque, for whatever was included in the instru-
    990
    ment of delegation would be in the competence of the Irish Government, including every one of the matters in Clause 3, though it was Imperial, and every one of the matters in Clause 4. The question arose, would the House allow the matter to be left in that way? He could recognise the difficulty of framing and putting into the Bill the powers that were to be given to the Irish Government. He did not envy the gentleman who had to frame the instrument of delegation, because it was extremely difficult to say what matters should be included. The noble Lord in his Amendment had taken the simpler and easier course of saying what should not be included; and although the Amendment had been subjected to rather severe criticism on the part of the Attorney General, if the Government were to put on the Paper the subjects on which the Irish Government were to have power, such a proposal would be subjected to far more severe criticism than the present Amendment. If the Government found fault with the Amendment as it was, why did they not bring up one themselves? What he wished the House to understand was this: that upon this 5th clause—which was the crux of the Bill, which was more important than all the restrictions in the 3rd and 4th clause upon the powers of the Legislature put together—the House was asked to vote in the dark, to give unlimited power to the Government, and to have no voice whatever in the document which would ultimately settle these matters. One point was pretty clear in reference to this instrument of delegation; and that was that whatever would be included in that delegation would pass to the Irish Government; therefore, he assumed there would be a distinction in these matters which had not yet been adverted to. The Lord Lieutenant was to possess a double capacity. In one capacity he would be the Representative, not the Delegate, of the Imperial Government; he would act on behalf of Her Majesty, not as the Delegate, but as the Representative of Her Majesty. He presumed that where the Lord Lieutenant was to act as an Imperial officer representing Her Majesty and the British Ministers he would do so by virtue of Letters Patent; but whatever was included in the instrument of delegation would certainly pass to the Irish Government. He was of

    991
    opinion that the instrument of delegation would not be, and ought not to be, a personal matter at all. The instrument of delegation should be to the Lord Lieutenant as such, and be permanent in effect, so that there need be no difficulty on emergencies arising. He considered that if the Government were not prepared to say what powers they were going to delegate they ought to consent to an Amendment such as this saying, at all events, what should not pass to the Irish Government.
    MR. BLAKEsaid, he might call attention again to a proposition which had been advanced more than once in reference to cognate questions, and that was that the method proposed by this Bill was a method which gave to this Parliament the greatest possible measure of power in respect of the subjects of the Amendment. It was a method which, by leaving the instrument of delegation to be prepared by the Government of this country—by the Imperial Government commanding the confidence of the people of this country, by the submission of that instrument to this Assembly, for its review, and its modification, to be moulded at its pleasure, not directly but indirectly through well-known methods by which the Imperial Parliament could exercise the supreme authority of advising as well as censuring—retained in their hands the greatest amount of power that they could possibly retain. The plan was advisable also, because it was not only in accordance with precedent, but was approved by experience. It was the method which they had adopted in the framing of other Constitutions; and they had acted upon that power which those Constitutions had given them, by, from time to time, moulding and changing the instrument of delegation, as experience indicated the advisability of such a change. If it was, as the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham) had stated, the loyal minority and not the Nationalist majority that was to be consoled and fortified, whose nerves were to be strengthened and toned by the clauses that were to be put into the Bill, he maintained that the minority had a greater security under the system which confessedly left it in the hands of the Imperial Parliament to frame and mould, and alter the delegation from time to time, than they could obtain by any such effort
    992
    as was now being made in part and summarily to discharge a task which the hon. and learned Member for Harrow (Mr. Ambrose) rightly described as being an extremely difficult, and delicate, and complicated task. It was better to leave allat large, recognising—and that recognition was the only security for those of them who were to be almost excluded from the ultimate settlement of the question—recognising, as they had clearly recognised, the general principle upon which that delegation should be framed. That general principle unquestionably was that the Executive power should be commensurate with and complementary to the Legislative power in all matters in which they were conferring on the Irish Legislature legislative power, that they should make the Executive power efficient in purely Irish questions by permitting in those Executive action on the advice of those who were responsible to the Irish Legislature, while in all matters in which Imperial legislative power was retained they should retain the complementary and commensurate Executive power in their instrument of delegation by requiring that the Viceroy should act upon the instructions of the Imperial Government. If Irish Members spoke as they had spoken before, and as they would speak again should occasion require, of the views of the Irish Government being important views, they quite recognised the vital distinction between the technical phrase, advice, and the suggestion of those views, and so he would say with reference to the views of the Imperial Government. No lover of his country, no lover of the United Kingdom, no lover of Ireland, he thought, would omit for a moment from his mind the consideration that while it was vital on the one hand that the constitutional advice upon which action was to be taken should be the advice or instructions of the Imperial Government in Imperial affairs, and the advice of the Irish administration in Irish affairs, it was also most important, and they hoped and believed it would be the case, that due consideration would be given to all opinions, and that an effort would be made to rule both countries with the general consent, and to the common advantage of the people of both countries. He knew nothing more important to either au Irish or an Imperial Ministry than that they

    993
    should know informally what were the views of men who were responsible to the Irish people on all the questions which touched their interests as well as on Imperial interests. The utmost freedom of communication in that sense, the utmost facility for obtaining information, the freest use of those means, ought to be considered as one of the essential and elementary arts of Government; but consistently with that they should always recognise the fundamental Constitutional principle which he had advanced, that Executive action must be commensurate with and complementary to legislative power, and there a sharp line of distinction must be drawn. The general principle had been stated, but to enter fully into details was agreed to be impossible. The Amendment did not suggest that they should incorporate in the Bill a complete description of the whole delegation. Why, then, should they enter into it partially? Why not leave their hands absolutely free when they had an entire concurrence of opinion as to the general principle? Why not leave their hands perfectly free to apply that principle of the Bill, so that they might be able to mould and change the instrument of delegation from time to time as might be advisable? He should repeat what he had said before in the House—that if there were to be objection taken in any quarter of the House to the plan, he knew no quarter where it might be more reasonably taken than from the Irish Benches, because this power was to be exorcised by the Imperial Government upon the responsibility of the Imperial Parliament, in which, out of 670 Members, Ireland would have only 80. But they did not object, for the reason that they believed in the equity and justice of the Imperial Parliament as to the method they would adopt in executing the provisions of this Act when once it had become law. They believed it would be carried out according to its spirit, and, so carrying it out, they (the Irish Members) were ready to trust them. The hon. Member for Harrow (Mr. Ambrose) said that while the instrument of delegation would be very difficult to draw up in full, yet it was very easy to draw it in part; and the hon. Member proposed that it should be, in fact, drawn in part by clauses in the Bill. But this was indefensible. The hon. Member went on to say that all the powers
    994
    contained in the instrument of delegation would be powers to be exercised on the advice of the Irish Government. He wholly differed from him. Clause 5 contemplated, and necessarily contemplated, an entirely different state of things. The whole Executive power in Ireland was to continue vested in Her Majesty the Queen; and whatever was done was to be done in her name, and the Lord Lieutenant was to exercise any prerogative or other Executive power of the Queen, the exercise of which might be delegated to him by Her Majesty. It was recognised as quite competent, and it would also be convenient, to delegate to a person on the spot some prerogatives of an Imperial character, and to delegate their exercise on Imperial instructions, or upon Imperial advice generally or specially. Therefore, this instrument of delegation must do what was done under other instruments of delegation. There might be two instruments if they pleased; but one, or more than one, must deal with prerogative or Executive powers, some of which the Lord Lieutenant should exercise upon Imperial instructions, and others of which he should exercise upon Irish advice. If he thought that this matter could be satisfactorily dealt with by any clause which could be put into the Bill at that or any other stage, he should feel no insuperable difficulty in attempting its consideration; but surely when they were told that there were a vast number of important matters, some absolutely new and untouched, which required to be dealt with, to propose to take up time in a discussion as to whether a provision should be inserted in respect of a matter which it was clear that they were keeping ample power to frame and mould according to their own will, was clearly to be described as nothing but a waste of time. The hon. Member for Harrow had suggested that the Government themselves should frame an Amendment. He not think the experience of the Treasury Bench with reference to the reception of Amendments which they had framed to meet the wishes of hon. Gentlemen opposite was at all calculated to induce them to again accept that task, particularly when they wore of opinion that no Amendment at all was required, and that the method they had adopted was the best. As to the first part of the Amendment, it was already absolutely clear that

    995
    the advice or instruction must be Imperial advice or instruction. As to the second part of it, the subjects in respect of which there were instructions were obviously Irish subjects. No Act, however, could be passed by the Irish Legislature which should infringe the protection referred to in the clause; and if any Act was passed which did infringe that protection, it would, of course, be so far as void as an Act infringing the provisions of the first part. The question whether an Act was void or not was properly left to the judicial power, and the question whether Executive action was sound or unsound would depend upon the question of the validity of the Act itself. But to say that any condition whereby any person should be injuriously affected in respect of matters in which he was protected was to be dealt with by the Viceroy only upon Imperial advice was to suggest what was an impossibility in the first place, because if the proposed Executive action was under a void law he could not perform it validly. If, however, they got over that position, they were landed in this one—Who was to decide whether the action was in truth one whereby a person or Corporation would be injuriously affected? Was the Lord Lieutenant to decide the question upon his own individual opinion, or, if not, upon whose opinion was he to act? They had the preliminary question, was any person injuriously affected? The advice given to the Lord Lieutenant would be given on the theory that the legislative Act was valid, and, therefore, it would be given on the theory that the whole matter was within the purview of the Irish Legislature, and who was to determine whether it was or was not? The Courts, and the Courts alone, could determine that. As to the remaining provision, which made it unlawful for any Executive officer to act save under certain conditions, was every officer, from a bailiff upwards, to decide for himself whether any Act of the Irish Legislature affected any person injuriously, and whether he himself could act lawfully under such Act or not? Was every such officer to find out for himself by which branch of his authority the Viceroy ordered him to act? Was he to refuse obedience, instead of obeying, and trusting to his superior to protect him? Really, it seemed to him that the Amendment was inartistically and
    996
    inadequately drawn, and was calculated to produce insurmountable confusion and to obscure the application of a plain, clear, and fundamental principle which the House, by the Bill as it stood, retained and maintained practically in its own hands.
    MR. MATTHEWS: I did not gather from the only speech we have heard from the Treasury Bench that the Government dissent from the principle of the Amendment. The principle of the Amendment is simply this: that the Irish Ministry ought not to be allowed to do by Executive action that which the Irish Legislature is forbidden to do by legislative action. As the Bill stands, it is perfectly clear, in my opinion, that the Irish Ministry will be able to do many of those things which the Irish Legislature is forbidden to do. I do not wish to take up time at any length, and I will cite two or three instances only as examples. You have, for instance, prohibited the Irish Legislature from making any law about treason-felony. I suppose there can be no question whatever that the Lord Lieutenant, whatever the form of the delegation, will have the prerogative of mercy entrusted to his exercise. As the Bill stands, you provide for a Privy Council and Executive Committee in the Government of Ireland. This Body is to advise the Lord Lieutenant, and, in the case of treason-felony, they may advise him to grant a pardon. That would practically be repealing the law of treason-felony just as if the Irish Legislature were to pass a repealing Act. What definition, therefore, are we to have—
    *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. Russell, Hackney, S.)said, the definition was contained in the Bill.
    MR. MATTHEWS: What definition are we to have of the manner in which the Lord Lieutenant must exercise his prerogative? I think it is clear that the Lord Lieutenant must follow the advice of his Constitutional Ministers, or dismiss them. The Home Secretary advises Her Majesty now. If Her Majesty could not agree with the advice of the Home Secretary I should like to know how long he would feel himself bound to hold that office. If his advice were not followed he would have no alternative but to resign. If the Lord Lieutenant objects in Ireland, or does not feel dis-

    997
    posed to act on the advice of his Irish advisers, difficulties may arise, and what is then to become of the enforcement of the law of treason-felony? Another example: The Legislature is prohibited from passing a law regarding the country's relations with Foreign States. But what is to prevent the Irish Executive from advising the Lord Lieutenant to send an Envoy to France or to Rome? And the result of Executive action would be the same as if a law to the same effect had been passed. Again, the Legislature is forbidden to pass a law constituting Associations for learning and practising use of arms or of drilling for military purposes. But the Executive can permit, connive at, and encourage such Associations. Only one other example from Clause 4. The Legislature is prohibited from passing any law which would deny the equal protection of the law to any subject. But do you think the Lord Lieutenant may not be advised by the Irish Executive not to give police protection to the bailiff levying a distraint, or to the Sheriff executing a decree of ejectment? That would have just the same effect as if they were at liberty to pass a law for the nonpayment of rent. It is manifest that under Clauses 3 and 4 there might be Executive action by the Irish Ministers by which the same results might be effected as by the laws which the Irish Legislature are forbidden to pass. The Attorney General says that the instrument of delegation will put all this right. I say that is a totally impracticable and false theory. I have submitted the example of a case of treason-felony. Is the delegation to say that the prerogative of mercy is delegated to the Lord Lieutenant, except in cases of treason and treason-felony? The result of that would be that the prerogative of mercy in Ireland would be exercised by the English Home Secretary, and, to quote the phrase that we have heard from those (the Government) Benches, the law would then "come in a foreign garb." In that case two distinct Executives would be established in Ireland; and it would be necessary to insert provisions in the Bill to compel the Governors of gaols, Commissioners of Police, and authorities of every sort in Ireland to obey the orders of the English Home Secretary. You are at present having a limited delegation, and a limited delegation means that the Lord Lieutenant is
    998
    absolutely void of Executive power on the prohibited subjects. The void must be filled by someone, and that someone would be the Home Secretary in England. Such an instrument is positively impossible It is an impracticable system. In practice every Executive act in Ireland must, perforce, be performed through the Lord Lieutenant; and the practical question raised by the Amendment is—"Who shall direct the Lord Lieutenant"? By doing as I have said you set up two distinct Executives. The question is, Who shall direct the Lord Lieutenant. He is the Representative of the Queen in Ireland, and he must be advised in these matters. We suggest that upon matters purely Irish the Lord Lieutenant should act upon the advice of the Irish Ministry, and upon the matters reserved by the Bill he should act on the advice of the Imperial Ministry. Surely, you are not seriously going to ask that the Home Secretary should be consulted in all cases—such questions as the control of the Constabulary, and many others? Although we have the greatest confidence in the intention of the Government with regard to the delegation, the House can have no assurance, unless by a provision inserted in the Bill, as to what will be the conduct of future Governments in drawing up delegations. You do not know what inclination future Governments may have, or what influence Party interests may have, upon the decision of the moment. It seems to me obvious that, in laying down the outline of this new Constitution, you should impose some restriction upon the Irish Executive just as you do on the Irish Legislature. If you do not intend that the Irish Executive should do those things which the Irish Legislature is forbidden to do, why not make it plain? Why relegate it to the delegation, the limitation of which must be practically impossible, and must result in the establishment of two Executives side by side—one of them English, and the other Irish? The Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Bryce) has declared in the course of the Debates that the Government are anxious that the Executive in Ireland should be subject to the same restrictions as the Legislature. That being so, I claim his vote for this Amendment. This is simply a difference in words; the proposal is

