GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND [PAYMENTS].

HC Deb 14 July 1893 vol 14 cc1584-623

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Question again proposed, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom—(a) of salaries, pensions, and gratuities to Judges, Land Commissioners, County Court Judges, and officers of the Civil Service, and other officials who are in receipt of salaries paid out of moneys voted by Parliament; and (b) of salaries, gratuities, and pensions to the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police, together with the expenditure incidental thereto, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to amend the provision for the Government of Ireland."—(Mr. J. Morley.)

^*MR. THEOBALD (Essex, Romford), on a point of Order, said, the Resolution spoke of "any Act." He would like to know how many Bills the Government were going to bring in? Should not the Resolution refer to only the Home Rule Bill?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the Resolution was drawn in the usual form.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I take it, Sir, that the question most directly raised by the Vote you have just put from the Chair relates to the Civil Service and Irish Constabulary, and other officials in Ireland. The Government have placed in the Bill some rather complicated provisions, which provisions, however, they have since very greatly modified. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if the right hon. Gentleman would make a general statement.

THE CHAIRMAN

Without the general consent of the Committee it would hardly be in Order to discuss the matter now.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The question I asked, Sir, related simply and solely to the question of pensions for the Irish Police and for the Civil Service, which I thought were directly raised by the words you read from the Chair. I presume it will be quite in Order to deal with these questions in Committee with the general consent.

THE CHAIRMAN

Quite so; my observations were directed to discussion on finances generally.

MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)

asked whether, upon this preliminary formal Motion, they could have the same Debate upon the provisions of Clauses 27, 28, 29 and 30 that they would have when they reached those clauses; and whether they could have any discussion whatever now upon those parts of the general financial scheme which were outside those clauses?

THE CHAIRMAN

No; I think, as I said just now, that that can only be done by the general consent of the Committee. Discussion with regard to the machinery, I think, would hardly be in Order.

MR. J. MORLEY

What I anticipated was that by consent discussion upon the general financial proposals of the Government might take place; but I think it would be a lamentable departure from usage, in connection with a Resolu- tion of this kind, to take a discussion upon the contents of the clauses.

MR. SEXTON

said, he proposed to discuss the general scheme upon the first of the clauses, and he did not want to be precluded from doing so.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

I have not the smallest desire to offer any impediment to any discussion which the Committee may be disposed to acquiesce in.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

Is it not a fact, Sir, that those clauses deal with the subject of compensation? Under those circumstances, it surely would be in Order upon this Resolution to discuss the scheme of compensation adopted by the Government. I understand that to be the effect of your answer to the hon. Member for Kerry. As regards the question of a general discussion on finance, I am disposed to agree with the Member for North Kerry that the most convenient time to take that would be on the first clause which comes under discussion. But I understand that in the event of our postponing any general discussion of their financial scheme until that time no objection will be taken, on any point of Order, to the Second Reading discussion upon the first new clause.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

Certainly, Sir. If I may say so, it appears to me that Members should have an opportunity of making observations with the consent of the Committee.

MR. GOSCHEN

In several quarters of the House it is thought that the most convenient way will be to discuss the financial plan on the new clause. Certainly, I should not attempt to interpose on the present occasion, because it would clearly be a very lop-sided discussion if the Irish Members were not to take part in it, and to express their opinions. But I think it would be for the general convenience if the Government can see their way to answer one or two questions with regard to finance. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: No objection.] I should like to know whether we may take it that the new contribution under the new plan is £2,262,000—that is to say, one-third of the Revenue of Ireland, exclusive of Miscellaneous Receipts; from that we have to deduct £162,000 for the collection of the Inland Revenue and £65,000 for the collection of the Customs, besides a certain indefinite amount which is spent upon stationery and other things which are included in the general Civil Service Votes. If we may assume that to amount to about £23,000, we should have a total to deduct of about £250,000, which would mean a net contribution of £2,012,000. From that there would have to be deducted the cost of the police, which is imposed on the Imperial Exchequer, and amounts to £490,000, or, in round figures, £500,000. The result would be a contribution of £1,512,000. Then I would ask whether that represents as nearly as possible about 1–40th of the total Imperial Expenditure, or 2½ per cent?

MR. SEXTON rose to Order. The right hon. Gentleman was now raising the sort of debate which it was held could not be raised on this Resolution.

MR. GOSCHEN

I do not want for a moment to enter into controversy. What I wish is to elicit information which may be found useful in future Debates. I do not wish at the present time to argue the matter out with the hon. Member and the Government. It is merely to assist the general discussion that I wish to bring out the figures.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, the Resolution that day was only required to authorise the payment of new and extra charges on the people. He took it that they were the price the English people were to pay for passing this Bill. It seemed to him that it was extremely pertinent to the question to consider what the thing was for which they were to pay this price.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that it would not be in Order to raise that discussion on the Resolution.

MR. SEXTON

said, the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had delivered an extremely controversial speech. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that Ireland was bound to contribute to all the Imperial charges without exception, and that he did not admit. The right hon. Gentleman also treated the charge for the Irish Police as a permanent charge.

MR. GOSCHEN

I would like to point out to the hon. Gentleman that I made special reference to the cost of the police, in order that there might be no misunderstanding. I put entirely on one side the question of what Ireland's con- tribution ought to be. I took the figures of the First Lord of the Treasury, and stated that when the proper time came I should be in a position to prove that something ought to be added to them. I wish simply to know whether the figures are correct?

SIR W. HARCOURT

I think it will be best, in answering the right hon. Gentleman's figures, if the House will permit me briefly to state in outline what the Government proposal is. I do not think that any official statement has yet been made in the House with reference to the character of the present plan; and it may be useful, both inside and outside the House, that the simple details of the plan should be stated. First of all, I distinguish between the present plan and former plans in which an attempt was made, by estimating the Death Duties and so on, to ascertain what particular quota ought to be paid by Ireland. The present plan is founded on no estimates of that character. The Government have endeavoured to ascertain as nearly as possible, as the basis and principle of their plan, what is at the present time the actual contribution of Ireland towards the Imperial Revenue—that is, the basis and principle upon which this plan is founded. In that we were assisted very much by the valuable Paper produced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite with reference to the financial relations of the three countries. There were circumstances, as the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, which rendered the accurate ascertainment of that fact very difficult. The figure is got at in this way—by ascertaining first of all what is the Revenue derived from Ireland, then what is the expenditure due to Ireland, and the difference between these two figures shows the actual contribution that Ireland makes to Imperial Revenue. According to the method of calculation adopted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it will be found, as appears in his Financial Paper to which he has referred, that the contribution of Ireland for the year 1889–90 was stated at £2,500,000, and for the year 1890–1, £2,283,000. A remarkable circumstance is that in the last year of the right hon. Gentleman's administration (1891–2) the contribution of Ireland was taken at £1,882,000. That figure has been subjected to correction since. There were errors in the receipts from Excise; but the expenditure was over-estimated, so that the correct figure for the year 1891–2 came out at £1,880,000, or as nearly as possible the figure given in the Return. I think I ought also to call attention to another remarkable Table in this Return of the right hon. Gentleman's, because it has a very distinct bearing on the whole of this subject. The right hon. Gentleman perceived himself that there were exceptional circumstances in regard to Ireland which did not affect the other parts of the United Kingdom, and that, therefore, the contribution of Ireland ought to be regarded with a consideration of the enormously disproportionate expenditure in Ireland due to the magnitude of the Police Force. The right hon. Gentleman said— In the Tables given in the following Papers all items of Revenue have, as far as possible, been divided between the three Kingdoms according as Revenue is contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively; and all items of expenditure have, as far as possible, been divided between the three Kingdoms according as expenditure is incurred on English, Scottish, and Irish Services, without there being drawn any inferences as regards the equity of the contribution or the advantages derived from the expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman will perceive that there is a great distinction in respect of the equity of the contribution and the advantages derived from the expenditure between the three countries. The right hon. Gentleman went on in his Paper— In the Appendix, however, with a view to facilitating the calculation which would probably be made as to how far the figures of the percentages of contribution to Imperial Services would be altered in the case of Ireland, if the excess of the cost of the police and the amount of extraordinary expenditure incurred for light railways and works of that kind were eliminated, a statement is given showing the proportionate percentages of expenditure in 1890–1 and 1891–2 on English, Scottish, and Irish Services, and the respective contributions of the three Kingdoms to Imperial Services, after so much of the cost of the police as is not met out of the rates in each of the three Kingdoms and the special Irish grants have been deducted from the expenditure charged to England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively and added to the respective Services.

MR. GOSCHEN

The Treasury had undertaken to construct this Return on absolutely neutral grounds. There was nothing controversial in the Return. I looked upon myself, when I issued it, as bound not to put my own views in a Return, but to put the matter in a neutral way. I felt that hon. Members below the Gangway would be perfectly within their right in challenging the question of the police, and I thought it would be for the general convenience of the House that the calculation should be made in the way it had been. I took no personal view of the subject whatever, and I am not prepared to accept any inference, political or otherwise, that may be drawn from an entirely neutral Return.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I do not wish to put any interpretation of that kind on it. I only called attention to the fact that the Return showed that if we are to compare like with like, we must treat the Irish Police on a different footing and on a different basis of calculation. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, does injustice to his own officers. Upon the principle accepted in that paragraph, the contribution of Ireland is, in fact, £2,000,000 more than appears on the other Paper. You will find that in the corrected Returns, upon the basis of the principle which is set forth in the paragraph to which I have alluded, in the year 1889–90 the contribution would be £4,090,000; in the year 1890–1, £4,161,000; and in the year 1891–2, instead of being a contribution, as I have previously stated, from the other incorrect Return of £1,888,000, it would be a contribution of £3,969,000, or a contribution of £1,000,000 more than upon the other principle of calculation.

MR. GOSCHEN

asked, could the right hon. Gentleman state how much was due to the expenditure on light railways, for which a grant was made in the course of that year which was a benefit given to Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman had treated the matter from the point of view of the Constabulary; he should also treat it from the point of view of the benefit given to Ireland by this expenditure.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

I think the right hon. Gentleman made a mistake in his figures. He said £1,000,000 more.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I said £2,000,000 more. I am not called upon to explain the right hon. Gentleman's Return; I am stating as clearly as I can what the Return states. The Return gives, first of all, the figures which I first mentioned. Then I read the paragraph which lies on the Table, and that paragraph states, as I have read, that it should be corrected, or might be corrected. I do not know whether this Return distinguishes between light railways and the police. I am not clear upon that point; but, at all events, upon the principle of that paragraph, if you apply those principles you will find the contribution of Ireland from that point of view would be, in fact, £2,000,000 more than it would be upon the other calculation. That, I think, is a statement of fact.

MR. GOSCHEN

The right hon. Gentleman accepts the proposition that the contribution of Ireland would be £4,000,000?

SIR W. HARCOURT

No; what I say is that if you say that the contribution of Ireland is, as a fact, upon the balance of the Irish Expenditure and Irish Revenue, £1,858,000, the right hon. Gentleman has admitted in this paragraph that that ought not to be taken as against Ireland, as it would be against Scotland, as the share of its contribution.

MR. GOSCHEN

I cannot allow him to say I have admitted that. I have admitted nothing of the kind.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I will assume for the moment that the right hon. Gentleman had nothing to do with this Return, and I will dissociate him from it. I have called attention to a public document and a public statement of figures made upon one basis and of figures taken upon another basis. I do not want to enter into a controversy upon the subject, but merely to make a statement upon the figures before the House. I come with these preliminary observations to what, as far as we can ascertain—we hope and believe that it is ascertainable with more accuracy now, possibly, than it was, perhaps, in former times—what is now, in the year 1892–3, the balance between Irish Revenue and Irish Expenditure; and when I speak of Irish Revenue I speak of Revenue which may be properly considered as derived from Ireland. You cannot, as a fact, take merely the Revenue that is collected in Ireland, because that requires correction in the case both of the Customs and the Excise. In reference to the Customs, a good deal of the Customs upon tea consumed in Ireland is collected in England; and, on the other hand, in the case of the Excise, a considerable portion of the Revenue collected in Excise in England is due to spirits consumed in Ireland; therefore, you must make a distinction in both these cases before you arrive at what is the true Irish Revenue. In respect to Excise, you can arrive pretty clearly at what is properly English Revenue collected in Ireland. With reference to the Customs, it is somewhat more difficult—the ground is not ascertained; but the error is probably not very serious. I will state from a Paper, which is already before the House, what is the true Irish Revenue. The Revenue collected in Ireland under Customs is £2,136,000. Then you have for an allowance on duties paid to Great Britain on articles consumed £266,000. That makes the total estimated true Revenue of Ireland under Customs £2,402,000. The Revenue collected from spirits in Ireland is £4,112,000. From that you have to deduct £1,872,000 for what is consumed in England, making a total estimated Irish Revenue from Excise of £2,240,000. The Revenue collected from beer is £811,000, and, deducting from that the allowance for duties paid in Ireland on beer consumed in England of £187,000, it leaves the corrected figure for beer at £624,000. The Licence Duties collected in Ireland amount to £194,000. That makes a total from Excise of £3,058,000. Then you come to Stamp Duties collected in Ireland. That is subject, probably, to some slight correction or reduction. It is difficult to ascertain what that correction or reduction is, but it is only a small amount. We have taken here the collection as the true Irish Revenue collected in Ireland. Stamp Duties collected in Ireland give £707,000; Income Tax, £552,000; Crown Lands, £65,000; Miscellaneous Irish Receipts, £138,000. These figures amount to £6,922,000, and form the true Irish Revenue upon which the calculation of the Government is founded. So much for the true Irish Revenue; now for the Irish Expenditure. The Civil Government charges are £3,123,000; the Constabulary charges, £1,459,000; and the estimated deficit on the Postal account £52,000, making a total of £4,634,000. The difference between the two figures is £2,300,000, and that is what the Government take as being the contribution of Ireland. It is a remarkable fact that the sum of £2,300,000 constitutes almost exactly one-third of the Irish Revenue as I have given it. Therefore, in proposing to give to England out of the Irish Revenue one-third, we are, in point of fact, giving exactly what Ireland did contribute in the year 1892–3, according to the Return. If you had in the year 1892–3 given to England £2,300,000, you would have given to her one-third of the total Revenue of Ireland. That is to say, you have given to England from Ireland £500,000 more than Ireland actually paid in the preceding year 1891–2. That is the fact. I do not say the right hon. Gentleman was bound to take from Ireland in the year 1892–3, but he did, according to his calculation, receive from Ireland for the benefit of the English Exchequer £1,888,000. That is the right hon. Gentleman's own calculation of what Ireland yielded to the English Exchequer in the last year of his administration. That is an important point to dwell upon in this Debate—that, without complaint at that time, the contribution of Ireland, in the last year of the last Government, to England was £1,888,000, and from the expenditure being less in the year 1892–3 the contribution has naturally been larger, and upon the figures taken upon the same basis would have been £2,300,000. These I believe to be the exact facts. That figure that I have given of £2,300,000 is 1–27th part of the £63,000,000, which is the total Imperial Expenditure. The Government proposes to give to Ireland two-thirds of the Irish Revenue derived from the taxes and Crown Lands, which amount to £4,522,000, the whole of the Miscellaneous Receipts, which come to £138,000. That will be giving to Ireland £4,660,000. That sum will exceed the actual expenditure upon Ireland, as estimated for the year 1892–3, by a sum of £26,000.