    999
    exactly what he expressed in that passage of his speech on the subject. All the practical Executive functions of the Government must be delegated; and the only effective limitation is to repeat Clauses 3 and 4 in the instrument. I think the reasons are conclusive in favour of the Amendment. I should be quite prepared to see it modified, and I would not object to striking out the last paragraph, as referring only to matters of detail, but otherwise I think it meets the case.
    *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Mr. BRYCE,: Sir, the Debate has contributed no argument to shake the opinion to which the Government gave expression yesterday through the mouth of the Attorney General. The Attorney General put the reasons of the Government for objecting to the Amendment quite clearly and sufficiently for all purposes, and nothing has been said to make us vary from the opinions then expressed. The Amendment consists of three parts, and in this case, as in most others, directly the Amendment was introduced an apology was made for some part of it. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say—"We like the general principle; let the Government select their own words." I do not say that for the purpose of taunting the Opposition, but for the sake of pointing to it as evidence of the supreme difficulty of the questions with which the Opposition attempt to deal. With all their talent, they cannot put their Amendments into a satisfactory shape, because what they endeavour to effect often cannot, consistently with the scheme of the Bill, be effected. I want to deal with the three questions which they raise by this Amendment. In this case gentlemen opposite have, I think, sufficient legal talent at their command to enable them to know that they are attempting to do things which cannot be done, and to introduce matters which are incompatible with the principle of the Bill and which would render it unworkable. The Government, in opposing such Amendments as this, are bound to point out that the evident intention of the Opposition, and of the whole policy they have pursued, and have, indeed, more than once candidly avowed, has been to endeavour to make the Bill unworkable. All the Amendments have tended to the same object. The
    1000
    Amendments have been based upon the supposition that the House cannot rely upon broad principles, but must enter into a vast number of details which, when put into the form of provisions, would be found to be impracticable, and which would destroy the Bill itself. The Amendment, as I have said, consists of three parts. I come to the first part. The hon. Member for Dover has been good enough to quote some words of mine, and my views have also been quoted by the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken. To those words I fully adhere. Sir, it has always been the view of the Government, and it has always been so expressed by them, that the Lord Lieutenant should act upon the advice of the Imperial Government in Imperial matters, and that the same restrictions should apply to the acts of the Irish Executive as apply to those of the Irish Legislature.
    MR. WYNDHAM: That is not in the Bill.
    *MR. BRYCE: Then the hon. Member for Dover asks why we do not accept the Amendment? We do not do so for the reason that, in our opinion, the principle of the Amendment—I speak of the first part of it—is already sufficiently contained in the Bill.
    MR. WYNDHAM: The Member for North Kerry has said the matter should be in the instrument of delegation and not in the Bill.
    *MR. BRYCE: The hon. Member for North Kerry put the same construction on the Amendment as I have done.
    MR. WYNDHAM: Clause 4.
    *MR. BRYCE: I will come to that. I am dealing now with the first part of the Amendment. With regard to what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Matthews), I would remind him we laid it down in Committee that the Lord Lieutenant, in the Imperial matters reserved by Clause 3, would take his instructions from the Imperial Government and would be responsible to the Imperial Government for any act he might do; and the whole question of the way in which the Imperial Government should deal with them, and of the relations that would exist, was very fully discussed. The right hon. Gentleman puts a case of conviction for treason-felony, and he asks how the Lord Lieutenant is to exercise his prerogative in a case of that kind. It is quite clear to me, and I hope also to the House, that

    1001
    the Lord Lieutenant in Imperial matters will take his advice solely from the Imperial Government. No instrument of delegation would be drawn so to run counter to the scope and provisions of the Bill as not to indicate in accordance with the scheme the functions of the Lord Lieutenant as regards Irish matters and as regards Imperial matters. It will do so, because it will obviously be in accordance with the frame and purport of the Bill. The Imperial matters mentioned in Clause 3 are matters in which he will take his advice from the Imperial Government; and whether he consults the Irish Executive or not, whether he gives them an opportunity of expressing their opinion, he will act on the advice given by the Imperial Government, and that only.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Why do you not say that in the Bill?
    *MR. BRYCE: It would be more convenient, perhaps, if the right hon. Gentleman would let me finish my argument, and I will then answer his question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Birmingham (Mr. Matthews) next dealt with the Imperial question as to sending Envoys to Foreign Rowers. It is absolutely impossible that an attempt should be made to send Envoys without the intervention of the Lord Lieutenant, who could not sanction any such action. But the sending of Envoys has not been tried in the past—you cannot find an instance of an attempt to do it in the Irish history of last century. The right hon. Gentleman went on to speak of the function of the instrument of delegation. That function will be clear, and will doubtless cover this case, defining, in accordance with the provisions of Clause 3, which in our view are perfectly explicit, any point in which the Lord Lieutenant may be concerned. There is only one remaining point that the right hon. Gentleman dilated upon—namely, the possibility of setting up a double Executive in Ireland, and he said we would avoid that by accepting the Amendment. But the very thing the Amendment itself does is to set up a double Executive in Ireland. It has no other meaning. We distinguish very clearly between the Lord Lieutenant's position as the Queen's Representative and Imperial Minister and his position as the head of the Irish Executive advised by the Irish Ministry.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then why not accept the Amendment?
    *Mr. BRYCE: The Leader of the Opposition says—"Why not accept the Amendment?" We do not think it is necessary to put it in the Bill, because the Bill already indicates with sufficient clearness what the duty of the Lord Lieutenant will be, and lays down a principle to which the instrument of delegation must conform. We think it has been universally understood in every part of the House that the restrictions under Clauses 3 and 4 have been imposed with this object—of making clear the duties of the Executive and the Legislature; and it is impossible to suppose that matters will be otherwise than provided for, because you give the Irish Ministers the power to state their opinion on matters with which the Legislature has nothing to do. The Irish Ministers will only speak for their own Legislature. Their weight as counsellors depends upon the fact that they have the confidence of, and speak for, that Legislature. Beyond its province they are not entitled to go. How, then, would it be possible for them to authoritatively advise the Lord Lieutenant regarding Imperial affairs which are excluded from the purview of the Irish Legislature? The only weight that their opinion would have would be based upon the fact that they were the Representatives of the Irish Legislature, as far as concerned such matters as that Legislature were competent to deal with, and no Lord Lieutenant would accept their opinion upon matters outside the restrictions imposed upon that Legislature. I, therefore, see no reason why we should accept the Amendment. The hon. Member for Dover spoke of the way in which the Government treat those who bring forward Amendments—of our being suspicious. But, Sir, I would remind the House that we have had considerable experience of these Amendments, and on nearly every occasion when we have admitted an Amendment—purely for the sake of peace and of saving time—an Amendment, it might be, which, to our own judgment, might not be necessary—we have found that such a concession was made the basis for other Amendments being moved. We rely in this instance upon a broad and clear principle, and we do not think it is necessary to restate a point for which we consider that the Bill

    1003
    already provides. Now I come to the second and third part of the Amendment. The second part of the Amendment is doubly objectionable. In the first place, it provides that the
    "Lord Lieutenant shall not do or omit to do any act upon the advice of the Executive Committee, or until he has received Her Majesty's instructions thereupon, or otherwise than as representing Her Majesty, … where any person or Corporation would be injuriously affected in respect of any of the masters in which they are protected as against legislation by the Irish Legislature under Section 4 of this Act."
    But, Sir, we cannot contemplate the Lord Lieutenant, as representing Her Majesty, doing wrong—that is, transgressing the restrictions imposed in Clause 4. He is to be in Ireland as representing Her Majesty to do right, not wrong. Moreover, it is perfectly plain that if a law were passed transgressing the provisions of Clause 4 of the Bill it would be a law passed by the Irish Legislature, with regard to matters which were not excluded from the general sphere of domestic legislation. The law would be invalid so far as it transgressed the restrictions of Clause 4, but it would have nothing to do with the Lord Lieutenant in his Imperial capacity, and it would not help matters to bring him in in that capacity. Then I come to the last part of the Amendment. The same objection applies to it, with this addition: that it would throw an impossible duty on subordinate officers, and it would render the government of Ireland entirely impracticable. Before I sit down I may mention for the information of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Birmingham that the very case he mentioned as regards pardons has arisen in some of our Colonies, and the directions given to the Colonial Governors are that where a prisoner has been convicted for an offence against Imperial law, or for a matter involving Imperial acts, the Governor is not to be guided by his Colonial Ministry, but is to act upon his own discretion, consulting, if he pleases, the Secretary of State at home.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not propose to reply to that part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in which he denounced the Opposition for being prepared after debate to modify the Amendments they put upon the Paper. The right hon. Gentleman is very anxious that he and his friends should be judged
    1004
    by the general principles laid down in the Bill. I claim that the Opposition also shall be judged by that canon—that is to say, by the general principles laid down in their Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely in error in supposing that the Opposition think Sub-section (b) to be of less importance than Subsection (a). If (b) is less important from an Imperial point of view it is far more important, so far as the loyal minority in Ireland are concerned. I shall, therefore, support (b) as heartily as I shall support (a). We are in a very curious position. The Government allege that they approve of both sub-sections, and the hon. Member for Kerry says that he approves of Sub-section (a) but does not approve of Sub-section (b).
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he did not approve of stating it in the Bill. It ought to be done in the instrument of delegation.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I understood his position was that he did not want this Amendment embodied in the Act. He did not object to Sub-section (a) being embodied, but he did not wish (b) to be. Therefore we have it that the Government approves of both subsections. ["No!"]
    MR. BRYCE: (B) is unworkable.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then I would ask them the plain question whether they think that the Lord Lieutenant, in regard to matters dealt with in Sub-section 4, is to act on the advice of Irish or of British Ministers?
    MR. BRYCE: The Lord Lieutenant is not to break the law.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: That is no answer. I am talking about Executive acts. It is not a question of breaking the law. One of the provisions of Subsection 4 lays down that no Act shall be passed which would prevent the Conscience Clause being enforced in any school in Ireland. At present educational matters in Ireland are under the Educational Board, and it is in the power of that Board, with the consent of the Lord Lieutenant, to abolish the Conscience Clause in any school. No Act is required.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: They tried to do it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: And, in face of that, the Chancellor of the Duchy can only interject that the Lord Lieutenant is not to break the law. Will the right

    1005
    hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy have the courage to say that after this Bill passed it would be impossible to abolish the Conscience Clause in Ireland, and thereby injure any Corporation or individual intended to be protected by Clause 4 without breaking the law? I put it to him, would it be breaking the law to abolish the Conscience Clause? It is obvious that it would not, and that in some way or other, either by delegation or by Bill, you must prevent the Lord Lieutenant from dealing with educational matters on the advice of the Irish Ministers.
    *MR. BRYCE: My lion, and learned Friends the Attorney General and the Solicitor General are of opinion that it would be unlawful to abolish the Conscience Clause.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then let them get up and prove it. It would be more instructive to hear their legal acumen exercised in supporting that proposition in Debate than to have the statement merely thrown across the Table. I do not gather that the legal luminaries to whom the right hon. Gentleman has referred have yet ventured to do more than to say that they think it would be illegal. When they reach a more certain frame of mind perhaps they—or, at any rate, one of them—will make a statement on the matter. If they do not reach a more certain frame of mind, perhaps they will put words into the clause to put the thing beyond doubt. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy oscillated between two inconsistent theories; in one half of his speech he said the whole matter was to be done by delegation; in the other he stated that it was provided for in the Bill as it stands. And when I asked—"Where is it provided for in the Bill?" he said, "In the framework of the Bill." Well, we asked—" What is the framework of the Bill?" but to that question we got no trace of an answer. I know what the clauses, and the sub-sections, and the Preamble of a Bill are, but I do not know what the framework is. When a Judge is asked to interpret the framework of a Bill, what does he do? I should think he does what we do— namely, ask the learned counsel what clause, and sub-section, and definite statement in the Bill carries out his declaration. I say we have asked what is
    1006
    meant, and have received no trace of an answer. To be told by the same Minister in the same speech, in the first place, that the thing cannot be done; in the second place, that it is done; and, in the third place, that though it is not done in the Bill it ought to be done in the delegation, is placing before us a mass of inconsistencies which are difficult to swallow. If these inconsistencies were to be expressed they ought at least to have been put into the mouths of different Ministers, and not to have all come from one. Then as to the answer which it was attempted to give to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Birmingham (Mr. Matthews) with regard to the objection he raised in reference to the double Executive in Ireland. My right hon. Friend said—"If you are going by your instrument of delegation to except from the powers of the Lord Lieutenant certain spheres of action, those spheres will be left empty, and the vacuum must be filled up by some Executive authority, which by a natural process will be the English Ministry—probably the Home Secretary—and this will have the effect of setting up a double Executive." But the Chancellor of the Duchy says that there is no force in that objection, for that is already done in the Bill. Let me grant that that is so, and that this unfortunate Lord Lieutenant is to carry out a double Executive function. You have only got to alter the form in which the right hon. Gentleman's argument is put, and you can say that under the plan of the Government there will be three Executives in Ireland. In some cases the Lord Lieutenant will act as advised by Her Majesty, in others as advised by his Irish Government, and in a third set of cases he will not act at all, but the whole matter will be done by the Home Secretary. I listened most carefully to the speech of the Attorney General yesterday and to the Chancellor of the Duchy this evening, and was at a loss to understand why the Government are so obstinately set upon refusing this Amendment. If it is impossible to put in the Bill words that will prevent the Lord Lieutenant in his Executive capacity dealing with things forbidden to the Legislature in Ireland, I say it will be impossible under the system of delegation. Even if there were no other argument against leaving this to the delegation, the argument would remain absolutely

    1007
    conclusive that we wish to lay down in permanent and unalterable terms the limitations and protections which we give to the minority in Ireland and to Imperial interests. Your proposal is in favour of leaving it open to every Government that sends a delegation to put the question in what form it likes, to accept what it pleases, and to protect whom it chooses. We therefore say that inasmuch as it is certain that limitations on the Executive are as necessary in these great objects as on legislation, it is necessary to see that the limitations are embodied in a permanent form in the Bill itself, and not left to the haphazard policy of successive Governments.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he agreed in principle, as he thought they all did, with the Chancellor of the Duchy and the hon. Member for Longford opposite, that the limits of the action of the Executive Authority ought to be strictly conterminous with the limits of the action of the Legislature. If they were agreed in that, the question really resolved itself into this: Was it well that the equality of the action of the Legislature and of the Executive should be expressed in the Bill, or ought the limits of Executive action to be reserved to be expressed in the delegation by which certain prerogatives were conferred on the Lord Lieutenant? The arguments that had been used in favour of not expressing the Executive action of the Act appeared to be these: they could get more elasticity in the delegation—they could learn by experience, and, where necessary, modify the terms. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy had said—"You would have more flexibility in the matter of the delegation." Well, these things might be looked on by some people as merits, but in the eyes of the Opposition they were faults. If the delegation were to be conterminous with legislative authority, what ground was there for having any elasticity? They did not intend to limit the action of the Executive within the limits of the Legislative Authority; they did not intend to go beyond them. It was intended to make them conterminous—simple words would make them so—and if that was the principle to be adopted why should it not be expressed in words instead of allowing an ambiguity to exist? Were they afraid to make it more clear? Were
    1008
    they afraid to make the matter independent of the varying opinions of successive Ministries? The Opposition did not want to allow successive Ministries to exercise the elasticity—now withdrawing and now extending powers. They wanted the Lord Lieutenant to be informed strictly what he could do and in what capacity he could do it, so that he could never be at a loss, when circumstances arose, to know what was his duty, and what was the course of action he would pursue. In Canada, in the remarkable case of the half-breed Riel, the sentence was carried out upon the responsibility and the advice given by Sir John Macdonald. He accepted all the responsibility.
    MR. BLAKEsaid, that in Canada the law of treason was a local law.
    MR. COURTNEY: In such a case in Ireland the local Ministry would have no authority.
    An hon. MEMBER: We are agreed on that.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he wanted to make the matter plain and not leave it obscure. They wanted to put into the Act that which the Government said was involved in it, and that which they said was their principle—namely, that the local Ministry would have no responsibility, because Executive functions were not to transcend the limits of legislative action in Ireland, and the Legislature would have nothing to do with treason. In receiving an address from the Legislature on such a subject as reciprocity or the abolition of the Most Favoured Nation Clause and passing it on to the Imperial Government, the Lord Lieutenant would be acting simply as the Representative of Her Majesty, and it was desired that that should be made plain and not be left ambiguous in the Bill. They wanted to prevent the possibility of error. The hon. Gentleman opposite, and, he was afraid, Her Majesty's Government, went a little' too far in their estimate of the wisdom and Constitutional knowledge of all Imperial Ministers. In a former branch of this discussion he had referred to a case that happened not very long ago. There was a great Ministerial crisis in one of our Australian Colonies-The Governor was pressed by his Ministers to take certain action; and, being uncertain as to whether that action was