MR. SEXTON

It would if you only took two-thirds of the police charge. If you take the whole police charge it will be far less than the expenditure.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Yes; but I am taking it upon the proposed basis of two-thirds. If you take the whole police charge, of course what the hon. Member says is perfectly true; but if you take two-thirds, according to our proposal, then the other figures will result from it. But what we propose is, without endeavouring to fix the right hon. Gentleman at all with the policy or principle laid down in this précis of the Financial Paper—

MR. GOSCHEN

It is not a policy or a principle.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Very well, I should like to use some word which would describe the Paper without arousing the susceptibilities of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. GOSCHEN

If the right hon. Gentleman had used the word "hypo thesis"

SIR W. HARCOURT

Very well; I will use the word "hypothesis." We will treat the figures relating to the Paper number 329, for the year 1891, in the name of Mr. Jackson, as a hypothesis, and we will suppose that Mr. Jackson was an imaginary person putting forward a hypothetical case.

MR. GOSCHEN

My right hon. Friend is really too acute. The Paper which the right hon. Gentleman has read is an Appendix at the end of the Report, which is hypothetical in calculation. The Report is not an imaginative Paper at all, but is based on the actual facts of the case; and I really think it is not fair, when one particular page is treated as this is treated, to say that the whole Return is simply a hypothetical document. It is a document by which we stand, and was prepared with the greatest possible care; and, in order that hon. Gentlemen opposite might not think there was any unfairness in the Return, the Treasury show how it would work out on the hypothesis of the police being taken. That, I assert, is an absolutely correct statement. He must not describe it as being a policy or principle; it is an Appendix.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I had accepted the right hon. Gentleman's word "hypothesis." At the top of this page is the word "Introduction." Introduction is different to Appendix. I always thought the introduction governed the whole Return; and so far from this being printed at the end of the Paper, it is apparently an introduction to a policy. I will call it, then, a hypothetical introduction to a financial Return for 1890–91. The difference between "introduction" and "hypothesis" is still a moot point, and must lie between the late Secretary to the Treasury and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. But now we will go on. Upon that we propose to give to Ireland an allowance of one-third in respect of the Irish Constabulary. No doubt that is a subject which may be a matter of considerable conflict. But you have to consider several matters in that respect. First of all, we have to consider the fact that it is what is 'called a wasting charge—it is a charge which will expire after the lapse of certain years. Why does it exist? What brought it into existence? Without desiring to raise warm political controversies no man can deny this: that the Irish Constabulary has been the concomitant and the result of your system of government in Ireland. No other country but Ireland has an establishment of that enormously expensive character in relation to its resources and its revenue. I wish to use the most colourless words I can, but you are carrying on a system of government in Ireland which is different to the conditions of your government in every other part of the Empire, and to enable you to do so you have a Force of Police costing £1,500,000 to keep up. These are considerations which the House must bear in mind—that you have imposed upon England for the government of Ireland on account of your government of Ireland this great and expensive Force. When a country governs another country very much against its will, and very much without its consent, it is always an expensive government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham will probably remember that the government of Austria in Lombardy was very expensive, and that the government of Russia in Poland was an expensive government, and is so now.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

Mr. Mellor, I rise to a point of Order. I do not in the least object to this enlargement of the Financial Statement, but I ask whether, if it is to be continued in this controversial way, we shall be permitted to reply?

SIR W. HARCOURT

I wish to meet my right hon. Friend if I can. I will withdraw my allusions to him. I will treat all I have said on this subject as hypothesis.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

And run away as you did last night.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I do not desire, Sir, that what I wished to be a figure of speech should wound the susceptibilities of the right hon. Gentleman. I will, therefore, confine myself to this proposition: that a government carried on without the consent of the people will be an expensive government. I say that it is necessarily an expensive government, and having created or perpetuated government of that kind, you ought to take some share in the winding up of these expenses. You cannot dismiss this great semi-military force—this army which your system of government has made it necessary for you to create and keep up in Ireland; and then, though you were to create in Ireland a state of things which no longer requires a great military force to carry out the government of that country, and consequently a condition of government which is less expensive, you cannot get rid of these liabilities of the country, and it is upon that principle that we think it fair that until a condition of things arises in which you may have a Police Force more corresponding to the natural condition of things in a free country, you should bear some share in the burdens of the system you have created. That would be, as I have said, for a time only. This is dealing with the ordinary Revenue and Expenditure; and I do not admit that deduction ought to be made from the Irish funds for the cost of collecting the Customs and Inland Revenue Duties. We pay it at present, and we should continue to do so. But objection has been taken that if an extraordinary emergency were to arise, such as war, and it were found necessary to make extraordinary calls upon the United Kingdom, there-ought to be a system of finance which would make Ireland contribute a full share. If we put on a War Tax now Ireland would pay the whole tax, and the whole of it would go into the English Exchequer.

MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)

Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that if you increase the Excise Duties in order to pay for war, you would compel Ireland to pay an eighth of the War Tax, or three times her share?

SIR W. HARCOURT

I am explaining. I have not studied that particular point, hut I would remind the hon. Member that Ireland at present pays more taxes into the Imperial Exchequer, and that, in this case, the tax will not be divided into thirds. Ireland would pay the whole tax, and the whole tax would go into the English Exchequer.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

Say the Exchequer of the United Kingdom.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Ireland will not be worse off under the proposed arrangement. I saw yesterday a letter from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen) published in The Times newspaper, in which there was a fallacy which I think the right hon. Gentleman has not observed. The truth is, that his comparison was between the incorrect figures of the first plan of the Government and the correct figures of the second plan. Consequently, the right hon. Gentleman was not comparing like with like. He ought to have compared the correct figures of the first plan with the correct figures of the second plan. Well, now I have endeavoured to explain to the Committee the principles of the financial plan which the Government offer to consideration. I have said that the initial contribution of Ireland will be £2,300,000, and the Government propose to make an allowance of something short of £500,000 for the Irish Constabulary during the time of existence; but that will be a vanishing sum. The allowance of £500,000 will reduce the contribution of Ireland to £1,800,000, which was about its amount in the last year of the right hon. Gentleman's Administration, in 1891–92. In time the Government hope that, when the police of Ireland returns to its normal condition, the contribution of Ireland will be less.

MR. GOSCHEN

The last observations of the right hon. Gentleman show the method he employs in explaining his position. The right hon. Gentleman goes back to the year 1891–92 in order to find the exact amount which he says Ireland should contribute to the English Revenue. But the right hon. Gentleman will see that he ought to consider whether the Expenditure has increased since that year, otherwise the right hon. Gentleman must think that Ireland ought to make the same contribution in a year of higher Expenditure as in a year of lower.

SIR W. HARCOURT

There is one explanation which I ought to have made. When I said that the Government hoped this expenditure on the Irish Police would diminish, I ought to have said that one of the advantages contemplated was that in the future we shall be relieved from the increasing demands for English expenditure on Irish matters. During the last three years the increase of Expenditure over Revenue in Ireland has been about £100,000 a year. If we went on increasing the expenditure of England in Ireland upon light railways we would, pro tanto, increase that expenditure by £100,000.

MR. GOSCHEN

That is not the point I was dealing with. I was speaking of the increased Expenditure all over the Empire. I appreciate the compliment the Chancellor of the Exchequer pays me in seeking to establish for everything the right hon. Gentleman does a precedent from myself. The right hon. Gentleman has now propounded the whole of his plan, and I am bound to say he has been fairer in this respect than was the Prime Minister in relation to the question of the retention of the Irish Members, when he withheld all information up to the last moment, fearing it would lead to an attack. Without dealing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals with any thoroughness, as I expect they will be the subject of an exhaustive Debate later on, I will point out one or two fallacies in them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said we ought not to deduct from the contribution of Ireland the cost of collection of Customs and of Inland Revenue.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Certainly not.