    1009
    within the scope of his authority, he telegraphed for instructions to the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who responded—"Consult your Constitutional authorities." The very question which perplexed him was whether it was or was not his duty to consult his advisers, and he was told to consult them upon the question whether he should consult them. That had happened to a distinguished Minister in quite recent times. It might happen again. They now had the opportunity of preventing it in the case of Ireland, and they should avail themselves of that opportunity. Yesterday the Government had accepted a proviso which was really an abandonment of the position they now seemed desirous to maintain.
    MR. BYRNEsaid, it seemed to him that the matter stood thus: This Bill would exempt certain subjects from the Irish Legislature, but it was argued on the part of the Government that the Irish Executive could act in respect of matters excluded from the powers of the Legislature. He should have thought himself that that, to say the least of it, was a doubtful position. He was afraid, however, that they must accept it as the view of the Government, after the statement of the Chancellor of the Duchy with, no doubt, the concurrence of the Law Officers of the Crown. The last Amendment, it was said, was unnecessary, but it had been accepted by right hon. Gentlemen opposite; and having, therefore, adopted a certain subject for the purpose of excluding it from the enumerated subjects, the maxim must apply—inclusio unius est exclusio alterius.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the Charter of national education allowed the Education Board in Ireland to alter the fundamental principle of the national system of education, with the consent of the Lord Lieutenant. In what capacity and on whose advice would the Lord Lieutenant act either in giving or withholding his assent to the abolition of the Conscience Clause? That question had been asked by his right hon. Friend, and the Government had not thought it necessary to reply; but the question was important, and they ought to have an answer.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, the Chancellor of the Duchy had replied to the question, but he (Mr. Morley) was quite willing to
    1010
    repeat the answer. The hon. Gentleman assumed that the National Board would go to the Lord Lieutenant and say that —" We propose to do away with the Conscience Clause." What did that clause affect, and what was it affected by —a grant of public money? That money was granted by the Appropriation Act to schools on the hypothesis that they would have a Conscience Clause, and it was suggested that in future the money might be granted on the understanding that there should be no Conscience Clause. Uuder the 4th subsection of this Bill such a proceeding on the part of the National Board would be invalid, and the Lord Lieutenant could not assent to any such act.
    Question put.
    The House divided: — Ayes 146; Noes 200.—(Division List, No. 279.)
    MR. H. HOBHOUSEmoved to add, at the end of line 38, Clause 5—
    "Such Committee is in this Act referred to as the Irish Government."
    He said, the Amendment was consequential on a new clause which had been accepted by the Government. No doubt it would be said that the subject should be dealt with in the Definition Clause; but he was afraid the clause would not be reached in time to be dealt with by a private Member. If the Government would undertake to deal with it in the Definition Clause he should be perfectly satisfied.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 38, to insert, at the end of the last Amendment, the words "such Committee is in this Act referred to as the Irish Government."—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. RUSSELL,)said, he thought the statement in the Amendment was inaccurate. The Committee referred to in the clause was the Cabinet, and the Cabinet was not the Government, but only part of the Government.
    MR. SEXTONpointed out that many of the references in the Bill to the Irish Government referred to a more extensive Body than the Executive Committee.
    MR. COURTNEYagreed that it would be inconvenient to accept the Amendment as it Stood, but urged that some definition of the "Irish Government" referred to in the new clause was needed.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The Amendment of the new clause can be made by the House of Lords.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I will look into the matter in the course of the evening, and if I agree with my right hon. Friend (Mr. Courtney), I will put a provision into the Definition Clause.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. HANBURYmoved to insert—
    Clause 5, page 3, line 38, at the end: "Provided always, that there shall be a Secretary for Ireland holding office in the Imperial Ministry, and who may be a Member of either House of Parliament."
    He said, that the somewhat similar Amendment moved in Committee differed in some respects from the present proposal. He believed the former Amendment stipulated that the Secretary for Ireland should be a Member of the Executive Committee, and since it was moved the matters reserved to the Imperial Parliament had been largely increased in number, while it had been finally settled that 80 Irish Members should remain in the Imperial Parliament. In introducing the Amendment he was simply endeavouring to enable the new Irish Constitution to be worked as every other Constitution in the Empire was worked. There was in the Imperial Parliament a Secretary representing India, although that country contributed nothing towards the expense of the India Office; there was a Secretary for the Colonies, although those Colonies were to a large extent independent, and had hitherto been Secretaries both for Ireland and Scotland. The theory that had been put forward by the Government was that Imperial matters in Ireland would practically be under the control and responsibility of the particular Ministers in charge of the particular Department affected, and that for Irish matters no special Minister was required. Although the Imperial Parliament was to retain its supremacy over all Irish matters, and was to be able to legislate in all matters relating to Ireland, and although there would be very nice
    1012
    and delicate matters connected with the limits of the respective authorities of the two Parliaments, the Government did not think it necessary to have a special Minister to deal with these questions. It seemed to be the idea in the mind of the Government that the Home Secretary would deal with them. The Home Secretary was already one of the hardest worked of our Ministers, and he had about the least to do with Ireland of any Minister. The Chief Secretary had said that under the old system the Home Secretary was the Irish Minister. Under Grattan's Parliament, however, the Executive was an English Executive, whilst under this Bill the Executive was to be under the control of the Irish Parliament. The Departmental Ministers who, according to the theory of the Government, were to be responsible for Departmental work in Ireland would not, as a matter of fact, be responsible for it. Could it be said that the English Education Minister would be responsible for all the difficult questions connected with education that would arise in Ireland? Would the English Attorney General be responsible for prosecutions for treason in Ireland? Would the Home Secretary be responsible for the control of the Irish Constabulary? Then there was the Land Question, and another question which the Prime Minister said the other day the House of Commons ought to maintain a lively observation of—the appointment of Land Commissioners.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I did not say this House.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, in that case he did not see who was to maintain the lively observation. [An hon. MEMBER: Parliament!] If the Prime Minister meant Parliament, he thought it was hardly worthy of the right hon. Gentleman to draw such a fine distinction. Was the Minister for Agriculture to be responsible for matters connected with land in Ireland? They knew that he was nothing of the sort. Therefore they wanted a Minister for Ireland who would be responsible to the House of Commons for matters which did not fall under the cognisance of any Departmental Minister in England. There was abundance of work for such a Minister, and work which would never be properly done if it were left to the Home Secretary, who was already overburdened. They had

    1013
    got a Secretary for Scotland, whose work was not near so heavy and responsible as the work of a Secretary for Ireland would be, and they had a Secretary for the Colonies, who, though he had very little to do with the Colonies, was the symbol of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. If Irish Members were willing to have a Minister for Ireland retained in the House as a symbol of Imperial supremacy, just as the Colonies were willing that there should be a Colonial Minister in Parliament, he thought the Government would, no doubt, be willing to appoint such a Minister. But nothing of the sort was done by the Government, and he fancied that their Irish allies would not allow them to do it. The hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton), when the matter was raised in Committee, said, as to who was to be responsible, that it was a question of detail with which the Committee need not concern itself. On the contrary, it was a very important question—the question as to who was to be the Minister responsible for Ireland to the Imperial Parliament— and one which Parliament ought to discuss. This curious principle, enunciated by the hon. Member for North Kerry, had practically been accepted by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The Chief Secretary said, in reply to a question put by the right hon. and learned Member for Bury, that the Home Secretary would be responsible for what was done in Ireland "as far as this House could be cognisant of it." That was a strange observation of the right hon. Gentleman, for as long as the Imperial supremacy was retained this House ought to be cognisant of everything in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Member for Bury asked whether the Home Secretary would be responsible for the advice given to the Lord Lieutenant, and the answer was—" Certainly not for the advice given, but for the action taken." That was a most unconstitutional doctrine. Then the Chief Secretary was asked who would be responsible for the advice, and according to The Times' report the only reply given was this— "Mr. Morley shrugged his shoulders." That was not a sufficient answer to give to a question of such importance. Hero they had the Chief Secretary for Ireland shrugging his shoulders and unable to tell them who would be responsible for the advice given to the Lord Lieutenant
    1014
    under Home Rule. If the Home Secretary was not to be responsible for the advice given to the Lord Lieutenant, it was high time to have a Minister who would be responsible. Ireland had at present its separate responsible Minister for each Department of Irish work, and its Lord Lieutenant acting as a Constitutional Monarch. He asked that that state of things should continue under Home Rule. He asked that they should have in this Imperial Parliament under Home Rule a separate responsible Minister for Ireland, as they had for Scotland and for the Colonies, and that that Minister should be responsible to them as the Irish Ministers would be responsible to the Irish Legislature. Surely this proposal was only carrying out the Constitutional practice. Why should they have this difference between the state of things which existed now when they had a Minister for Ireland and the state of things which would come into existence if the Bill was passed? There was no real reason for it. Why should there be this objection to appointing a British Minister who would be responsible for affairs in Ireland? At present the President of the Board of Trade had charge of Irish lighthouses, beacons, buoys, &c, and he would continue to be responsible for all those Irish matters in the future as in the past. The President of the Board of Trade was a responsible Minister in every sense of the word; but directly they got away from the Departmental subjects the Government proposed that the Home Secretary should look after the more general affairs in Ireland, but that he should not be responsible for the advice given. That would be a gross anomaly. They would have two sets of Ministers under the Home Rule Bill—one set responsible to the House, and another set not responsible to the House. There would be a great distinction between the Home Secretary in his different functions; because, as a Departmental Minister, he would be responsible for the Constabulary in Ireland just as he was responsible for the Police in Loudon; but for all other matters in Ireland which generally fell strictly within his Department as Home Secretary he would have no responsibility at all. Those were very absurd restrictions, and the only way to get rid of that absurdity was to have in the future, as in the past, a Minister for Ireland who

    1015
    would be responsible for all those matters. He was not asking for anything unusual. He was simply asking that they should have a Minister who, by his very name, should be the symbol of the Imperial supremacy in Ireland, in the same sense as the Secretary for the Colonies was the symbol of the Imperial supremacy in the Colonies; and that they should adopt in regard to Ireland the same practice which was adopted in regard to every other portion of the British Empire— namely, that there should be a Minister in this House distinctly and separately responsible for it. On these four grounds —bocause they wanted a symbol of Imperial supremacy in Ireland, because it was the universal practice to have such a Minister, because it was absolutely necessary to have such a Minister on account of the work that was to be done, and, above all, in the interest of Constitutional principles—he begged to move the Amendment, and ho hoped the Government would be induced to accept it.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 38, at the end of the last Amendment, to insert the words,— "Provided always, that there shall be a Secretary for Ireland holding Office in the Imperial Ministry, and who may be a Member of either House of Parliament."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have very great jealousy of the constitution of offices by Statute. It is very far from being the universal practice in this country. It appears to me that offices ought to be constituted according to the necessity arising for them, and of that necessity you cannot judge until circumstances have attained a state of ripeness. It is totally impossible for any man, be his experience what it may, to form a judgment at present as to what in all likelihood will be the amount of Irish business normally devolving on the House of Commons under the system of Homo Rule. On special occasions offices are constituted by Statute; but if you were to go over the list of offices recently established and hold by Members of the Cabinet, my belief is that a very small minority of them would be found to have been so constituted. The hon. Member who has moved the Amendment has not observed what is the established practice in this country.
    MR. HANBURY: The Minister for Agriculture was constituted by Statute a few years ago.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Some of the offices were constituted by Statute, such as the Secretary for India and the Secretary for War; but in each of those cases there were specific reasons. The Secretary for India was constituted by Statute because it was thought by Parliament that the President of the Board of Trade, who had previously looked after India, could not possibly continue to discharge the mass of business in relation to India, which grew with the extension of the Indian Empire. Perhaps the House does not recollect that it is not very long ago since the Secretary for the Colonies was also Secretary for War. I have myself held the offices 47 years ago. It was when Parliament—whether wisely or unwisely is a matter on which I reserve my judgment—broke up the old military offices and scattered them that it became necessary to establish at their head a separate Minister, and as it was thought impossible that the Secretary for the Colonies could discharge the duties a Secretary for War was appointed. But my point is that there is no case whatever for the allegation of the hon. Gentleman that there is certain to be a necessity under Homo Rule for a separate office for Ireland. I admit that, as regards Imperial duties connected with Ireland, there will be a standing responsibility for which provision ought to be made; but I am not sure that that responsibility will entail any serious addition to the work of any existing Government Office, or will require the appointment of a new officer of State to deal with it. If all the prohibitions and exclusions contained in Clause 3 are looked at it will be seen that almost all the excluded subjects fell within the province of one or other of the existing British Ministers; and my opinion is that all the Imperial duties which will continue to attach to the British Legislature will be specifically provided for under the different Departments of the Government. I do not deny, however, that there will be a general responsibility in connection with Irish affairs; but that will be the responsibility of the Government at large, and not of any particular Minister. No doubt, if a particular case arises it will be the duty of the Government at large to make a specific provision; but

    1017
    we say that we should have the light of experience before we make such a provision as the hon. Member asks for in his Amendment. We should submit a Resolution on the subject to the consideration of the House, and with regard to which the House would have the advantage of being able to judge whether it was required. Therefore, I object to this Amendment altogether as being in every sense premature. The hon. Gentleman says that such a Minister would be the symbol of our supremacy in Ireland. I think supremacy would have reached a very low obb indeed, if it was to depend upon the presence of some individual or another in this Parliament to show that it exists.
    MR. HANBURY: I did not say that it was to be the sole symbol of supremacy.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I did not say anything about its being the sole symbol. Of course, the hon. Member gave other reasons. But this is one reason, and what an absurd reason it is. What; the hon. Member wants is that there should be a perpetual supervision of Irish affairs by this House. We are not to be deprived of any portion of the means we have now for interfering day by day in the Government of Ireland. The object of the hon. Member appears to be to keep alive the system which is known as "Dublin Castle." There is to be a perpetual supervision by this House over all Executive transactions in Ireland under Home Rule as there is now. To that I object.
    MR. HANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman himself, in a recent speech, expressed the hope that Parliament would keep a lively observation on Ireland.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The hon. Gentleman does not quote my words. He gives his recollection of them. I also depend on my recollection, but I know the idea that I intended to convey, and that was that an earnest observation should be carried on by those who had got a particular interest in the Land Question. I say that the hon. Gentleman desires to have on the part of this House a perpetual supervision over all Executive transactions in Ireland, and that consequently the existing machinery should be retained. The object of the Government, however, is to get rid alto-
    1018
    gether of that supervision, and certainly we do not intend to set up a Minister to whom dozens of questions at a time may be put with regard to Irish local matters. If it is intended by the hon. Gentleman or by anybody else —and many of the speeches we have heard tend to inspire the belief that such a desire does exist in many quarters— that there should be a Minister here for the purpose of having dozens of questions put to him in regard to local and casual occurrences in Ireland, so as to encourage the perpetual bringing of Irish affairs before this House, I say that independently of all other objections on that ground alone no such provision will be made. The case of the Colonies does not apply. If the Colonies had started into life as self-governing countries, I am not at all sure that a Secretary of State would have been necessary. But the necessity for the Office arose historically, and it must be maintained in regard to the Crown Colonies. But there is no necessity for such an Office in regard to Ireland; and we, therefore, cannot accept the Amendment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have listened with attention to the right hon. Gentleman, but I have not listened with-out regret. He has told us that if there were self-governing Colonies existing from the first, a Secretary of State for the Colonies would not have been required. I think that if the right hon. Gentleman will consult the Secretary for the Colonies he will find that the self-governing Colonies require constant attention on the part of the English Cabinet, and, therefore, there is no reason to suppose that the attention will be less necessary in the case of Ireland. I concede, however, that the right hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that we in the Imperial Parliament do not desire to spend our lives over minute details of Irish administration, and that it is impossible for anyone to prophesy with accuracy at the present time the exact amount of work which would fall on an Irish Minister constituted by the arrangement proposed by my hon. Friend. But some duties will be cast on a Minister who ought to be responsible to the House of Commons for giving some information as to Irish affairs; and now, and not later, as the right hon. Gentle-