MR. GOSCHEN

Then is Ireland to contribute to the collection of the Revenue in England and in Scotland? I contend that the Imperial contribution of Ireland ought to be paid over in the gross, and I think we are perfectly entitled, therefore, to deduct the £227,000, the cost of collection of Customs and Inland Revenue, from the contribution which Ireland will have to pay.

MR. SEXTON

asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would think it fair to deduct the cost of collection of revenue which, although collected in Ireland, would be treated as English revenue—he meant the duty or Excise paid in Ireland but consumed in England?

MR. GOSCHEN

Certainly not. In the case put there ought to be an adjustment, and it would be quite unfair to charge Ireland with any portion of it. It seems to me that the particular fallacy in the proposals of the Government is that Ireland should not pay the cost of collecting her Imperial contribution. I think each country which is treated as a financial unit should pay its share of this amount, and it is reasonable and logical that Ireland should do so as well as England and Scotland. The cost of that collection would amount to £227,000, and, in addition to that, we present Ireland with £500,000 a year, and contribute to the cost of the Constabulary until it is reduced to a minimum. The total is more than £700,000 a year out of the pockets of the British taxpayer, given to Ireland so that she may start fair. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken as his basis what Ireland contributes at present, and, without saying whether it is right or wrong, he says—"We will present her with a marriage gift of £500,000 a year on the union of hearts." I have only to observe that Ireland will be richer, and England and Scotland poorer, so long as this is paid. I do not think the British taxpayer will be particularly grateful to the Government for proposing to inaugurate the new system with a bonus of such magnitude. It is a dangerous financial experiment, and can only have the effect of demoralising the Irish Exchequer from the very beginning. Because we have poured Imperial money into Ireland in the past, now the right hon. Gentleman says that the minimum contribution which Ireland had paid is to be the standing contribution which Ireland is to pay in the future.

SIR W. HARCOURT

was understood to say that all he urged was, that it should be regarded as the standard from which they should start in the consideration of the question.

MR. GOSCHEN

The question is, What is the standard of the contribution? While the Irish Members are perfectly within their right in trying to make the best bargain they can for Ireland, it is the duty of the Representatives of the British taxpayer to examine the matter with equal care to see whether, under this arrangement, they are not going to pay an exorbitant price for the privilege of giving Ireland Home Rule. The population of Ireland being one-eighth of the population of the United Kingdom, the sum you propose is equivalent to giving to England and Scotland an addition of £4,000,000 a year to the present Expenditure. It would be most imprudent if a British Administration were to say—"There are £4,000,000 which, besides the ordinary expenditure, you can employ in developing industry and in promoting any special objects." I accept only hypothetically the position of the Government that Ireland should pay what she is paying now. The whole subject will have to be carefully examined. Ireland is paying comparatively little at present, but Ireland will have to take the disadvantages as well as the advantages of the proposed new position. There has never been any reluctance on the part of the British public or the British Government to come to the assistance of Ireland whenever necessary, and that very fact has diminished the net contribution which Ireland pays. The basis adopted is not a fair one. We must examine whether the contribution of Ireland is not now largely reduced by special circumstances. A large portion of the items which seemed to swell the contribution to Ireland was due to light railways. A considerable sum was thus returned to Ireland, and diminished her contribution. What was the mean standard of the contribution of Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman now took about £1,500,000, which represented 1–40th, or 2½ per cent. of the total Imperial Expenditure. When they came to the Financial Clauses the House of Com- mons would have to examine exactly whether the British taxpayer would be content with this 2½ per cent., which would be the contribution which Ireland would make in the immediate future. That might be increased to a little more than 3 per cent. later on, when the contribution for the Police ceased; but it would always remain a long way beneath the standard of 1–13th or 1–17th which the Prime Minister laid down in 1886, when he said that the expenditure passing through the Death Duties, and not the amount collected, was the best criterion to go by. The proceeds of the Death Duties had increased far more rapidly in Great Britain than in Ireland since 1886, and, therefore, he would not pin the right hon. Gentleman to the figures he gave in 1886. They were now more favourable to Ireland. But he thought it would be found that, whilst the Irish Members were right in trying to make the best bargain they could, and in endeavouring to show that Ireland would pay her full share under the proposed arrangement, it would be the duty of the Representatives of the British taxpayer to examine the arrangement to see whether the British taxpayer was not asked to pay an exorbitant price for the privilege of giving Home Rule to Ireland.

MR. SEXTON

said, the right hon. Gentleman had said what should be the standard of Ireland's contribution, and had suggested that as the Imperial expenditure in Ireland might be diminished, therefore the standard of Ireland's contribution should not be measured by the surplus now available for Imperial charges from Irish Revenue. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman what was likely to be the surplus from Irish Revenue if the Home Rule Bill was defeated, and an attempt was made to govern Ireland against the will of her people? There was a surplus of £2,000,000 now; but if the present system were maintained, in a year or two there would not be a penny.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

Why not?

MR. SEXTON

said, the hon. Member would be good enough to determine that for himself. They would have to increase the charge for police, heavy as it was at present.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

Why?

MR. SEXTON

said, that surely hon. Gentlemen opposite were intelligent enough to make this inference for themselves. They would have to increase the Judicial and Civil, and probably the Military, expenditure; and the alternative to the proposals of the Government simply was that there would be no surplus left at all for Imperial purposes, instead of a surplus of about £2,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that £500,000 was a demoralising surplus for the Irish people, and his austere soul was troubled by the spectacle of Ireland proceeding to misuse this surplus of £500,000. Had the right hon. Gentleman considered that Ireland would want some surplus in order to proceed to organise her own Police Force? Let it be observed that if it were not for the allowance of £500,000, which was to be made in respect of the police, there would be no surplus at all. If it were not for this temporary allowance for six years, what the right hon. Gentleman proposed would be the hard and even repulsive bargain that out of all the Revenue of Ireland she would be allowed just as much as would meet present charges, and the Imperial Parliament would take every penny besides. What sort of an arrangement would it be if they would only allow for the present expenses of Imperial Government in Ireland, and were starting a new Government into existence without a penny to discharge the expenses of the Government—would that be a tolerable arrangement? There was another fact which the right hon. Gentleman had chosen to exclude from his argument. That fact was, that when the Home Rule Bill became law the whole system of Imperial loans would be discontinued. The Imperial Government would lend no more money for public purposes, whether for public health or for the improvement of land, or for any public purpose in Ireland. The question he would put to the Committee, supposing it did what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) wanted, and drove a Shylock bargain, allowing Ireland nothing but so much as would meet her present charges, was—how was the Irish Government to proceed to organise the establishment of a public works loan service or any loan service in Ireland in place of the Imperial loan system which would cease immediately the Home Rule Bill became law? It was manifestly obvious, if the public service was to continue in Ireland, that the Irish Government must be provided with some surplus from which loans might be made. The right hon. Gentleman, in referring to the plan of 1886, had, with his customary ingenuity, managed to exclude a governing fact of the case. He said that the Prime Minister, in 1886, proposed that Ireland should pay 1–15th of the Imperial charges.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he did not say that. He had said that the Prime Minister laid down 1–15th as a fair standard, and had based his calculation on the Income Tax and Death Duty Returns.