    1019
    man suggests, is the time to decide the point. Besides the questions reserved in Clause 3, there are also questions which will arise under Clause 4 which will not fall into any of the existing Departmental arrangements, and it is admitted on all hands that the Imperial Parliament must keep a general supervision over Irish affairs, and must have the power of debating questions of adequate importance when they arise. I do not see, therefore, how these questions are to be dealt with unless there is a Minister in the House who is in constant communication with the Irish Government and who can advise the House as to the views of the Irish Government. In the interest of the Irish Government themselves it is important that they should have a proper channel of communication with the House. Occasions, for instance, may arise in which the Government would be perfectly justified in their action, and of which, if the grounds for the action were known, no one would complain. Are we to be dependent on some Irish Member who is not a Member of the Irish Government and not in any way officially connected with them for their views on those occasions? Would it not be better, and more in accordance with Parliamentary usage, to have some authorised channel of communication? The question, therefore, resolves itself into this—Is it, or is it not, desirable to give power to appoint a? Minister in the Bill, or must we wait until the necessity is forced upon us by the actual difficulties in which we find ourselves by the non-existence of the Minister? The right hon. Gentleman seems to entertain the idea that it would be possible to appoint a Minister by some process less elaborate than a Bill. I believe that a very small number of Ministers now exist except under statutory power, and all the modern Ministries have been created not by the Crown, but by Parliament. The Ministers for War, for India, for Scotland, for Agriculture have been constituted by Act of Parliament; and I have a painful recollection of the time when the late Government desired to appoint my lamented Friend (Colonel King-Harman) to be Under Secretary for Ireland. That appointment could not be made without an Act of Parliament, and we had to drop the Bill because we found the diffi-
    1020
    culties would have been almost insuperable, owing to the opposition, had we endeavoured to proceed with the Bill. I say, therefore, if you do not settle the question in this Bill, that when the necessity for an Irish Minister is felt, and when the Government of the day brings in a Bill to appoint one, hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, who may have good reasons why no such office should be established, will deal with the appointment of an Irish Secretary as they dealt with a subordinate appointment in the Irish Office. Those reasons are quite conclusive in favour of the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and I think he was well justified in bringing it forward.
    SIR T. LEAsaid, that the Irish Land Question would continue to demand, even under Home Rule, a good deal of attention and trouble in the Imperial Parliament. The question was reserved from the Irish Legislature for three years. If there was to be a Bill dealing with the land to pass through the House during these three years, it would be desirable to know what Minister would have charge of a measure of such importance. No existing Minister would be able to carry through the House a complicated measure like that. The Prime Minister had said that there would not be many important Irish questions raised in that House under Home Rule. Well, the Irish minority would always look to that House for the due protection of its rights and privileges. As subjects of the Queen they would have the right to look to the House, and whenever the need arose they would come to the House and claim protection. They, therefore, considered that a special Minister should be appointed to look after the affairs of Ireland.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the hon. Baronet must not have read the Amendment. The hon. Baronet was extremely anxious that there should be a Minister to answer for the affairs of Ireland in the House of Commons. The Amendment said that the Minister should be in either House of Parliament; so that even if the Amendment were carried there would be no security that the object desired by the hon. Baronet would be carried into effect. He submitted that the proposal in the Amendment was

    1021
    entirely inappropriate. The range of the Imperial subjects reserved from Ireland were not confined to one Department, but extended to all Departments. A glance through the excepted subjects in Clause 3 made it evident that if one Minister were appointed to deal with the affairs of Ireland that Minister would have to deal with Imperial affairs which were properly belonging to the various Departments of the Government. He submitted, therefore, that the appointment of one Minister would involve, necessarily, continual friction, and possibly conflict, between him and the other Members of the Government. The responsibility of the Government was a responsibility on the whole Government, and could not be devolved on any one Member of the Government.
    MR. RENTOULsaid, ho had had no doubt whatever before he saw the Bill, or before it was brought before the House on the Second Reading, that one of the things that was certain to be provided for in it was the retention in this House of a responsible Minister who would be able to answer questions, to give explanations, and generally to deal with Irish affairs; therefore it was not wonderful that his hon. Friend should have brought forward this Amendment, or that they should have had the question before them under several different heads during the Committee stage of the Bill; it seemed to him absolutely necessary that there should be in that House a Minister responsible for Irish affairs. According to the Amendment a Minister responsible for Ireland might he in either House; but he (Mr. Rentoul) agreed with the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) that it would be better to have the Minister in that House, so that he could be questioned by Members here. But with respect to one point urged from that side of the House and ridiculed from the other—namely, as to the advisability of having a Minister in that House as an emblem of supremacy, he thought that was a matter of great importance.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. RENTOULproceeded. He was saying this matter of a Minister in that House as an emblem of Imperial supremacy was rather important, because when they asked in Committee where there
    1022
    was anything in reference to Imperial supremacy they were told it was scattered all through the Bill, and was contained in all parts of it. A thing that was in all parts of a Bill might very likely be held by lawyers to be in no part of the Bill at all. Our Colonies were represented by a Colonial Minister, and though the Prime Minister said the Colonial Minister was retained because there were Crown Colonies who had not a Government of their own, he (Mr. Rentoul) thought the experience of Colonial Governors was that their services had been required more in connection with those Colonies that had a Legislature and Executive of their own than even with regard to the Crown Colonies. But with reference to an Irish Minister in that House it was said that the various matters that were at present under the cognisance of the Irish Chief Secretary would be, after this Bill was passed, scattered throughout every Department. For example, that the Minister for Education here would be the man who would be responsible to a certain extent, at any rate, not merely for the education in Great Britain, but for the education in Ireland; that the Minister for Agriculture would have his eye on the agriculture of Ireland also; and the English Attorney General would be the man to instigate prosecutions for treason after this Bill passed. But the difficulty that arose in his mind with reference to that was this —that these Ministers would probably know nothing whatever about the affairs of Ireland. Suppose the Chief Secretary for Ireland, now in that House, were asked a question with reference to Irish education or any other important Irish matter, he would be ashamed to get up and say, "Really I do not know anything about that." But suppose the Minister of Education here—the Vice President of the Council — were asked some minutely technical question about education in Ireland, he might very properly say —"I know nothing about that," and no one would think anything the worse of him that he did not pretend to know that, because he would simply be the Minister for Great Britain and not for Ireland. If a man undertook the duties as Minister representing Ireland in that House, he would be selected as a man knowing something about Ireland; but if the Irish business was to be scattered through the hands of a number of Departments, how

    1023
    was any one of them to have a knowledge of Irish affairs? It was supposed a man was selected for a particular office because he had some special knowledge—more than the average Member of the House— with regard to that Department. It was told of a certain gentleman, who was suddenly asked to undertake the duty of Secretary of State for the Colonies, that after he accepted the appointment and went back to his office he said to his secretary—"Had we not better get down the map and see where these places are?" Whether that was true in fact or not, it represented a great truth—that many found themselves in places they were little competent by knowledge or experience to fill. But if they had a man here who undertook the duty as his sole work, he would, for his own sake, try to make it his business, even if he knew nothing whatever of it. The Prime Minister ridiculed the idea that there should be a Minister who would exercise a sort of perpetual supervision over Irish affairs in that House. But that was the consolation that was given to them all through the Bill that there was to be a constant supervision exercised, and that if the Irish Parliament should do anything wrong, which, said the Members of the Government, "We do not for a moment expect, but in the extreme case, in the almost impossible case, that they should do something wrong, we are here to interfere." What they wanted was to put into the Bill the machinery by which that interference could be brought into active play. The Prime Minister said they must wait until they saw what the duties of the Irish Minister would be, because at present they did not know what ho would be needed for. Undoubtedly, he would be needed for the question referred to by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Londonderry (Sir T. Lea)—the question of the land. The very moment this Act came into force, then they expected this would be one of the first questions that would be brought before the House, because the Prime Minister had said that it was impossible to conceive that during the next three years this Land Question would not be attempted to be dealt with by some Government in this country. The very moment, therefore, that the appointed day arrived and the Bill came into operation, there was the Land Question, which was not a comparatively small
    1024
    thing as it was in England, but which was almost the whole life of the Irish people, and of great concern to that country. The Prime Minister had also stated that trade matters with regard to Ireland could be dealt with by the President of the Board of Trade, and matters concerning foreign relations could be dealt with by the Foreign Secretary for the entire Empire. But they wanted to have a man whom they would know, who would undertake the duties of the Irish Minister, because he knew something about the inner life of Ireland and Irish concerns generally. They did not want to have Irish affairs scattered over the entire Members of the Government of this country, giving them full proof of the truth of the common saying that what was everybody's business was nobody's business. The Prime Minister said he did not deny that outside these affairs there would be a general responsibility not provided for, and not under the supervision of any of the present Ministers. For example, there might be a matter of conflict on laws, or between class and class. The right hon. Gentleman, after using what he no doubt considered his convincing argument, that the Irish affairs would be scattered among the different Departments of this country, then turned to refute his own argument, and said—"I do not deny there will be a general responsibility not provided for," instancing two classes of cases of the very gravest and greatest importance. Yes; certainly there would be a general responsibility, and, according to the admission of the Prime Minister, there would be needed a Minister to represent that responsibility. The Prime Minister said there might be such a need in the future. The future would have arrived the moment this Bill passed with regard to the Land Question. But the Prime Minister used his customary argument, which was to postpone the evil day, and he said they would postpone the appointment of this Minister to some future time. The right hon. Gentleman said—" I am extremely jealous of a Minister appointed by Statute." If the Prime Minister was jealous of a Minister appointed by Statute, he was face to face with the fact that all recent appointments had been by Statute, and it seemed to be the mind of this country that the appointments for all future time should be made by Statute. In fact, those Ministers whose offices were

    1025
    not created by Statute were old creatures of the past—the recent ones had all been directly and distinctly appointed by Statutes passed by that House. The Prime Minister said—" I know what gentlemen opposite are trying to do; they are trying to revive another form of the old system of government by Dublin Castle." The old system was simply government by the representative Minister of the Crown for the time being. Dublin Castle was a set of officials absolutely under the power and control of the Irish Chief Secretary for the time, who was a Member of the Government then in power and almost always a Member of the Cabinet; therefore the idea that they were trying to revive an iniquitous system, which the Prime Minister seemed to imply that Dublin Castle was, was surely a fallacy when they recollected that Dublin Castle was a set of officials governed by a Minister in the Cabinet of this country. It seemed to him there was by this Bill a large number of matters retained from the power of the Irish Parliament, and on which it would not have power to legislate, and according to the Debate that evening matters with which the Irish Executive would not have power to deal. No doubt, some of these matters could be answered for by a particular Minister. For example, any matter regarding trade laws might be under the direction of the President of the Board of Trade; but with regard to questions most important of all which affected the people, which were calculated to raise reeling in Ireland, and which the minority had their attention particularly turned to, there would be no official in that House when the Chief Secretary was removed who would be able to answer questions or give a scrap of information. Under these circumstances, seeing that the Colonists were represented in the Imperial Parliament, seeing that there was the greatest possible necessity for this Minister, and seeing that, according to the Prime Minister, the Land Question would occupy the attention of that House during the first three years of the existence of the Irish Parliament, surely it was not too much to ask that there should be a responsible Minister, whom, for his part, he should prefer to see in that House.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he thought the Prime Minister hardly treated this Amendment with the attention it
    1026
    deserved. The right hon. Gentleman relied upon one argument only, and that was that there was no reason to suppose that the future exigencies of Parliamentary life in the Imperial Parliament would require a Minister of State to reply for Irish affairs. He could not for a moment agree with the Prime Minister —that there was no experience upon which the Opposition could base their claim for such a Minister. In the first place, what had they to look forward to if this Bill became law? They had to look forward to a period of Parliamentary life when there would be 80 Irish Members in that House; and they knew that this Bill was regarded by those Members as merely transitional and tentative, and they had also this fact, which was patent to all who read the Irish Nationalist Press and the speeches made by the supporters of the Prime Minister in Ireland—that they looked upon the whole policy of the right hon. Gentleman as incomplete, and requiring in the next few years the greatest attention of those whose duty it was, as patriotic Irishmen, to obtain that full measure of Home Rule which their country demanded. That being so, it appeared to him the Prime Minister was not justified in saying there was no basis for the demand of the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hanbury). It was admitted that there would be a large number of problems of a most difficult and delicate character not solved by this measure. It was admitted that these problems—many of which entailed consequences of an incongruous and inconvenient nature, both to the Irish Government and the Government of the Imperial Ministry—would be complicated by the fact that the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, who was to represent the Crown and to be the Representative of the Imperial sovereignty of Parliament, was not confined in his action to one character, but would have to occupy three or four different positions. He would first of all be a purely Imperial servant; secondly, he would be a sort of Constitutional Monarch, who would be guided by the advice of an Irish Cabinet; and, thirdly, he would occupy a position which was consonant with neither of these two occupations—namely, he would have to act entirely upon his own responsibility, for instance, in relation to duties imposed upon him in regard to the Irish Constabulary for a period of six years, or perhaps

    1027
    onger. That being so, it appeared to him it was impossible to leave all these questions to the random consideration of some Minister or other of the future Imperial Government. The Chief Secretary had told them that the Government as a whole would be responsible; but that was a most unsatisfactory position in which to leave the matter. They all knew that from time to time questions arose in connection with which there was doubt as to what Minister was responsible, and after trying various Secretaries of State the unfortunate Member who was desirous of eliciting some definite answer to his query was referred from one Department to another by successive Secretaries of State, and was at last obliged to apply to the Prime Minister. They also knew that all Leaders of that House took advantage of the doubt and uncertainty which applied to the duties of the particular office to shuffle out of an awkward question. The hon. Member for Preston did not desire to appoint this Irish Minister for the purpose of interfering with the Irish Government. He did not say that this Minister ought to have any right to be or ought to be a Member of the Irish Cabinet; but he ought to represent in that House the relation between the Imperial Parliament and Ireland in the same way that the Colonial Secretary represented the connection between the Colonies and this country. The Prime Minister stated that the proposition of the hon. Member for Preston that this Minister was to be a symbol of the Imperial supremacy was to degrade the Imperial supremacy altogether. He did not agree with that, and he did not believe there were any Constitutional grounds for the view taken by the Prime Minister. At all events, there was the very high Constitutional authority of Mr. Hallam for the exactly opposite view. In one of the most powerful passages in his work on the Constitutional history of this country, Mr. Hallam had contended that the sovereignty of Parliament was principally established and maintained by the fact that within the walls of Parliament there were Ministers responsible to the Representatives of the people and to the sovereign power of the country; and it was in order to preserve the Imperial supremacy and the sovereign power of that House that he (Mr. Macartney) desired to see a Minister of State
    1028
    appointed, upon whose shoulders there would be a definite responsibility with regard to Irish affairs. The presence of 80 Irish Members in the House made it imperatively necessary there should be some Minister in the Imperial Parliament upon whom definite responsibility could be cast in relation to the action of the agent of the Imperial Parliament—the person who in Ireland represented that supremacy, and who had to exercise that veto with regard to supremacy of which they had heard so much in the country, and of which they saw so little in the provisions of that Bill. The occasions on which doubt must arise in the mind of the Lord Lieutenant—no matter how capable and efficient a public servant he might be—must be innumerable; and he would then be put to the very greatest extremity in dealing with matters submitted to the consideration of the Irish Parliament, and afterwards submitted to him for his exercise of the veto or not. What provision was there by which the communication between him and the Imperial Government would be simple and easy? Was it proposed in the instrument of his appointment to give him specific directions as to what Minister of State he was to apply to on the various questions that might arise. Let them assume that Parliament was not sitting, and the Members of the Cabinet were scattered to the four winds of Heaven. What Minister was the Lord Lieutenant to select to advise him upon one of these intricate and difficult problems which it was admitted by the framers of the Bill would be left to the decision of the Irish Parliament, or of the Lord Lieutenant, or of the Imperial Parliament? He thought the manner in which the Government had dealt with this whole matter showed that they had no intention of dealing with the relations of the Imperial Parliament to the Irish Legislature in a fashion which would be consonant with the professions they had made to the House and the country. Experience had shown it was necessary to have a Minister to meet the demands that were made by their relations to the Colonies in that or the other House; and he said that their experience of the past, together with the necessities this Bill created, made the appointment of a Minister to represent Ireland in an authoritative manner in the Imperial Par-