MR. SEXTON

said, neither the Death Duties nor the Income Tax afforded any tolerable test. The Income Tax in Ireland was collected from a limited class, and the Death Duty was even a worse test. What the Prime Minister said was that 1–15th would not be applicable as a standard unless this 1–15th more were deducted, not from the Revenue contributed by Ireland, but from the whole Revenue collected in Ireland. In the plan of 1886 the Prime Minister proposed to take from Ireland a nominal contribution of £3,600,000. But that contribution was not to be taken as now from the Revenue contributed by Ireland, but from the Revenue collected in Ireland, which reduced the £3,600,000 by £1,800,000, from which a further deduction had to be made on account of cost of collection. The right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to convey that the plan of 1886 was less favourable to Ireland than the present one, and he had endeavoured also to lead the Committee to think that the Prime Minister thought in 1886 that 1–15th was a fair standard for Ireland to pay; whereas the Prime Minister, though he accepted that as a nominal basis, held that the figure 1–15th could not be admitted or thought of for a moment unless it were to be levied upon the net Revenue; and the right hon. Gentleman himself actually said in 1886 that, although the contribution would be nominally 1–15th, in reality it would be 1–26th. Yet the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had the hardihood to rise and endeavour to lead the Committee to believe that 1–15th and not 1–26th was the proposal of the Prime Minister.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, the Committee had heard a significant statement from the Member for North Kerry as to the cost of military and police if this Bill did not pass. The interpretation of that statement was, that there would be an increase of crime and outrage in Ireland if the Bill did not pass.

MR. SEXTON

It was not so significant as Lord Salisbury's speech at Belfast.

MR. GOSCHEN

did not know to what particular passage the hon. Member alluded; but, at all events, the hon. Member did not deny the significance of his statement. Members who believed in the angelic transformation of the Irish Party would perhaps take notice of the fact that it was so long as they had their way that this angelic character was to continue. They said to the English people, "At your peril do not pass this Bill, or you will have a heavy bill to pay." He did not think that was the kind of argument that would tell with the British people. That was his answer to the first point in the hon. Member's speech. Then the hon. Member, in regard to the balance of the £500,000, had declared that the increased cost of government under the new organisation would have to be met. He (Mr. Goschen) did not know whether the hon. Member remembered the remarkable speech delivered by the Prime Minister to the Belfast deputation, in which he pointed out that there would be a perfect plethora of money after the Home Rule Bill had passed? The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the Irish people would be able to diminish the cost of their administration immensely. As the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Kerry had been in confidential relations, no doubt this view of a plethora of money had been communicated to the hon. Member, who in all probability would have an important part to play in regard to Irish finance if the Home Rule Bill passed. He (Mr. Goschen) would leave it to the Prime Minister to show the hon. Member that, quite apart from the surplus, it would be in the power of the new Irish administrators to cut down the bloated expenditure which the hated Saxon was now causing. That was his answer to the hon. Member's second point, and partly, also, to his third point. The hon. Member for Kerry had said that the Irish Administration would miss British credit. He (Mr. Goschen) honestly thought they were likely to miss it very much. It was their proposal to cut the ties between the rich country and the poor; and if the ties were cut Ireland could not be entitled to the advantage of British credit. It would tax even the ingenuity of the hon. Member for North Kerry to show how she could be. That was his answer to the hon. Member's third point. In regard to the fourth, in 1886 the Prime Minister did two things: he laid down a standard and he fixed the contribution. The standard he laid down was 1–14th or 1–15th, and he said that the Death Duties were the best criterion that could be found for estimating what a country should pay. The right hon. Gentleman did not press a general case, neither did he (Mr. Goschen). He wished now to point out that it would be necessary, when they came to fix the contribution of Ireland, to see what standard and basis should be taken. He himself was perfectly open to argument on the point. He should not like to see Ireland treated at all ungenerously; but, at the same time, the British taxpayer must not be robbed. The task before the Committee was to consider, quite apart from Ireland's present contribution, her particular circumstances, and what share she should properly pay towards the Imperial funds.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

said, he did not intend to discuss this question at length generally, but he only wished to make a few remarks upon one or two points. The hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) had referred to the probability of there being no Irish sur- plus if the Home Rule Bill did not pass, and he (Mr. Clancy) thought the hon. Member was perfectly correct in what he said. Apart from the question of military and police expenditure—and he would invite the attention of hon. Members to this—he ventured to prophecy that in 10 years from the present day, if Home Rule were not granted in the meantime, there would not be a penny of surplus for Ireland. What was the policy of the Party of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen)—what was the alternative policy they proposed? Why an expenditure of British money. Their policy was to bribe Ireland out of its national rights. That was the policy proposed by the present Leader of the Opposition when he was in power. The right hon. Gentleman had actually offered to expend £600,000 on the drainage of two Irish rivers alone, and he (Mr. Clancy) was sorry to say that it was the action of several Irish Members which, rightly or wrongly, prevented him from carrying out his purpose. He (Mr. Clancy) was only sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had not repeated his proposal; and if the right hon. Gentleman should return to power in the next Parliament, he could assure him that he (Mr. Clancy) would support any proposal of the kind he might make. The fact of the matter was this: that no country was ever governed against its will with profit to those who tried to so govern it, and Ireland was no exception to the rule. Every Party in Ireland would have to be paid before it consented to be governed against its will. The loyal minority would not keep loyal unless it was paid. At present—though he was sometimes inclined to doubt whether it was loyal or whether it was a minority, judging from the way it described itself—the loyal minority was provided for by Judgeships, Crown Prosecutorships, and various offices in the State; formerly, however, they used to be provided for in the Church. If Home Rule continued to be denied to Ireland that loyal minority itself would consume the surplus which Great Britain at the present moment derived from Ireland. As for the majority in Ireland—the disloyal majority as it was called—he begged to assure the Committee that he, as one of that disloyal majority, would do his best, if the loyal minority did not consume the surplus itself, to try to take his share out of it, and reduce it to a minus quantity. There was not a single public project which would not have to be aided by this Parliament; every little harbour, every little public work, everything which under Home Rule would be paid for by local effort would, in the absence of Home Rule, have to be done by the Imperial Parliament. He declared to the Committee that if Home Rule was denied, and if there was, in the next Parliament, a Conservative or Unionist Government in power, there was not a single work in his constituency, not a single harbour or sea-wall which required to be dredged or built—there was not a single work which required to be done which he would not press on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they would see how long the right hon. Gentleman would continue to have his surplus for Ireland. The surplus was going down steadily, and it would continue to go down if Home Rule was denied, and, for his part, he should not have the least scruple to see it disappear altogether. He now came to the second point, on which he would like to make a remark or two. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of Great Britain making a marriage gift to Ireland, and he also referred to the unfortunate condition of the British taxpayer. He (Mr. Clancy) had also heard, during the last few months, various references to the way in which the poor British taxpayer was to be robbed under this scheme for the purpose of giving Home Rule to Ireland. When he heard that statement made, and when he recollected the financial treatment of Ireland by this Parliament since the year 1800, he could not restrain his indignation. Here was the right hon. Gentleman, who presumably knew the history of this question as well as he (Mr. Clancy) did, and perhaps a gread deal better, who knew that this Parliament had robbed Ireland of nearly £300,000,000 during the last 93 years—he had expressed this opinion elsewhere, and he had proved it, and as yet had never seen any answer given to the allegation; here was a gentleman, who was acquainted with these facts, and who now, because Great Britain made not an allowance on account of Irish Police but a part payment of the debt she owed to Ireland, came down here and commiserated with the unfortunate British taxpayer, who for the last 93 years had been robbing the Irish taxpayer. He called that the height of hypocrisy, and he was perfectly certain that if the matter was explained to him the British taxpayer would not share the right hon. Gentleman's views, views which he (Mr. Clancy) had observed were chiefly entertained and expressed by gentlemen who had banking concerns in this country and held their meetings chiefly in Dublin. He did not rise to discuss the question generally, but only to express an opinion upon two points: (1) that Great Britain owed more to Ireland than she would probably ever pay even under the Unionist policy of bribing the Irish people out of their rights; and (2), that if Ireland continued to be kept out of its national rights there would not in 10 years' time be a surplus of a single penny available for the unfortunate British taxpayer.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