    1029
    liament in the future an absolute necessity. He hoped, therefore, the Government would accede to the Amendment.
    *MR. BRODRICKexpressed the opinion that not only would the convenience of Parliament be greatly served by having concentrated in one Minister matters relating to Ireland, but that if hon. Members who desired the establishment of a separate Parliament in Ireland would only look at the matter not from the point of view of the interference of an Irish Minister in that House with local affairs in Ireland, but from the point of view of the actual working of a Public Department, they would come to the conclusion that the adoption of such a proposal as that contained in the Amendment was the most important stroke they could make for the success of an Irish Parliament. What was the experience with regard to the Colonial Secretary? Did anybody suppose it likely that on any Colonial measure of importance the views of the Colonies would be considered by the Cabinet in the sense desired by the Colony if the responsibility rested not upon one Minister, but was divided among an irresponsible body of 12 or 14 Ministers? He thought the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) would himself feel that if Irish action were challenged in that House there would be no greater safeguard for Irish interests being properly represented or Irish opinion being properly expressed in the Cabinet than the fact that an Irish Minister was present there and could also submit them to Parliament. What he thought they suffered from now more than anything else was that at this moment and for years past they had had a majority of Representatives from Ireland not one of whom had a share in the Government of this country. He was speaking from the Imperial point of view, and he said there were men sitting on the Irish Benches at this moment who were absolutely in accord with the Ministry of the day, but for reasons which did them honour they preferred to hold themselves aloof from actual government and the emoluments of Office. That had been the case for many years. They had had many men sitting below the Gangway who practically had the power in that House, and they had had men sitting in Office who, without the Irish Members, had not
    1030
    the power. It was unquestionably one of the great weaknesses of the present Administration that they had a large number of supporters many of whom were competent, and would be desirable Members of its Administration, and yet not one of them, for certain reasons, was willing to join the Government. Was the farce really going to be perpetuated of having 80 Irish Members, who by the Bill were to be here for all purposes, not one of whom was to have a seat in this Government, or, if he did, could not be put there to deal with the affairs of the country he was to represent? It seemed to him that if, as was generally admitted, there was to be Imperial control, it was an irrational thing that that Imperial control should not be stereotyped in one person as was the case in regard to our Colonies at the present time. In the case of our Colonies, the highest distinction to which a man looked forward, next to that of Prime Minister, was to become Agent General to Great Britain. It was obvious, then, that it was an admirable Imperial instinct which induced men who had been Prime Ministers in their Colonies to come here as Agents General. If we now got the best men here from these Colonies who had no Bills to pass or money to vote in London, surely they could see what ought to happen in the case of those who were forced to have an Imperial instinct, who were to be obliged to come here to make Imperial laws. For that reason, he thought it would be a great misfortune if this self-denying ordinance laid down by hon. Members (the Irish Members) were to be applicable. It might be reasonable at present, but it would not be so under Home Rule. As to the Office of Irish Minister, he did not enter into that, beyond saying that probably the Chief Secretaryship for Ireland would be held, if one Party were in power, by men like the hon. Member for South Longford (Mr. Blake), and, if another were in power, by the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell). But to say that no man who might be an Irish Representative in the Imperial Parliament was to have a possibility of dealing with Irish affairs in this House in a responsible situation seemed to him to negative everything contained in the Bill. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would not put

    1031
    off until another Session what must be, and would be, the result of this measure — the establishment, from motives of convenience as well as of policy, of a Minister who would be responsible for the affairs of Ireland in the House of Commons—a position which could not properly be filled by the Viceroy, who, according to the Prime Minister, might be a Member of the Imperial Cabinet. He trusted the Government would recognise the importance of the question in time, and that they would not allow it to stand until another Session, but would deal with it in the calmer atmosphere of the present on the simple judgment as to what was best for Ireland and best for the Imperial position.
    *MR. BLAKEsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had said some gracious things of the Irish Members, which, on their behalf, he acknowledged; but there were some things to which he took exception. The latter portion of the hon. Gentleman's argument was based on the proposition that, unless there were established a Minister for Irish affairs, it would be practically impossible for any one of the 80 Members who were to be sent to the Imperial Parliament to become a Member of the Imperial Government. Well, Scotland had a population of 4,000,000— not as much as Ireland:—and that country had six Members in the Cabinet. The hon. Gentleman said the Irish Secretary was not necessarily to be a Member from Ireland, and unless they insisted upon it that he should be, they could not take any part in the government of the country.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, he did not say "the government of the country." He referred to the government of the country which the Members would come here to represent.
    *MR. BLAKEsaid, Members, in a sense, came from Scotland to represent Scotland, from England to represent England; but they came not to represent those particular portions of the country only, but to represent the whole United Kingdom. The Members from Ireland would come in the same sense. They did not propose to come here to represent Ireland alone, nor to deal with Irish local affairs alone, or, indeed, at all, but to take their part in the common concerns of the United Kingdom. He denied that there was any self-denying ordinance in their
    1032
    objecting to the Amendment. There would be a self-denying ordinance, he thought, in assenting to it. He was glad to feel assured that, this Amendment not being agreed to, yet whatever Member of the Government accepted the duty of becoming the medium of communication and the exponent of the views of the Viceroy might still be an Irishman. He regretted, with the hon. Member, that the circumstances of the past had made it necessary, obviously necessary, that the Members of the Irish Party should take no part in the Government of the Empire; and he rejoiced, if he might be allowed to say so, with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Brodrick) that, on this Bill becoming an Act, those circumstances would be ended, and it would then be competent for them to take a common part in that Government. But he hoped that there would be no such limitation as was suggested— that the Minister to be appointed from among Irishmen would not be merely the Irish Secretary; but that they would be allowed to take such common part in the work of government as their own merits might deserve and as they might justly claim as good citizens of the Empire.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, be wondered what conclusion Ministers had arrived at as to the particular one of their many Bills they were new discussing. They were supposed to be discussing one which got rid of Irish questions in that House. But that was not so. Ministers seemed to be under the impression that Irish questions were got rid of; but most important questions remained—the questions of the Army and Navy, relationship with the Colonies, finance, the Post Office arrangements, and other important matters — police and the land. Each one of them was of sufficient importance, he thought, to necessitate a Minister in this country. The Imperial matters in Ireland were still to be treated here, and it followed from this that they did not get rid of Ireland. If there was a case for a Minister of Agriculture in England, how was it, in these circumstances, that there was not a case for a Minister for Imperial affairs in Ireland? It was a very remarkable thing that it was suggested there was to be no interference with Ireland after the passing of this Bill. He must point out that there was a most minute and intimate

    1033
    interference by Clause 12 of the Bill, which provided that the Comptroller and Auditor General was to go into the whole of the finances—not of Ireland only, but of the relative finances of Ireland and England—and who was, upon his own determination in this country, to issue an order, and to send it to the Lord Lieutenant; and upon that act—which was to be mandatory on the Lord Lieutenant— no payment was to be made out of the funds of the Irish Exchequer until the Comptroller and Auditor General had been satisfied. That was an instance of extreme minuteness. Then he came to the question of a Minister. It was admitted there was to be a Minister here to speak for Ireland—the Home Secretary. The only question was whether there was to be a special Minister, or whether, in addition to his duties, the Home Secretary was to undertake this duty in connection with Ireland? It seemed to him that the Prime Minister had shown that want of respect for Ireland and that want of sense of the dignity of Irish affairs of which he had so often accused them (the Opposition). According to the right hon. Gentleman, these affairs were not to be worthy of having a Minister—they were not of sufficient importance to warrant the appointment of a special Minister. The Post Office in England was, in itself, enough to warrant the appointment of a Minister; and yet the Home Secretary was to have all these matters under his control. He thought he was right in saying that the Home Secretary was not, however, to be responsible, so that a fatal duality existed in his case, as in the case of every official under the Bill. The Prime Minister said he objected, because the Amendment would make any appointment of an Irish Minister a statutory post. Yet every one of the instances that he quoted was statutory. He said that the Secretary of State for India was created fur special reasons. The appointment was for the same reason that existed in this case. It was expected in the case ([noted by the Prime Minister that the work would he very great; in this case they did not know how much work would have to be done, but they know it would be very great. Another reason given by the Prime Minister was that no Minister should he personally responsible, but the Cabinet should be responsible in its
    1034
    corporate capacity. That was an entirely wrong and equally false doctrine under the British Constitution. They ought to have fixed responsibility. The proposition of the Prime Minister meant that they should have no responsibility at all. Was the late Mr. John Bright responsible for the bombardment of Alexandria — an act which he denounced as a crime against the laws of nations and the moral law, and upon which he left the Ministry of that day? Would they impeach Mr. Bright in that case? He was a Member of the Cabinet that ordered the bombardment— there was no record kept of Cabinet meetings, and they could not know the extent of his responsibility; but he was a Member of the Cabinet, and the inference was that he was a party to what was done, though he afterwards denounced it. They should have, therefore, in his opinion, a Minister who would be personally responsible, and no corporate responsibility. Another reason put forward by the Prime Minister was that his hon. Friend wished to keep Dublin Castle in existence; but this Bill kept Dublin Castle in existence, because the Lord Lieutenant had added importance as a quasi-chief of a quasi-independent State. Were they going to burn down Dublin Castle, while they charged £5,000 for the Lord Lieutenant's household? There must be an administrative staff to carry on the business of Ireland, and his impression was that after the Act passed there would be more of the Dublin Castle spirit than before, as the gentlemen below the Gangway (the Irish Members) would be much readier to assert their authority; and if any resistance was made to the laws of the Irish Parliament, there would be a speedier expression than they had yet seen. He certainly thought they ought to have a Minister in this House who would give fair and proper consideration to Irish affairs, and who would be in a position to answer for them to the House.
    Mr. MAC NEILLsaid, ho opposed the Amendment, because it was distinctly Separatist in spirit and in all its forms. They had been 77 days discussing this Bill; yet hon. Gentlemen did not understand that the scope and object of the Bill was to make Ireland autonomous in reference to local affairs, and to unite Ireland more closely with Great Britain in Imperial matters. They united Ireland more closely in

    1035
    those matters with themselves, in so far as they did not put any distinctively Irish Minister in the Imperial Parliament. Why should they make this distinction in the case of Ireland? For his part, he thought that Ireland would be more closely united to England under the Bill than ever before. This was not a Conservative proposal. When Ireland had a separate Parliament there never was an Irish Minister in the English House of Commons. The business relating to Ireland was transacted by the Home Secretary. But it was said that Irish affairs would continue with them still. Technically, he would remind them, there was no Secretary of State for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Morley) was merely Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. The matter was not one of policy. Within the last few years the present Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt), when Home Secretary, was asked a question with regard to Ireland, and he admitted that he was responsible. Through circumstances that had arisen during the past 25 years the Chief Secretary had discharged the duties of a Secretary of State, though he was not a Secretary of State; but, previous to that, the business was always conducted by the Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would be aware that the great Duke of Wellington held the Office of Chief Secretary while away at the Peninsular War. Before the Union what occurred was that the Lord Lieutenant took over to Ireland with him as Chief Secretary a person who was always a Member of the English Parliament. The only Irish Secretary who did not sit in the English Parliament at that time was Lord Castlereagh. By this Amendment they would create a new Office, which would have a Separatist tendency so faras related to Irish matters. They (the Irish Members) did not wish that there should be any such Office after this Bill became law. They had the greatest wish to do everything they could to avoid the tendency which this Amendment would impose; and they did not, for the reasons he had stated, wish to have an Office of this character.
    MR. CARSON: The Secretary for Scotland!
    MR. MAC NEILLsaid, the Secretary for Scotland was only appointed in 1885, and he was not a Secretary of State; he
    1036
    was merely Secretary for Scotland. There was a Secretary for Scotland for 10 years after the Union, and then the Office was dissolved. The reason of the revival of the Office was that there was no local Parliament in Scotland; if there were such a Parliament there would be no Secretary, for Scotland would no-longer have separate concerns in this House. This was a Separatist Amendment, and sought to create an Office which had never yet been created and which would be out of harmony with the scope and object of the Bill, and, therefore, he could not vote for it.
    MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he did not think the reasons given by the hon. Member for South Donegal were reasons against the adoption of the Amendment. If they admitted that, on the passing of that Bill, England and Ireland would be drawn more closely together, it seemed to him that in that case—with a separation of domestic and general matters—it would be necessary to have someone in that House who would be responsible for Irish matters. Under the 4th clause certain questions were to have a partial jurisdiction of the Irish Legislature. It was said Irish affairs would be under the control of the Home Secretary; but he was not to be responsible. As regarded the Lord Lieutenant, he might have a scat in the other House. And what was the Lord Lieutenant's position at the present time? Only the other day a question arose in the other House in which the Lord Lieutenant was concerned, and it was found that he need not be there while the question was being considered. How were Englishmen, who had relations with different places in Ireland, to be sure on various points in which they would be interested unless they adopted this proposal? They should, he thought, have some Minister whom they could make responsible? The question had been argued as an Irish question, but he looked at it as an English one. It was as much an English question as an Irish question. They could not separate the two interests. He held that they should have some responsible Minister, as he said, and for that reason he hoped the House would agree to the Amendment.
    SIR H. JAMESsaid, they had never had before such a condition of things as they would have in Ireland when she had a Legislature of her own and 80 Mem-

    1037
    bers in the House. They could not, therefore, look at precedent in this matter, and they must be guided by what they considered sound principle and the public advantage. This was much worse than a Parliamentary matter. It represented the Government of Ireland, and reflected the condition of things that would exist in Ireland as well as in this Parliament. The Lord Lieutenant had to act in throe capacities. He would be a Lord Lieutenant guided by Irish advice, he would be a Lord Lieutenant guided by Imperial advice, and he would be a Lord Lieutenant acting without any advice at all. As to the first capacity, it might be said that the Imperial Parliament had very little to do with the matter; but with what he did in the second and third capacities this House bad everything to do. If he were to have advice from a British Executive, if he was to obtain any benefit whatever from such advice, there ought to be a responsible person to advise him. The answer given by the Prime Minister showed the difficulty of the position the Lord Lieutenant was about to be placed in. In seeking advice as to the subjects excepted in Clause 3, ho would appeal to the heads of different Departments according to the subject on which advice was required. In matters of trade he was to go to the Board of Trade. In matters of treason and treason felony he would go to the Law Officers of the Crown, and so on. He was to go to the head of every Department. What did that mean? Why, that every one of the heads of these Departments would have to give an Irish Representative of the Queen advice affecting Ireland without any knowledge of what was occurring in Ireland. It was to be British advice. What did the President of the Board of Trade know about Ireland?
    An hon. Member: Just about as much as you.
    SIR H. JAMES: That observation, made with the usual courtesy of hon. Gentlemen opposite, bore upon the whole point of his argument. What would be the use of the Lord Lieutenant coming to him for a legal opinion about Ireland when he knew nothing about the country? The Lord Lieutenant at present was advised by a Chief Secretary who devoted all his official energies to Irish affairs. This most unhappy individual, the Lord Lieutenant, was to have advice wherever he could get it, from men who would
    1038
    know nothing of the subjects in their Irish aspects. Would it not be well to consider whether, when they entrusted the destinies of the country to such a person, he should not have someone by his side to assist him with advice? But there was another view of the question. The Lord Lieutenant, it might be said, when he was advised by a Department, could find a Parliamentary Representative in the House. But when he acted without advice at all, and a question was raised in that House, who was to answer for him? He was said to be a Minister responsible to that House. Each member of the British Government would say, in this case—"The matter is not in my Department. What have I to do with it?" Where, then, would be the supremacy and the supervision of this Parliament? They had been told over and over again, when they asked how the Imperial Parliament was to undertake the control of the Irish Legislature, that the Lord Lieutenant was answerable to Parliament. But who would be his mouthpiece? Who would represent him?
    MR. J. MORLEY: The Government as a whole.
    SIR H. JAMESsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was now laying down a Constitutional doctrine. He said that the Government, as a whole, would represent the Lord Lieutenant who would not be advised by anyone, and who was not to look to any individual Minister to represent him. Then it followed that the Government, as a whole, might be censured for acts it had taken no part in and had never been consulted about; and a good Government of Great Britain might be turned out of Office and cease to govern Great Britain because the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had done something they never knew of. The position taken up by the Government was absurd. It reduced the Parliamentary administration of the country to a condition that did not result from any necessity or policy of wisdom, but from the difficulty of endeavouring to carry on the Government of two countries together—partly separating them, giving them different Executives for some matters and the same Executive for other matters, and all the time endeavouring to maintain the sham of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament and Executive. He recollected that in an early part of these discussions the hon. Member for