said, the Chief Secretary had described the Motion before the House as a mere matter of form, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman would find from the Debate which had taken place that it was anything but a matter of form. He (Mr. Russell) did not rise for the purpose of discussing the whole question, and certainly he did not rise for the purpose of expressing sympathy in any way with the British taxpayer, who could take care of himself. He rose for a different purpose. The hon. Member for North Kerry, in the speech he had just delivered, had stated that if the Bill did not pass there would be no surplus at all from Ireland. Now he (Mr. Russell) had asked across the floor of the House the question "Why?" The hon. Member had replied that he (Mr. Russell) could draw his own inference. Well, the inference he drew was this: The hon. Member seemed to him to assert that if the Bill did not pass extra police and extra soldiers would be required in Ireland—that, in fact, he and his Party were now sitting on the safety valve of crime, and could lift it if they desired to do so. If the hon. Member had not meant that he meant nothing. Whenever an Ulster Member rose and made anything like a statement as to what Ulster would do if the Bill passed, it was at once denounced as a threat. But there was no protest from hon. Members as to the distinct threat announced by the hon. Member for North Kerry, that if the Bill did not pass. if the Imperial Parliament did not ultimately sanction this Bill, extra police and extra soldiers would be required in Ireland. What for? The hon. Member meant that he and his friends would cease to restrain the forces they were engaged in restraining at the present moment. Now, that was a very serious statement to be made in the House of Commons. But he (Mr. Russell) was going to make another statement. The hon. Member for Kerry said there would be no surplus from Ireland if the Bill passed. He would tell the hon. Member that if the Bill did pass the Irish Revenue would not be what he expected it to be, for he would not get one farthing from Ulster. One statement was just as good as another, and he would back the determination of the Ulster people against the flabby criminal instincts of the other Party.

SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)

wished to point out that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer founded part of his argument on the assumption that if this Bill were to pass British contributions for Irish purposes would entirely cease. He (Sir J. Lubbock) confessed that he was not so satisfied on that point. He wished he were. The Irish contribution would be fixed; but as long as we had 80 Members from Ireland in the House, what security had we that by their great eloquence they would not be able to obtain grants and subsidies from us in the future as they had in the past? He feared that the view of the Government would not be realised. The hon. Member for Kerry had pleaded the interests of Ireland with his usual ability, and those on that side of the House made no complaint against him for doing so, for he was, of course, quite in his right; but why did he apply the term "Shylock" to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was equally right to defend the British taxpayers? There was hardly anything more irritating be- tween the different parts of the United Kingdom than the discussion of pecuniary payments, and he would appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House, while putting their views forward frankly, to abstain as much as possible from irritating expressions. The hon. Member for Dublin County had told the Committee in one breath that England had robbed Ireland of £300,000,000, and in the next breath that she had governed Ireland by a system of bribery. He would submit to the fairness of the hon. Member whether his two statements were consistent with one another. It was from the briber that money was extracted, and not from the person bribed. He had risen, however, not for the purpose of going into the general question, but to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or, in his absence, perhaps the Chief Secretary would respond. The Irish contribution towards Imperial Expenditure was to be one-third of her Revenue. Now, the total Imperial Expenditure was, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, £63,000,000, of which Great Britain under the Bill would contribute over £61,500,000. The Revenue of Great Britain, as shown in the Returns of July 3, was, in round figures, £83,000,000, out of which she was to contribute over £60,000,000, or more than two-thirds. The question he wished to ask was upon what principle, now that we were to have separate Exchequers, Great Britain should be called on to contribute two-thirds and Ireland only one-third of their respective resources?

MR. J. E. REDMOND (Waterford)

I do not propose to enter into the general discussion—a more fitting time will come for that when we reach the Financial Clauses, and I am only tempted to rise to say a few words in consequence of the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The hon. Member for South Tyrone is, I think, one of the ablest and most ingenious men in this House. I have heard him speak on a variety of subjects; I have heard him speak on University education, on questions of Constitutional Law, and upon various other questions, and I have always found him, on every one of these questions, to bring in the question of crime and outrage in Ireland. During the discussion that preceded his speech, my hon. Friend (Mr. Clancy) and myself were discussing the possibility of his being able to introduce into the dry question of finance in Ireland his pet subject; and I ventured to prophecy to my friend that somehow or other he would succeed in bringing it in. An hon. Gentleman near me says that the hon. Member for North Kerry brought in the question of crime and outrage. I will say to him that is not so. I really think that no fair-minded man who listened to the Member for North Kerry would say anything of the kind. The hon. Member said your surplus would disappear if you did not pass Home Rule. I will say, and I will show you in a moment, that that surplus can and will disappear without any expenditure being necessitated by increase of crime or outrage. I regret that this matter has been brought into discussion, and I regret that the right hon. Baronet who spoke last, and who on all occasions is one of the most mild-mannered and easy debaters in this House—I regret that his advice, that we should avoid in this matter topics and words of irritation, had not been adopted by his friend and Colleague. I only rose to point out that this surplus which England has derived from Ireland will inevitably disappear if Home Rule is not passed, and if the present system of Government goes on quite irrespective of increased expenditure being necessitated by disturbances in the country. I will recall to the recollection of the Committee the enormous, and steady, and regular increase which has gone on for the last half century and more in the expenditure of what has been called Imperial money in Ireland. I have the figures before me. I am quoting from the speech of the Prime Minister, and I presume the figures will not be questioned—at any rate, they have not been questioned. Speaking in introducing the Home Rule Bill this year the Prime Minister said— Irish grants upon the average of 1833 to 1837 were £762,000 a year. Irish grants on the average of 1888 tol892 were £4,042,000 per year; that is to say, in 55 years there has been an increase of £3,300,000, or a regular increment of £66,000 a year. And then, to meet the argument of those who might say that he was going back and not dealing with the present state of things, he said— The experience of seven years between 1886 and 1893 is as follows:—In 1886 the Civil charges without Constabulary were £3,094,000; in 1893 Civil charges were £3,892,000. The Civil charges in Ireland have increased these last seven years by the aggregate of £800,000, and that gives the annual increment in these on the modern days not of £60,000 a year, but of £113,000 a year. If you go on with your system of government—your wasteful and extravagant system of government, as you must admit it to be—in the same manner as in the past; if you reject the Home Rule Bill, a simple sum of arithmetic will show you that in a brief number of years your present surplus will entirely disappear, without any provision whatever being made for increased disturbances or increased expenditure upon police or military. I only rise to make that point, and to say that the argument of the hon. Member for North Kerry is a perfectly sound argument, and that the interpretation put upon it by the hon. Member for North Tyrone, that if Home Rule were defeated it would bring crime and outrage, was an unjust interpretation, and one which I do not think will commend itself to the mind of any fair-minded opponent of ours in this House.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

I did not intend at this point to enter into any general discussion of the proceedings of the Government, but there are two questions I should like to put to them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that the basis of the Government scheme is that Ireland is to be paid in future what she is paying to-day. I am not going to criticise that statement, but I may point out to the Committee that it is an entirely novel departure. In the Bill of 1886 the Prime Minister said the Government were going to proceed upon the taxable capacity of Ireland, and he stated that in his opinion 1–15th would be a fair and even an equitable proportion. On the First Reading of the present Bill the right hon. Gentleman practically proposed to deal with the matter on the same principle. He adopted the lump sum principle of paying, but in arriving at the lump sum he proceeded on the same principle as in 1886. Now, I want to point out to the Government that in changing their system and in giving up the idea of a quota, which I confess has almost appeared to me to be the only fair method of dealing with the subject, they have made a change of extraordinary magnitude, and a change which involves a difference in the contribution of Ireland of something like £1,000,000 or £2,000,000.