    1039
    Haddington (Mr. Haldane), who spoke with considerable weight on the matter, had told them that the Executive in Ireland would be answerable to the Parliament of Ireland and Great Britain. Well, if that Executive was to be answerable to the Parliament of Great Britain, ought it not to be represented in that Parliament? How were they to call the Irish Executive to accouut—how were they to get information from it? Who was to be its mouthpiece, and guide it in all matters that were Imperial matters affecting Great Britain? There would be nobody. Why was that? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said they wished to avoid an undue line of interest—
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No, no!
    SIR H. JAMESsaid, the right hon. Gentleman's explanation was that there was to be no undue interference with Irish affairs on the part of the Imperial Parliament. But they had reserved to the Imperial Parliament some 20 subjects under Clause 3, and had fixed on that Parliament the duty of taking a lively interest in them, and yet they were not to have any means of developing that interest or of obtaining information except from the public Press. It had been said they were never to let go their hold upon Irish affairs; that they were still to be a United Kingdom and a united Parliament, with 80 Members from Ireland in that House; but, whilst Irish Members were to maintain great power in the Imperial Parliament to control the fate of Parties, they shrank from bearing any responsibility in regard to Irish affairs. ["No, no!"] They shrank from the responsibility of making answer for what was going on in Ireland. The Prime Minister said—"You have nothing to do with Irish internal affairs—"
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I never said anything of the sort.
    SIR H. JAMESsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman had said they had nothing to do with Irish affairs so as to entitle them to interfere.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It is a subordinate Legislature.
    SIR H. JAMESsaid, the right hon. Gentleman forgot that the Irish Legislature would have to deal with composite matters that were partly British and partly Irish and with matters that were purely Imperial, and of these two classes
    1040
    the right hon. Gentleman seemed to take no heed. The Amendment showed the position to which the new Irish Executive had brought them; the Lord Lieutenant, in three capacities, was to be represented in the Imperial Parliament in none, and thus, if the Bill passed with the Amendment unaccepted, they would be losing entire control over Irish internal affairs; and if they attempted to interfere in matters which were not purely internal, they would find themselves in a hopeless position, with the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament reduced to a contemptible absurdity.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, it was at present the right of every aggrieved individual in the United Kingdom to bring his case, whatever it might be, immediately under the view of this great tribunal, and what he wanted to understand was whether what they had feared was to be the fact—namely, that those he represented—a large number of their fellow-citizens in Ireland—were in this matter to be put on an inferior footing to other subjects of the Queen? He wanted to know whether, if a man in Ireland were wronged in respect to matters in the control of the Irish Legislature, or matters which he thought the Irish should have under their control, he was to be deprived of the power of bringing his grievance instantly and effectually under the view of the House? If such were the case, they would have taken from the Loyalists of Ireland one of the few remaining protections they greatly valued. The one thing that kept hope alive in many parts of Ireland was the certain knowledge that any injustice to which they were exposed would be dealt with promptly and effectually in the House of Commons. Would there be no single Minister charged with the duty of answering questions with regard to personal wrong suffered by people in Ireland? for, if not, Irishmen would be the only inhabitants of the United Kingdom whose wrongs would be hidden and not attended to. Was there to be no one in the House capable of giving the true facts as to these grievances, and were there to be no means of reaching the tribunal of public opinion. It was absolutely idle to say that each Minister would answer for the correlative Department in Ireland. The absurdity of it was apparent on the face of it. Was one part of a question to be addressed to the

    1041
    First Lord of the Treasury, another part to the First Commissioner of Works, and a third part to the Secretary to the Treasury—because it might be that according to strict formularism a question might in substance distribute itself over three Departments? They wanted a man who had abundant experience like the present Chief Secretary for Ireland, and those who had preceded him in Office. He was not sure that it would not be better to have another Minister in the place of a Chief Secretary, but he honestly said that the experience even a Chief Secretary acquired, and the knowledge he possessed, fitted him for dealing with these matters infinitely better than any of the colleagues who sat beside him. Was he to tell his constituents that they were to be placed in a permanent position of inferiority as compared with Englishmen and Scotchmen? If so, he should feel free to comment on the message, and to point out that with less consideration went less obligation.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, he rose to put a question to the Chief Secretary. When in Committee they were discussing the question of the power committed to Colonial Governors of reserving the assent of the Crown to Bills passed by Colonial Legislatures, the Leader of the Opposition put this case: Supposing the Irish Parliament were sitting when the Imperial Parliament was in Recess and no Cabinet Council could be summoned without inconvenience, would it not be well to give the Lord Lieutenant power to suspend the assent of the Crown to any Irish Bill? The Chief Secretary answered the question by saying that a Cabinet would have to be summoned if the question became a Cabinet question, but that ordinarily it would not become such. Generally the Minister would deal with the question on his own responsibility, and be ultimately responsible to the Cabinet. He (Mr. Gerald Balfour) rose to ask whether, in giving that reply, the Chief Secretary had in his mind a single Minister such as was contemplated by his hon. Friend, or, if not, what was meant?
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, that the answer to the hon. Member was not very difficult. When ho said that the Minister in such a case would act on his own responsibility he referred to the Minister, whoever he might bo—the Home Secre-
    1042
    tary or someone else — on whom the Cabinet devolved the responsibility of representing them upon the particular occasion. [Laughter] Hon. Gentlemen appeared to be amused. Any one Secretary of State, the hon. Member must be aware, could perform any duty or office devolving upon any other Secretary of State; and there could be nothing ridiculous in the possibility that owing to the state of Business the Irish Department would at one time be represented by one Minister and at another time by another.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 135; Noes 188.—(Division List, No. 280.)
    *SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he rose to move an Amendment to Sub-section 3, Clause 5. He wished to provide that the Lord Lieutenant should give or withhold the Royal Assent to Bills "in accordance with instructions given by Her Majesty." The sub-section as it stood provided that the Lord Lieutenant should give or withhold assent on the advice of the Executive Committee of the Irish Privy Council as a rule, subject to special instructions he might receive from Her Majesty in special cases. His contention was that the Lord Lieutenant should exercise the veto as an Imperial officer, and as a sentinel for England and the Empire— without being bound by the advice of the Executive Committee. Pray what was that Committee? Yesterday's Debate had shown that ultimately it would be an Irish Act that would regulate the constitution of the Executive Committee, and the House might be quite sure that sooner or later—and sooner rather than later—every Member of the Committee would belong to the Irish Executive and sit in the Irish Legislature. These men would enjoy the confidence of the majority, and would, in the highest and truest sense of the term, represent the Irish Legislature, just as much as the Ministers who sat on the Front Bench opposite represented the House of Commons. These were the men who were to advise the Lord Lieutenant as to the exercise of the veto. If any objection were taken to an Irish Act, or to a series of Irish Acts, an appeal might be made to the Lord Lieutenant. What, however, would be the use of such an appeal? The Lord

    1043
    Lieutenant would only, as a general rule, exercise the veto on the advice of those who were the leading Members of the Legislature, whose measure he was called upon to set aside, and who were probably the men who had procured the passing of the measure. To say that the Lord Lieutenant was to exercise the veto on the advice of these men was to turn the veto into a sham—to make it an unsubstantial, shadowy, and unreal thing. An appeal to the Lord Lieutenant to exercise the veto would really be an appeal from the Irish Executive to the Irish Executive—an appeal not from Philip in one condition to Philip in another condition, but from Philip sober to Philip still sober. If the veto was to be of any use it must be independently exercised by an Imperial officer, acting solely on the advice of Her Majesty's Imperial advisers. He could imagine no case in which the veto (as proposed in this Bill) would be of any real value, except a case in which an objectionable Bill, having been passed by one Ministry, an appeal for the exercise of the veto was made to their successors. These successors might advise the Lord Lieutenant to veto. This, however, was so improbable a case as to verge on the impossible. The veto had been often put forward as the one thing upon which the Protestants and the Ulster Loyalists were to rely, but it was even more of a sham than the other safeguards under the Bill. It was conceivable that the Government might say that, wherever real wrong had been done, or reasonable complaint might arise, the Lord Lieutenant might, under the latter part of the sub-section, apply to the Home Government for Her Majesty's instructions, and that those instructions might be so far extended as to constitute rules governing almost any case that might arise. However, he could hardly conceive the Government saying that, because they might just as well accept his Amendment. It was conceivable that it would be said that if the veto were exercised in the way he proposed the Irish Ministers would resign. If, however, they did, it was obvious that they would not submit to the supremacy of England, and that they had only accepted a shadowy supremacy on the ground that it was never likely to be brought into operation. He submitted that there were great dangers throughout
    1044
    the Bill, and the only chance of the Opposition was to obtain real safeguards, and that those safeguards should be administered by persons who were entirely independent of the Irish Legislature and dependent upon no one except the Parliament of Great Britain. He earnestly hoped that the House would give consideration to his Amendment and would preserve intact and inviolable the exercise of the veto.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 39, to leave out the words "on the advice of the said Executive Committee," and insert the words "in accordance with instructions given by Her Majesty."—(Sir It. Temple.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I must pay one compliment—I really cannot offer many—to the hon. Baronet, and it is to this effect: that I think he has devised for Ireland a provision that has hitherto been totally unknown in every country in Europe. The ancient practice always was to admit large legislative freedom in secondary and dependent States, but to view with extreme jealousy the grant of Executive power. That was the way England proceeded in the case of Grattan's Parliament. I do not recollect whether the veto was ever trusted to as a mode of thwarting the action of Grattan's Parliament, though the Government sometimes made use of its interest for the purpose of defeating measures in that Parliament. The hon. Member proposes to introduce a new state of things. He proposes to take away from the Executive Council all semblance of functions in regard to the legislation of Ireland. That is a most extraordinary reversal of the practice heretofore pursued for the regulation of the Government. I do not require to discuss it at any length. I must admit that the hon. Baronet has fairly laid the axe to the root of the tree. After we have introduced a Bill and debated it 77 days or more for the purpose of giving local freedom to Ireland, he, in an Amendment of a few words, proposes entirely to destroy that Bill. It would be a mockery to Ireland or to any other country, under the name of a Bill for the Government of Ireland, to carry a measure under which the passing or non-passing of every Bill which had

    1045
    gone through the two Houses of the Irish Legislature was to be determined by directions from England. I confess I do not see the wisdom or advantage of this method of coming back again and again, and again and again, first in one form and then in another form, to a principle which has been affirmed by the House over and over again after unexampled discussion and, under the name of modest and unassuming Amendments, framing provisions which would be totally fatal to the whole object and purpose of the measure. I think we have made every necessary provision not only for meeting British feeling, but also for meeting British jealousies in regard to legislation. The Government have provided—and the Representatives of Ireland have taken no objection to it—that in any case in which the Sovereign or her advisers see occasion to interfere they will be entitled to interfere. The hon. Baronet is not satisfied with that, and proposes to sweep away the whole legislative freedom which it has been the purpose and the work of this lengthened Session to give to Ireland. I need hardly say that the Government are totally unable to listen to any such proposal.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am somewhat astonished at the brief reply which the Prime Minister has deemed adequate in the case of this very important Amendment. The reply of the right hon. Gentleman amounts to this: that the proper way of checking the action of a subordinate Parliament is by putting limitations on its Executive power.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I did not say that, or any thing like it. I dealt with the history of the question.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then what did the right hon. Gentleman say? I listened, as I always do, with attention and interest to his observations, and I say that that was the impression produced by his argument. I certainly understood him to convey to the House that there were two ways of dealing with a subordinate Parliament, one by circumscribing its Executive power and the other by limiting its Executive power. The right hon. Gentleman derided the hon. Baronet, and said that he had devised a new Constitution for Ireland—a thing which never entered into the head of the right hon. Gentleman. Such an argument comes with peculiarly bad grace from a Government
    1046
    which has been occupied during the early hours of this evening in checking our efforts to circumscribe the Executive powers of the Irish Legislature. Up till 8 o'clock we were trying to carry out the policy which the right hon. Gentleman now says is so superior to the proposal of my hon. Friend, and surely it is a little ungracious on their part to say that my hon. Friend may not try any other method to check the Irish Government in any undue exercise of the powers conferred by the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman, when he interrupted me a little while ago, said he was dealing with the history of the question, but I venture to think it is hardly adequate to say that he bases his statement on an historical survey. He appears to think that my hon. Friend has devised an entirely new method for dealing with a subordinate Parliament—a method not only unknown to history in general, but to Ireland in particular. But in Grattan's Parliament every Act had to be submitted to the Great Seal of England; in other words, the policy of this Amendment is the policy of Grattan's Parliament. My hon. Friend has gone back on Irish history, and has given again to Ireland more than was taken from her by the Act of Union, of which we have heard so much. The clause provides that the Lord Lieutenant is to give his assent to every Act of the Irish Legislature on the advice of the Irish Administration, except in those cases in which the English Government choose to interfere. In other words, this Parliament potentially has the power to stop every Act of the Irish Legislature. Certainly the clause does not lay it down that they are to exercise that power, but it leaves the whole question in a condition of ambiguity as between the Lord Lieutenant acting on the advice of one set of advisers and on that of another set. My hon. Friend desires to simplify that matter. It is evident that the Amendment will not increase the power of the Irish Administration, and it is equally certain that it does not increase the responsibility of the British Administration, because if the latter have the power to stop all legislation they must also have the right to examine it. These powers and responsibility will remain unaltered if the Amendment is accepted, and the only change it will effect will be to get rid of the present absurd ambi-

    1047
    guity. Can the Government, in the whole circuit of Representative Constitutions, point to any case in which the veto was given to one set of individuals to be exercised by them unless another set chose to interfere? I think the matter is really beyond argument. Let us make this question quite clear. I agree that in practice pettifogging interference would be impolitic, and perhaps impossible; but, as the Government leave to the British Government the responsibility of stopping Irish legislation, the Amendment will remove the ambiguity of the clause without bringing in its otiose and ridiculously illogical features. I hope that in this country we shall always have sensible Ministers from whatever Party they may be drawn, and if we have then any interference under the Amendment or under the clause will never be constant or of a pettifogging character. Then why complicate the whole machinery of the Bill by introducing this fifth wheel of Irish advice, when British interference is to be always supreme? The Amendment will work no injury to Ireland, and I hope that the Government will not oppose it out of any undue deference to Irish susceptibilities.
    MR. BLAKEsaid, the clause, instead of being marked by ambiguity, inutility, and impracticability represented what they believed would be the practical working of the Constitution. It was expected—and the right hon. Gentleman had acknowledged to a considerable extent the justice of the expectation—that the Acts of the Irish Legislature would become law, not by virtue of the consideration of them by the Imperial Executive—although they might be exposed to review by that Executive—but on the advice of the Irish Executive. They believed that normally the Bills would be such as ought to be passed into Acts; and, if so, it was fitting that they should become law only on the responsibility of the Irish Executive, and it should not be that the Imperial Executive should make them into Acts by its assent. Of course, if there were any grave abuse of Imperial interests or of delegated powers then the Imperial Executive could intervene and assert its power by dissent. There certainly was no ambiguity in the clause, which represented the state of things that would exist in practice.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I looked at the Amendment
    1048
    on the Paper with every desire to appreciate its importance, and I confess that although it deals with an important question—namely, the subject of the veto—I do not think that the Amendment is likely to raise any serious Debate. So far as the Irish Parliament and the Irish Executive are concerned, the veto will be a matter of form. One is not likely to veto the act of the other which has placed them in power. It could only be necessary to do such a thing when a grave mistake has been made, which can only be remedied by destroying the Bill. I cannot speak with certainty, but I do not believe there is any example in which a British Executive has advised the Queen to veto a Bill passed by a Parliament in which that Executive is in the majority. When we talk about the veto, therefore, it is not the veto of the Irish Executive to which we attach importance. It is the veto of the British Executive which we are told is the real security, and the, in fact, most cardinal feature of the Bill. Now, the hon. Baronet, feeling that the veto of the Irish Executive was never likely to be used, and constituted, therefore, a useless provision in the Bill, proposed to simplify the clause by omitting it. That appeared to be a small matter. But what did the Prime Minister say about this apparently innocent Amendment? He said that the hon. Baronet was once again deliberately attempting to reverse the principle which had been again and again adopted in the House, and that he was going by this Amendment to sweep away the legislative freedom of the Irish Ministry, thereby taking away from the Irish Executive the power to veto their own Bills.
    *MR. BLAKE: It is the power of assenting to their own Bills for which I contend.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not necessary for them to assent. The Bills will pass without their assent, unless they are dissented from by the British Executive. The only power you are asked to take away is a power which will never be exercised unless the Parliament makes some extravagant blunder. I must say I am utterly astonished at the importance which the right hon. Gentleman attaches to this Amendment. He has accused the hon. Baronet of introducing an absolutely new principle into our discussions and into the Constitution we are making