SIR W. HARCOURT

Both plans of this year, according to my recollection, were founded upon actual payment.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

Well, for the purpose of the question I want to put to the Government, it really does not very much matter whether in February, 1893, they adhered to the principle of 1886. At all events, they have abandoned that principle now, and the difference between the principle of 1886 and the principle now adopted involves a difference in the contribution of from £1,000,000 to £2,000,000 sterling. Under their present plan the contribution of Ireland is to be £ 1,800,000, whilst under the plan of 1886 the Irish contribution would have been something like £4,000,000. The Prime Minister in 1886 proposed to make as a free gift to the Irish people a contribution of £1,400,000, which was the amount paid in Ireland on goods consumed in Great Britain. That was accepted by the then Leader of the Irish Party as a gift, and, in referring to it, he said that it was this concession on the part of the Government which made him accept the handing over of the collection of the Customs to the British Authority. I admit that the figures since adduced go to show that in later years the taxable capacity of Ireland is less than at the time the quota principle was laid down; but even taking the taxable capacity as shown by the latest figures, it still remains true that the difference in the contribution will be reckoned by more than £1,000,000. The question I want to put to the Government is, why have they altered the principle on which they have proceeded? What is the reason which has caused them to entirely change their idea of the contribution which Ireland ought to pay to the Imperial Exchequer? Of course, the importance of this to the British taxpayer will be perfectly evident—it is a matter of great importance to him whether he is to receive £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 a year more or less from Ireland. I should have said that the principle upon which the Government have proceeded is that it is necessary for their purposes that Ireland should be started with a surplus of £500,000, and that somehow or other, at the cost of the British taxpayer, that surplus is to be found. At all events, it is estimated that Ireland at the very outset of the new arrangement will have a surplus of £500,000 a year; but we have it on the authority of the last speaker, and on the authority of the Government, that the system of expenditure in Ireland is now most wasteful and extravagant. If that be so, under the better system they are going to create there will be very large savings. The Civil charges are put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at something over £3,000,000. How much of that expenditure is wasteful and extravagant? May we take it that at least £500,000 will be saved by more economical and wiser administration, such as the right hon. Gentleman anticipates from an Irish Government? In that case the surplus will be at once raised from £500,000 to £1,000,000. But that is not all. The right hon. Gentleman assumes that the expenditure on the police, a portion of which is now to be put upon the British Exchequer, will be what he calls "vanishing expenditure," and that, probably with in a very few years, it will cease altogether as far as any central Constabulary is concerned. Well, of course, in that case the Irish Parliament will have to pass legislation authorising the creation of local police as in this country; but the expenditure for the local police is properly a local matter, and the outside that may be expected is, that the Irish Parliament may make some contribution towards the cost. If the cost first imposed by the Constabulary on the Irish Government is £1,000,000 a year, we must assume, from the arguments that have been used, that in the course of a very few years that expenditure will be reduced by at least £500,000. That will make an addition of another £500,000 to the Irish surplus. The result, therefore, is that you will start the Irish Parliament with a surplus of £500,000, which in the course of a very few years will, with wise and economical administration, become a surplus of £1,500,000, or, in other words, a surplus the equivalent of which in our Budget will be £20,000,000 a year. I do not wonder that, under these circumstances, the Prime Minister has said that the Irish Parliament will have a plethora of money. I would point out, however, to the Government that under these circumstances it is clearly unfair to the Scotch and English taxpayer that any additional expenditure should be put upon their shoulders. If I am right in these figures I am confident that the Government have been a great deal too liberal with money which, after all, is not theirs. They have been so anxious to please hon. Gentlemen opposite that they have been unfair and unjust to the English and Scotch taxpayers.

MR. BRODRICK (Surrey, Guildford)

said, that with reference to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that the decision of the principle of quota was likely to be very serious to Great Britain, he wished to ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had considered the effect of the figures which had been produced with regard to the Revenue during the first quarter of this year? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had estimated for a reduction of the Revenue this year of £645,000; but the reduction, according to the Return for the first quarter, had reached £864,000 for that quarter alone, so that if anything like the same proportion were maintained throughout the year the total reduction during the year would be about £3,000,000. In that case, whilst the Imperial charges would continue to be exactly the same, the contribution of Ireland would be less by £200,000 than had been estimated. This would mean that the proportion of the Imperial charges that would be paid by Ireland would be not even l–40th, but something like l–45th, instead of the l–15th which the Prime Minister had said was the proper proportion.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

inquired whether it was the case that Ireland's contribution was to be l-40th of the Imperial expenses?

SIR W. HARCOURT

I have already answered that. As to the question put by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Brodrick), I think if he will consult the late Chancellor of the Exchequer he will be informed that it is not very safe to calculate the Revenue of the year on the proceeds of the first quarter. Certainly, I shall not attempt to do that. At the same time, I may say that I received to-day the Return of Customs, and I am glad to find that the proceeds are better than they were during a similar period last year. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) refers to a statement of the Prime Minister's in 1886 with reference to a contribution of l–15th; but the final statement of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) in 1886 was that under his plan Ireland would contribute l–26th. Under the present plan Ireland will contribute l–27th. As regards my right hon. Friend's second point, as to the grant in aid of the Irish Constabulary, the argument is that the Irish can economise so much upon the present extravagant system of government that they will have a sufficient surplus of their own. My right hon. Friend asked why they should not save £500,000 upon the Constabulary and £500,000 on something else. Well, but you have taken care—and the Government in this Bill have taken care—that they shall not economise in this way at present. There are provisions in the Schedule about maintaining the present Civil Service and their salaries. You necessarily continue your system of government for several years, and the result will be to prevent economy being secured. You say they must take over your establishments at your cost. It is, therefore, obvious that the economies of the early years will be very small, if not next to nothing. Again, you are making such provision with respect to the Constabulary that the economies of the Irish Government with regard to the Constabulary must be very slow. We have provided in this Bill that the whole financial arrangement shall be revised in six years. For the first year or two you must give them something back, because it is impossible for them to provide themselves from the sources which the right hon. Gentleman suggests. It is quite true that we hope they will be able in the end to make a purse for themselves; and as they make a purse for themselves our contributions will vanish altogether, and we shall get only a normal contribution from Ireland. What we are disposed to think is that the English people will not demand from Ireland a greater contribution than she is in a position to make, and that they will give her such assistance as she may require in consequence of having to carry on the expensive establishments you have left to her.

SIR J. LUBBOCK

asked for some answer to the question he had put.

SIR W. HARCOURT

What was the question?

SIR J. LUBBOCK

said, he wished to know on what principle the taxpayers of England were to pay two-thirds of their Revenue towards Imperial charges, whilst Ireland was only to pay one-third of her Revenue?

SIR W. HARCOURT

was understood to say that he did not understand the question.

MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square)

Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to place a Return on the Table showing how he arrives at his l–27ths? It is always more satisfactory to have figures of this kind in a Return than in a Parliamentary Report. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the l–27th represents the contribution apart from the provision of the police or not? If it does, the right hon. Gentleman may find my calculation of l–40th correct.

SIR W. HARCOURT

was understood to say that he would present the Return asked for.

SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)

said, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not understand the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for London University (Sir J. Lubbock) he was the only man in the House who could not. The question was, why the proper proportion of Imperial Expenditure to be contributed by Great Britain to the Imperial resources was two-thirds, whilst the proper proportion to be contributed by Ireland was only one-third?

SIR W. HARCOURT

The right hon. Gentleman says everyone in the Committee understands it except myself. Well, I think it is unfortunate to put the question to the only man who does not understand it.

SIR J. GORST

I say that every man in the Committee except the right hon. Gentleman understands the question. I do not think a single man in the Committee understands the answer.