    1049
    and he has described my hon. Friend as a rara avis—a, sort of black swan in Constitution making. He has spoken as if this were an absolutely new proposal, whereas it is precisely the same proposal which the Prime Minister himself put forward in the Bill of 1886. And, forsooth, because my hon. Friend is but a humble imitator of the right hon. Gentleman, the Prime Minister falls foul of him, and declares that he desires to sweep away the whole legislative freedom of the Irish Parliament. I never before heard of such a remarkable instance of forgetfulness as that displayed by the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. DARLINGsaid, ho thought there was one consideration that might reconcile the Government to the Amendment and induce them to accept it. Throughout the Debates on the Bill it had been impressed upon them that they must do nothing in any way to hurt the unreasoning susceptibilities of Irish legislators. Now, he would venture to point out that if the Amendment were carried the sole and only veto which could be applied in the case of an Irish Bill would be the same veto as was applied to any Bill which had passed through that House. There was no particular degradation in that; but if the clause was passed as it stood, then a Bill which had passed through all its stages in the Irish Legislature and received the assent of the Executive Committee could be vetoed by the direct interposition of the Sovereign acting on the advice of a Minister in the House of Commons. Could anything be more humiliating to the Irish people than that? Surely it would be better for the Prime Minister—recognising that first thoughts were often best—to revert to his proposal of 1886?
    VISCOUNT WOLMERthought the Amendment of the hon. Baronet might very well be argued in two parts—firstly, as to what it proposed to cut out of the Bill; and, secondly, as to what it recommended in substitution of the omitted words. When in Committee it was proposed to omit the words "on the advice of the said Executive Committee," it was pointed out to the Government that the words were not to be found in the Constitution of any one of our Colonial Legislatures; that they wore not contained in the original Australian Acts, in the British North America Act, nor in the Act estab-
    1050
    lishing Constitutional Government at the Cape of Good Hope. The Government admitted the accuracy of the statement, but replied that they were now acting on what experience had proved to be necessary. But, if that were so, why, in 1885, in the scheme for a Federal Council for Australasia, were no words inserted analogous to those in this Bill? Since those arguments were used in Committee, the whole scheme of the Government had been changed, for at that time it was supposed that the Irish Members in the Imperial Parliament would have no direct influence on purely English and Scotch legislation. But the present situation was that 80 Irish Members would be in the Imperial Parliament exercising what would be, to all intents and purposes, all the powers of a veto on Scottish and English legislation, while English and Scottish Members would have no control over Irish legislation akin to the manner in which they had some influence on Colonial legislation, though the Colonies were not represented as Ireland would be in the Imperial Parliament. Hence the defence of these words set up in Committee would not hold good now.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had sneered at the hon. Member for South Donegal, who, ho thought, was quite capable of holding his own as against the right hon. Gentleman, and certainly as against the inarticulate legislators above the Gangway on the Opposition side, whose only contributions to the Debate were ironical laughs. The right hon. Gentleman, he thought, had fallen into an extreme error in his effort to prove that the language of the Bill of 1886 upon this subject was identical with the proposition which was now made by the hon. Baronet. What was the language of the Bill of 1886?—
    "Subject to any instructions that may from time to time be given by Her Majesty, the Lord Lieutenant shall give or withhold his consent to Bills framed by the Irish Legislature."
    What was the plain meaning of these words? That there was to be a system of assent, which was only to lie affected in an exceptional manner by instructions from Her Majesty. These instructions were, as he had said, exceptional, and in those cases upon whose advice was he to act? Obviously upon the advice of the Irish Legislature, and, therefore, it was

    1051
    clear that the provision in the Bill of 1886 was the same as the provision in this Bill. He agreed with the Prime Minister that the change involved by this Amendment would be a fundamental change, and that it would strike at the very root of the Bill. According to the words in the Bill the system was to be a system of deference to local opinion. The Lord Lieutenant was to give or withhold the Royal Assent in ordinary cases upon the advice of the Irish Ministers, and what the Imperial Parliament contemplated and what they hoped for—he would not answer for the right hon. Member for West Birmingham—was that the functions—legislation and Royal Assent—might go on in Ireland, and that the Imperial Parliament would not be troubled in the matter. The system proposed by the hon. Baronet was that the Lord Lieutenant should, in accordance with the instructions of Her Majesty, give or withhold his assent. What was the meaning of that? It meant that the Lord Lieutenant would, in the event of any Bill passed by the Irish Legislature, be obliged to refer it to the Imperial Parliament. How, then, could the Lord Lieutenant act at all unless he sought those instructions? and, therefore, it would be incumbent upon him to refer every Bill passed by the two Houses of the Irish Legislature to the Imperial Government. That was not the system proposed by the Irish people, or which the Irish people would accept, and that was not the system which the interests of the British people required.
    SIR H. JAMESsaid, that in one sense the discussion of what was in the Bill of 1886 was almost academic; but in another sense it was very important, because it appeared to him that the alteration from the proposal in that Bill was one of enormous concern, inasmuch as it went a greater length in favour of Irish interests as opposed to the interests of Great Britain. He could not for one moment read the Bill of 1886 as the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) had read it. The words of the Amendment as proposed left the clause identical with the clause in the Bill of 1886.
    MR. SEXTON: The words "subject to" are used in one case, and "in accordance with" in another.
    SIR H. JAMESsaid, that that did not make the slightest difference; and yet,
    1052
    on the strength of this unimportant variation, the Prime Minister said that a perfectly new faith was being propounded, and that no such suggestion had ever been heard of before. The Amendment did not take away the liberties of the Irish Parliament. It merely took away a shadow, a phantom, and a nullity. That was the veto to be exercised on a Bill by the very Executive who carried the Bill. By taking away that veto they took away nothing. It was not a veto at all. It was only exercised when a blunder was made in a Bill, and not on the ground of policy. The question simply was whether all powers of legislation were to be handed over to the Irish Parliament without a check, or whether they should retain the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 196; Noes 146.—(Division List, No. 281.)
    MR. MACARTNEYrose to move, as an Amendment to Clause 5, page 4, line 3, at end, to add—
    "Passed by the two Houses of the Irish Legislature declare either that he assents to any such Bill in the Queen's name, or that he withholds the Queen's assent, or that he reserves the Bill for the signification of the Queen's pleasure."
    The object of the Amendment was to make Sub-section (3) read as follows:—
    "The Lord Lieutenant shall, on the advice of the Executive Committee but subject to any instructions given by Her Majesty in respect of any Bill passed by the two Houses of the Irish Legislature, declare that he assents to any such Bill in the Queen's name, or that he withholds the Queen's assent, or that he reserves the Bill for the signification of the Queen's pleasure."
    It being Midnight, Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, stood adjourned.
    Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.

  SALE OF GOODS (re-committed) BILL [Lords].—(No. 441.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    MR. BARTLEYasked for information concerning the Bill.
    *THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. Russell,): My explanation of this Bill will be very brief, and I hope it will be acceptable to the House.

    1053
    It is entirely non-contentious, and it is a Bill mainly aiming at the codification and consolidation of a very important branch of the law. It was introduced in the form in which it substantially now stands during the last Parliament by the then Lord Chancellor, and, with the assent of the present Lord Chancellor, passed through the House of Lords after a very careful examination. It was re-introduced by the present Lord Chancellor, and, with the assent of the late Lord Chancellor, passed through the House of Lords in the present Session. It then came to this House, and was referred to a Select Committee, upon which Committee all sides of the House were represented. Among those who were Members of that Committee were my hon. and learned Friend opposite, the Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir E. Webster), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hackney (Mr. Bousfield), the Solicitor General for Scotland, and several other distinguished lawyers in this House. After very careful examination it was passed by that Committee, and I hope the House will not interpose any difficulty in the way of its passing now.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: The Bill certainly did receive very careful consideration by the Select Committee, and I think anyone who has studied the subject and has had an opportunity of reading the Bill will, I am sure, be of opinion that it does represent the law as it now stands.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 2 agreed to.
    Clause 3.
    *MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked if it was to be understood that there was nothing new in the Bill? Was it simply a codification?
    SIR C. RUSSELL: There is only one qualification I have to make in respect of that, and that is this: that while certain characteristics of the Scotch law are preserved, certain others are removed and brought into harmony with the existing law in this country. The approximation of the laws between the two countries has received the assent of Representative Bodies in Scotland, and there were several Scotch Members on the Committee.
    MR. TOMLINSON: Then, so far as the English law is concerned, it is simply a codification?
    SIR C. RUSSELL: Practically so.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: There is an alteration in the English law later on in the Bill. Certain modifications are introduced into the English law, but they are in accordance, as the Attorney General has rightly said, with the Scotch law. They are not of any great importance.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 4 to 11, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 12.
    MR. HANBURYrequested further information.
    SIR R. WEBSTERexplained the effect of the clause, and said, ho ventured to think that the Amendments made were Amendments of the law in a matter in which the Scotch law had been in advance of ours for some time.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, he thought attention ought to be called to the fact that only a few minutes after midnight could be given to this Bill, which enormously affected the interests of the people, while a whole Session was being devoted to an abortive Bill which was not going, to pass.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 13 to 31, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 32.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Hanbury.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION (No. 2) BILL. [Lords].—(No. 437.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    [Mr. A. O'Connor in the Chair.]
    MR. T. M. HEALY,on a point of Order, called the attention of the Chairman to the fact that the record was that on a former occasion when the Chairman rose to put the First Schedule he (Mr. Healy) said he had an Amendment, and, as ho understood, the Chairman had not time to put the Question, "That this be the First Schedule of the Bill."
    THE CHAIRMAN (Mr. A. O'Connor)said, he had a clear recol-

    1055
    lection of what occurred. He put the Question, "That this be the First Schedule of the Bill," because there was no Notice of Amendment on the Paper, and he was not aware that the lion, and learned Gentleman proposed to move one.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Then I will move my Amendment to the Second Schedule of the Bill.
    Second Schedule.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, be wished to move an Amendment, The right lion, and learned Member for Bury (Sir H. James), alluding the other night, on the Home Rule Bill, to the Habeas Corpus Act, described it as obsolete.
    MR. VICARY GIBBS (Herts,)moved to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. Vicary Gibbs,)—put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  EDUCATION CODE (SCOTLAND) (EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS).

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    MR. W. WHITELAWrose to move—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her to withhold Her assent from the first of the detailed Schemes appended to the Scotch Code of Regulations for Evening Continuation Schools (1893)."
    He said, that this was a matter of such great importance to the cause of higher education in Scotland, that it was absolutely necessary that the House should be invited to pass judgment upon it. He did not object to the principle of the scheme. He did not object to any part of the population being taught the duties of citizenship; but he did object to the way in which the scheme was drawn up, believing that it opened up sources of the greatest danger to the system of education in Scotland. If the duties of citizenship were taught under a well-considered scheme there could be no possible objection to it; hut he was afraid that one of the results of the scheme of the Education Department would be to lead to a great number of educational appointments being made, not for educational proficiency, but rather for political opinion. He could not see how it was possible to prevent any teacher who might be appointed to carry on the evening continuation school
    1056
    from teaching not only the facts about voluntary schools, but going further, and teaching whatever theories they might hold on the benefits or otherwise of the voluntary system. It would also be possible for the teachers to teach the scholars their own particular theories about land legislation. How could they expect that in all the schools the same theories, whether they were right or wrong, would be taught? There was the question of the appointment of Justices, and the question of public-houses and licences, on which there was the widest possible difference of opinion. Even if the teaching under the Code was going to be limited entirely to the facts of the case, he did not believe that they would get all teachers in the whole Kingdom to teach the facts of licensing and public-houses in precisely the same way. On page 18 were found such subjects as the composition of the House of Lords. At this time, especially, it seemed to him hardly probable that they would get all their teachers in their continuation schools to agree as to what should be done as to the powers of the House of Lords. Then, under the working of the Parliamentary system, they had such subjects as the rights of majorities and minorities. This was just the time when this was a question that no man could lecture or teach upon without showing some Party spirit. Coming to the question of Trades Unions, their history and work, and Co-operative Societies, their work and production, he thought it was wise that their children should be taught what was the history and the work actually done, and what was the power of Trades Unions. But if the teachers wore to have the power to impress upon their students that every single one of them ought to enter a Trades Union, and that it was the duty of a citizen to enter a Trades Union, then he thought a very great danger was opened up, and that this Code, instead of being what he thought it might be, a substantial advantage to the people of Scot-laud, would be a very great disadvantage, and would do great harm to the cause of education. With regard to the question of co-operation, he had received a large number of hysterical telegrams upon the Motion he had put down for to-night. His view on the question was that there was no harm in children being taught what Co-operative Societies were,

    1057
    and what their objects were; but he objected to these schools being made, as it were, a sort of cheap advertisement for Co-operative Stores against retail traders. It seemed absurd to allow a teacher to enforce on his pupils that it was the duty of every citizen of the Empire to join a Co-operative Society. If it was amended in that spirit, ho thought it would be of great service to education in Scotland; but he could not admit for a moment that there was any reason why Co-operative Societies or Trades Unions should be laid before the people of the country as things which it was the duty of all citizens to join. He submitted that under this Code it was perfectly possible for teachers to take that view of the matter. If the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, when he drew up the Code, was that only facts and not matters of opinion should be taught, he must see, on further consideration of the Code, that his intention had not been altogether carried out. If his object was to teach facts, and not to allow opinions to be scattered broadcast over the country, he had not attained it; and if his object was to allow opinions to be scattered broadcast over the country, then, for that reason alone, the Code most certainly deserved to be condemned. In the first issue of The Labour Gazette one of its objects were stated to be to
    "Provide a sound basis for the formation of opinion, but not to supply opinions."
    This Code not only provided a sound basis for the formation of opinions, but, more than that, it bristled with temptations to the teachers to supply opinions to their students. That was the point he wished to attack in this Code; and in making a protest against this part of the Code, at all events, he thought he had a right to demand the support of hon. Members in every part of the House. This was in no sense a Party question, for even if political opinions were to be taught by the teachers in Scotland he did not think it would make any difference whatsoever in the balance of Parties in that House; and it was not because he thought there was any danger of political doctrines with which he did not agree being spread about that he objected to the Code, but because he thought all Parties ought to combine against putting in force in Scotland a Code which, whilst it was bound to be of the greatest service if it was well-considered, nevertheless, under the present conditions, and as it
    1058
    stood, was in his belief calculated to be a source of the very greatest danger. He begged to move his Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying Her to withhold Her assent from the first of the detailed Schemes appended to the Scotch Code of Regulations for Evening Continuation Schools (1893)."—(Mr. W. Whitelaw.)
    *THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): I think the House will probably wish that an answer should be given at the very earliest moment to the Resolution which the hon. Member has brought forward. The hon. Member has practically started three questions: First, in the evening schools, ought the scholars to receive instruction on the conditions of the life of our people and on the duties of citizens? secondly, is the detailed scheme helpful or hurtful towards this object? and, thirdly, ought there to be any mention in that scheme of co-operation? Generally speaking, it is considered that Scotland is more go-ahead than England in matters of education. Rightly or wrongly, it is so considered; and it is certainly a curious thing that the English Code, containing exactly the same principles as those contained in this Scotch Supplementary Code, has already passed through the ordeal of this House without any comment or opposition, and has become the law of the land. Now, Sir, in the first place, I say most emphatically that in these continuation schools the scholars should be taught their duties as citizens. They are youths on the threshold of life, or men of mature age, because I am glad to say that there is no limitation in the age of the scholars taught in these schools. It is right that these people should be taught subjects in which they can take a manly interest; and the very last subject which I would exclude would be the municipal, national, and social institutions under which we all live and do our work in this world. If people do not learn these things properly—and I am quite certain that the institutions under which we live can only be properly learned if they are taught tolerably early in life, and taught systematically—if they do not learn these things properly they will mislearn them. It is very much better they should be taught these things on a system than that

    1059
    they should pick them up piecemeal from Party newspapers and leaflets on whichever side those Party newspapers are written, and I am quite certain good teachers can make these subjects both intelligible and palatable. Really if you keep out these manly questions which concern the real life of a citizen you come to this: that they are only to learn such stories in England, how Alfred burnt the cakes, and in Scotland, how Bruce watched the spider. That is a very insufficient pabulum on which to bring up people. Then objection is taken because women come to these schools. For my part, in these days, when women take so active a part in politics on both sides, I am glad that they come to these schools, and there is as much reason that they should be informed as men on matters in which it is plain that they take a great interest, and which they are thoroughly qualified to understand. The next question is, if the duties of a citizen are to be taught in our public schools in Scotland as they are taught in England—and I would not have Scotland behind England in this matter—is this detailed Code the proper means for teaching them? I should just like any hon. Member of this House to try to draw up, in the space of five pages, a bettor system of suggestions to teachers how to teach these questions. This is an extremely useful paper. The real difficulty to a teacher is not to discourse on subjects, but to know the subjects on which he discourses. I appeal to hon. Members here, when they have a speech to make, whether the real difficulty in making that speech is not to find the words, but to supply the heads of the subjects on which you are to discourse? We give the teachers the heads, and in my opinion there is no serious objection which can be taken to these heads which we have proposed. The hon. Member says the teachers are going to talk about School Boards and School Managers, and that they may give their own opinion about voluntary education and the religious difficulty. The hon. Member, as a Scotch Member, ought to know that there is a School Board in every single parish in Scotland, and there is no religious difficulty in Scotland. The School Board is just as much an institution in Scotland as the Parochial Board or Commissioners of Supply, and people ought to know what a School
    1060
    Board is. The hon. Member talks of the powers of the House of Lords, and says that political instruction may be given by the teachers upon that question. Why, Sir, if you are so careful of the political morals of the people of this country that you will not even mention the House of Lords historically and constitutionally, I say this is not a free country at all, and our education is not adapted to a free country. For my own part, I believe that this sketch of the civic life and civic duties will give just as much assistance to teachers in teaching as is given to them by other schemes to which the hon. Member does not object, and which instruct the teachers in natural science. Then we come to the question at the root of this discussion, and without which we should have no discussion at all at this time of the night—namely, the subject of co-operation. It is said that no encouragement should be given to the system of cooperation in schools which are supported by the nation; no assistance to cooperation and no assistance to the question of Trades Unionism. I will just read the passage on which the contention of the hon. Member rests.
    "Associations of Workers:—

    "(1) Trade Unions, their history and work. Labour disputes and strikes. Arbitration and conciliation.

    "(2) Co-operative Societies; their work in distribution and production.

    "(3) Friendly Societies. Training in habits of industry; thrift and self-help. Value of the work of voluntary associations in the education of the adult citizen."

    Now, Sir, my answer to the charge of the hon. Member lies in that passage. Is it, or is it not, the opinion of hon. Members that something should be learned by Scotchmen, as it will be learned by Englishmen, about Trade Societies, about Friendly Societies, and about Cooperative Associations? I can only say, looking back at my own education, that I know nothing so valuable in it as the fact that when I was a young fellow I got a very clear explanation about the financial system of this great country from one who knew it very well, and my belief is that there is no method of really understanding the essence of these great questions except by being told what are the essential features of these great questions early in life, by people who are anxious to instruct you. The individual employers of

    1061
    labour may think that their interests may suffer by instruction being given about Trades Unions. Individual speculators in building land may think they might suffer by Building Societies. Insurance Companies may think they may suffer by Friendly Societies, and in the same way, no doubt, manufacturers may think they may suffer by co-operative manufacturers, and traders may think they may suffer by co-operative distribution. If we strike out one of these topics, we must strike out all, and we must attempt to give a picture of what interests the great masses of our fellow-countrymen and the circumstances under which they live, leaving out such important things as all the methods by which the working classes can combine to protect themselves and better their own circumstances. No, Sir; no harm and no injustice can come from teaching people to understand these things. Harm and injustice come from ignorance and dulness, and not from light and understanding. I must say I believe those people who think they suffer from Trades Unions and from productive Associations are very much mistaken if they think, in the long run, they will suffer more by people understanding the real story. If there is any country in which Cooperative Societies and Trades Unions are to be ignored—for I understand the hon. Member has an equal objection to either Co-operative Societies or Trades Unions being regarded as institutions of the country which may be mentioned above your breath—[Mr. W. WHITE-LAW: No, no!] Well, he spoke so. [Cries of "No!"] If there is any country in which these matters cannot be ignored it is in Scotland. Now, it is not my business to praise or to recommend at this moment either Trades Unions or Cooperative Societies; but I say that both the one and the other are solid facts of Scotch life which every Scotchman ought thoroughly to understand. Parliament has legislated over and over again for a great many years past in order to enable both the one and the other class of this society to work without the trammels which formerly besot it; and it will, indeed, be very strong thing if now we say that they are institutions of such a class that nothing is to be mentioned of them in a course of education the object of which is to enable mature citizens to understand the circumstances in which
    1062
    they live; and, for my own part, I can see no more reason against explaining what co-operation is than, in a State-assisted College, of explaining what banking is. I remember in the old days in this House hearing Mr. Bright arguing in favour of an extension of the franchise, with the assent of all parties, on account of the admirable self-reliance of the Rochdale Pioneers. Are we seriously, in the same walls which heard Mr. Bright, going to pass a Resolution which states that to teach our young citizens what the Rochdale Pioneers are is an undertaking which Parliament will not consent to sanction? All we do is to explain what co-operation is. That is all we do, and it is all that those interested in co-operation ask. I have got before me a paper which has been circulated by the Co-operative Union, and in that they say clearly—
    "We do not ask for co-operative teaching in the evening schools, that is in the sense of recommending students to become co-operators, but only so far as to show these students of citizenship what are the facts actually in existence around them."
    That is what they ask, and that is what we teach. The School Boards are not obliged to give instruction in the duties of a citizen; they are not obliged to give instruction in co-operation; but if they give either one or the other they must give it in a fair and reasonable spirit. It it quite true that a stupid teacher might, if he was permitted by a School Board, use this detailed scheme of the duties of a citizen to enforce his own views about politics, just as he might use, if he was stupid enough, historical literature to enforce those same views, just as he might, if he was ill-advised enough, use the opportunities of religious instruction to enforce his own denominational creed. But, Sir, we trust the School Boards, and if the School Boards do not do their duty it will be our business to look after them. There is enough common sense in our people to render all such fears as these illusory; and if the result is that teachers in teaching this Code of the duties of a citizen teach their own Party politics, all I can say is we shall withdraw it. What is the text book of the duties of a citizen? It is written by an hon. Gentleman in this House—I will not give his name—who holds diametrically opposite views to myself in politics. I have read every single word of that text book, and there is not a single word of it I would

    1063
    not willingly have taught in any school in England or Scotland. But when you come to the question of teaching our citizens the main outlines of English and Scotch history and political institutions, on both sides of the House I venture to say all are patriots before they are Party politicians; and in the same way, if in teaching what co-operation is a teacher makes himself an advertiser of Co-operative Stores and an adversary of the retail traders, all I can say is we should not only do what the hon. Gentleman asks and withdraw the detailed scheme, but we should forbid this teaching of the duty of citizens which would have been so misused being one of those subjects for which any grant might be given at all. But to say that such a province of human life and human interest as the association of working men to promote that which they believe to be the welfare of their class is one outside the pale of what ought to be explained to the citizens of this country is a proposition to which I, for my own part, will never consent, whether you look at it either from the point of view of private justice or public expediency.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think that this new development of the Education Code is extremely deplorable, and nothing that has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman—whom I had always regarded hitherto as an advocate of liberal education—has at all changed my views. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that all the public virtues which we are so ready to recognise in his public career have been derived from some early training in the knowledge of the finances of this dountry. I do not know that finance has ever been a matter in which the right hon. Gentleman has shown any special ability or great interest in. The right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished scholar. He was a distinguished scholar in a great school, and subsequently a distinguished scholar in a great University. I will undertake to say that neither in the curriculum of the great school nor the great University was any one of these subjects taught which he now thinks it absolutely necessary to cram down the throats of the persons who attend the continuation schools. The right hon. Gentleman has entirely mistaken the point of the objection taken by my hon. Friend behind me. He has no objection
    1064
    to co-operation as such; he has no special affection for retail trade as such; he neither objects to Trades Unions, nor does he wish, so far as education is concerned, to start a propaganda in their favour. What he objects to is starting controversial subjects as subject-matters of education. I do really think that no human being with the slightest spark of humour could have conceived such a scheme as this. The object of the teacher, I read—
    "Should be to proceed from the known and the familiar, such as the policeman and the ratepayer, to the more interesting facts of English history."
    Do not let us begin English history with the policeman. It is a grotesque way of introducing people to a knowledge of the institutions of their country. I cannot conceive how this Code which is common to England and Scotland could have passed this House, so far as England is concerned; and I am glad that, at all events, a Scotch Member was found, even at the last moment, to protest against its being dragged into the educational system of our country. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that Scotland has always been ahead of England, and he does not wish it to lag behind England in adopting this Code. Let me tell him that nothing could be more humiliating than to be dragged up to England if this is to be the result. If this is the result, let us stick to our system. [A laugh.] However it may excite the merriment of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, it has, at all events, produced no inconsiderable results in the history of Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman told us he never would be a party to excluding from school teachers the power of dealing with such important matters as Trades Unions or co-operation. But, Sir, you cannot help these matters being treated controversially. You can only profit by such teaching if you can secure that the schoolmaster takes an external and detached view of these subjects, and as many schoolmasters are interested in co-operation they must take a view in favour of that form of trading, and they cannot be expected to take an absolutely impartial view of the matter. I think the Code altogether degrades education to a purely utilitarian level, and even that utilitarian level does not give an idea of the depth to which we should sink if such controversial matter were to be

    1065
    included. If controversial matter were once admitted, the whole subject of continuation schools would become a matter of Party controversy; worse than that, you would choose your schoolmaster, not because he knew literature, history, or science, but because he either opposed or believed in Trades Unions and co-operation. If you once do that the whole idea of education will be absolutely ruined, and you may as well throw up your continuation schools altogether. I think this is a deplorable and even ludicrous departure, and I hope the Government will reconsider the position, and that next year, when the Code comes before us, this melancholy addition to it will be omitted.
    THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): As I have some responsibility in the drawing of this Schedule in connection with the English Code, I should like to say one or two words with reference to the strong expressions used by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. Almost in his very first sentence he said that the Secretary for Scotland wanted to cram down the throats of the children this syllabus. We do not desire to cram anything down their throats. The teacher will not be asked to teach anything unless the School Board or the management of the school are satisfied that it is a useful subject, and that the teachers are competent to give instruction in it. The right hon. Gentleman says that the syllabus is full of controversial subjects. There are very few subjects in education which are not controversial after we get beyond the mere elementary subjects. How are we going to teach history without raising controversy?
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that history was not connected with the current Party politics of the day. By controversy he did not mean doubt. There were great doubts about the exact truth of early Roman history; but that did not enter into the ordinary controversial matters of the day.
    MR. ACLAND: How can you teach the history of the last three centuries, as we wish to teach it, without constantly touching some of what are the most bitter and difficult controversies unless we trust the teachers in the elementary schools, just as we trust our Professors
    1066
    in the Universities? Unless the teachers can be trusted to teach those subjects properly, they must be looked upon in a very different light to that in which I look upon them. I cannot join with the right hon. Gentleman in saying that there is anything ludicrous in introducing the subject of the duties of citizenship. It is a perfectly voluntary subject, with which managers and teachers are perfectly capable of dealing. An authority which the right hon. Gentleman respects, Professor Seeley, has said, again and again, that in his opinion this very subject is one which ought to be taught to young people from the ages of Hand 15 onwards in our schools, and even in Universities.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: What subject is that?
    MR. ACLAND: This very subject.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Co-operation?
    MR. ACLAND: This very subject of the rights and duties of citizens. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that it is ludicrous to teach that.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I said syllabus.
    *MR. ACLAND: The right hon. Gentleman must know that it is impossible to teach the subject without such a syllabus. I venture to say that nine-tenths of the syllabus contains uncoutroversial matters, which any reasonable teacher can teach without any danger of controversy whatever. I would further say that any sensible teacher who can teach history reasonably and well can also give instruction on the three subjects here specially referred to. When the representatives of the Trades Congress and Co-operative Union waited on me and asked that these subjects should be introduced, it was testimony to the fact that they were anxious their children should be brought up with knowledge which would be useful and serviceable to them as citizens.
    MR. HUNTERsaid, the speech of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite showed that the Scottish Tories were the worst of all Tories, as no English Tory had been found to take such an obscurant view. The position adopted by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen was the result of

    1067
    pure ignorance of the nature of the instruction given in the elementary schools. The hon. Gentleman who introduced the Motion admitted that, at all events, it was proper that children in the continuation schools should he taught the facts with regard to Co-operation and Trades Unions; that was all that they could be taught under the Code. The Inspector who gave the marks on which the grants were based did so not because of the opinions of the scholars upon the Land Question or theories about Cooperation, but because of solid information acquired.
    SIR R. TEMPLEdesired to say that this matter had not escaped the notice of English educationists, and, if these subjects were included in next year's Code, they would probably have to take objection.
    Question put, and negatived.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.
  Lords Amendments agreed to.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—
  Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order [Leeds and Liverpool Canal] Bill, Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order [Navigation of the Rivers Aire and Caldor] Bill, Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order [Grand Junction Canal] Bill, Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order [Warwick and Birmingham Canal] Bill, without Amendment.
  Elementary Education (Blind and Deaf Children) Bill, with Amendments.
  Marking of Foreign Meat, &c.,—That they do communicate to the Commons Report from the Select Committee of this House on Marking of Foreign Meat, &c, with the Proceedings of the Committee, Minutes of Evidence, &c., as desired by them in their Message of this day.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

    MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Mundella, Bill to consolidate enactments relating to Merchant Shipping, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mundella, Mr. Secretary Asquith, and Mr. Burt.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 446.]

    LAND REGISTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
    On Motion of The Lord Advocate, Bill to improve the system of Registration of Writs relating to Heritable Property in Scotland, ordered to be brought in by The Lord Advocate, Sir George Trevelyan, and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 447.]

    METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT (PLUMSTEAD AND HACKNEY) BILL.
    MR. Attorney General and Colonel Hughes nominated Members of the Select Committee on Metropolis Management (Plumstead and Hackney) Bill, with Three Members to be added by the Committee of Selection.—(Mr. Marjori-banks.)

  COPYHOLD (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [Lords].—(No. 438.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  SHERIFF COURTS CONSIGNATIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 430.)
  Read the third time, and passed.

  NAVAL DEFENCE ACT, 1889.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the grant, out of the moneys to be provided by Parliament, of sums not exceeding in the aggregate £1,350,000, for the completion and equipment of ships under "The Naval Defence Act, 1889," and to amend the said Act.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  PUBLIC HEALTH (LONDON) ACT (1891) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 431.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  TRUST INVESTMENT BILL [Lords]. (No. 434.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.
  House adjourned at ten minutes after One o'clock.