MR. SEXTON

said, he was informed that whilst he was absent for a moment from the House the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) made some reply to the speech he had made in the course of the Debate. The Committee would remember that he (Mr. Sexton) had stated that if Home Rule were refused to the people of Ireland in consequence of the threats of insurrection, disaffection, and disorder uttered by a minority of the Irish people, the effect of such refusal would be that any surplus now obtained for Imperial purposes from the Revenue of Ireland would probably disappear. He thought it pretty evident that if Home Rule were refused to Ireland, in consequence of the threats he had referred to, the result would be to engender political discontent and disaffection; and he had stated that, as had been proved by experience in the past, when one country governed by another was kept in a state of profound political discontent the administration of affairs in that country was more expensive than it otherwise would be. No one could deny that if Home Rule were refused to Ireland the discontent would be such that it would be impossible to get a penny of Imperial surplus out of that country. The hon. Member had been pleased to say that his meaning was that, if Home Rule were refused, the Nationalist Members would take their hands off the throttle-valve of crime.

An hon. MEMBER: Safety-valve.

MR. SEXTON

The safety-valve of crime, thereby implying that they had the control of the commission of crime, and that, consequently, if Home Rule were refused, they would no longer exercise that control, but would lend themselves as abettors to the perpetration of crime. Well, he presumed that that language was in Order, or it would not have passed without notice. Had he been present when the remarks were uttered, however, he would certainly have interposed some observations. It was difficult to see how orderly debate was to be maintained if hon. Members were to be allowed to impute to other hon. Members that they had the control of the commission of crime. He did not know where there was any safety-valve on the commission of crime in Ireland; and if there were one, he could only say that he and his Colleagues had never had their hands upon it. The hon. Member for South Tyrone ought to have more intelligence than to suggest anything of the kind. Complaints had recently been made of the commission of crime in Kerry, Limerick, and Clare; and surely If Irish Members had any control whatever over such matters they would for political reasons have exercised it, and have prevented the crime being committed. But, in fact, they never had had control over crime; they had from the first striven to suppress it; they had advised the House to pass legislation calculated to put an end to it; and if crime had been produced, it was because the Land Act and the Arrears Act had been too long delayed, and because Parliament had been too tardy in its action. The hon. Member had spoken of the criminal instincts of the Irish race. His reply was that the people of Ireland were not a people with criminal instincts; they were as averse to crime as any other people in the world; and if Home Rule were now refused, a race which had struggled for it for so many years would show that it was able still to struggle for its political rights, not by indulgence in criminal instincts, but by manly and honourable pressure for independence. The imputation cast upon them by the hon. Member was an unfounded imputation, and he repelled it and cast it back with contempt.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

The statement made by the hon. Member for Kerry—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! This matter has proceeded quite far enough.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I claim to speak as a matter of personal explanation.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is entitled to make a personal explanation.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

I rise merely to say the Committee will remember that the hon. Member for Kerry made a statement to the effect that if this Bill were defeated there would be no surplus. I asked him across the floor of the House, and several other Members repeated the question, "Why," and the reply was, "You can draw your own inference." He then went on to point out that the expense for the police and military would be increased. I am sorry—and I said so—that the hon. Member was out of the House when I rose, because I wished him to know what was the inference I drew from his statement. If he does not remember, I do remember that his Leader at one time absolutely bargained—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! That is not a personal explanation, and it is altogether out of Order.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)

said, he had to put one or two questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to Ireland's exact contribution. He understood him to say that the total revenue of Ireland was £6,972,000, that one-third of that would be £2,300,000, and that that sum would be diminished by £500,000, thus leaving £1,800,000 as Ireland's contribution. [Sir W. HARCOURT: Yes.] Then there were only two blunders the right hon. Gentleman could possibly make, and he had made them both. He had omitted to take into consideration the Miscellaneous Revenue, of which one-third was not to be taken, and the proportion would, therefore, be not £2,300,000, but £2,260,000.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I stated that.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES, continuing, said that, according to the right hon. Gentleman, the amount to be contributed to this country—always using the figures 1892–93—in regard to the police was £500,000; as a fact, it was £486,000.

SIR W. HARCOURT

I stated that.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

asked, what they were to do with a Chancellor of the Exchequer who first told them the figures were correct and immediately afterwards altered them? The net result of the inaccuracies he had pointed out was, that Ireland's contribution would be only £1,776,000, a very small difference perhaps in the eyes of some people; but, nevertheless, a sum of over £20,000, equal to the salaries of four Chancellors of the Exchequer, which England would receive below the estimate. But that was not all. He found in a Parliamentary Return that the arrears outstanding on loans to Ireland amounted to £12,225,000, and in addition to that there were further loans under the Purchase Acts of £5,412,000, making a total of £17,637,000 hard solid cash advanced by England to Ireland. In addition to that, the liabilities of England under the Irish Church Fund amounted to £6,600,000, and there was a balance to advance under the 1885 Act of £4,588,000; total £11,188,000. Now what provision was to be made for the repayment of the £17,600,000 of hard solid cash already advanced, and for the relief of England from the liability to pay another £11,188,000? They were entitled to have their capital back. They were now going out of partnership with Ireland, and surely the British taxpayer was entitled to require a satisfactory arrangement on these points. They had been called Shylocks. Well, he was not ashamed of that title. He had read that interesting play by the late Mr. William Shakespeare, and the only one among the whole lot of characters for whom he had the slightest respect was Shylock; the rest were either cheats, jades, or fraudulent bankrupts.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order!

MR. DARLING

I desire to say one word—

MR. GIBSON BOWLES

Please let me finish. I wish only to say that a proposal of this kind seems to treat us exactly as Shylock was treated. It robs us of our shekels, our daughter, and our character at the same time.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The discussion has taken a very wide range under the guidance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that I may be almost out of Order in attempting to bring it back to the point we ought strictly to be discussing. It is now too late to deal generally with the question of the treatment of the Civil servants and Constabulary. The right hon. Gentleman will know that by reason of the disciplinary rules of the Force the Constabulary have no opportunity of making their case public in the ordinary way. They cannot fill the newspapers with correspondence, and have no spokesman in this House except the right hon. Gentleman, who, I am sure, desires to do them justice. I gather from the ordinary sources of information that both the Civil Service and the Constabulary have laid their views before him, and I think it would be a great assistance to the Committee in discussing the Bill if the Chief Secretary would allow the Civil servants and the Constabulary to present their claim direct to the House, instead of transmitting it through the right hon. Gentleman, who is himself responsible for the measure which these officials perhaps do not think adequately meets the necessities of their case. I think that request is not an unfair one.

MR. J. MORLEY

It is not an unreasonable request. It is true that I have had the advantage of hearing from representatives of the Civil servants and of the Royal Irish Constabulary the defects which they find in the Government scheme, and I feel, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, that it is perhaps not quite fair to prevent the criticism of the members of the Irish Civil Service and the Constabulary being accessible to the House. My own intention had been, when we discussed these clauses, to state frankly the objections which have been laid before me but I will think it over be- tween now and Monday as to whether there cannot be some more formal opening made for gentlemen of the Civil Service, and also for the Constabulary Force, which is a more delicate matter. I hope the Committee will now allow us to take this preliminary Resolution.

MR. DARLING (Deptford)

said, the reason why Great Britain paid two-thirds of her Revenue while Ireland was to pay only one-third was that—as explained a day or two since by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—it was the compensation Great Britain had to pay to Ireland for having the goodness to manage her own affairs.

SIR W. HARCOURT

The proportion Ireland has to pay under our scheme, according to our contention, is exactly the proportion that she pays now. Therefore, whatever objection there is to our scheme equally applies to the scheme which has been in operation in past years.

Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom,—

1. (a) of salaries, pensions, and gratuities to Judges, Land Commissioners, County Court Judges, and officers of the Civil Service, and other officials who are in receipt of salaries paid out of moneys voted by Parliament; and
2. (b) of salaries, gratuities, and pensions to the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police, together with the expenditure incidental thereto,

in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to amend the provision for the Government of Ireland. Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.