GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL. (No. 209.)

HC Deb 25 July 1893 vol 15 cc491-548

COMMITTEE. [Progress, New Clauses, 24th July.]

[FORTY-FIFTH NIGHT.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

New Clause (Financial arrangements as between the United Kingdom and Ireland).—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)

MR. J. E. REDMOND (Waterford) moved the omission of the 1st sub-section of the clause. It would not be necessary for him to detain the Committee for more than a few minutes, as he had already expressed his views on this question during the general discussion on the clause. It would be remembered that Clause 10, as it originally stood, gave the Irish Legislature control, collection, and management of the taxes in Ireland immediately, with the exception of the Customs. He and other hon. Members had voted in favour of that Clause 10, because they desired to take the earliest opportunity to show that the proposal in Clause 10 was a preferable one to the proposal in the new Financial Clause. The 1st sub-section of the new clause was as follows:— (1) Until the transfer hereinafter mentioned the existing taxes in Ireland shall he imposed by Act of Parliament, and all matters relating to those taxes or to the hereditary revenues of the Crown in Ireland, or to the collection or management thereof, shall be regulated by Act of Parliament. If that 1st sub-section was left out the remainder of the clause, with a slight amendment in the last sub-section, would read connectedly, while the Amendment would not materially interfere, in his opinion, with the financial scheme of the Government. Both the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Local Government Board made an elaborate defence of the new financial proposals, but neither of the right hon. Gentlemen thought it necessary to dwell, even in a single sentence, on this proposal for the collection of the Irish taxes; and that fact strengthened him in his belief that there was no necessary or reasonable connection be- tween the financial scheme as a whole, and the immediate taking over of the collection of all taxes by the Irish Legislature. He therefore moved his Amendment in order to raise distinctly the clear issue whether the Irish Legislature was to have the immediate control of Irish taxes, as originally proposed, or whether that control was to be withheld from it for six years.

Before the CHAIRMAN put the Question,

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

I rise to a point of Order. I wish to move the omission of the words "until the transfer hereinafter mentioned," the object being to take away the transitional character of the clause. If you, Sir, put to the Committee a single word of the clause, it would prevent my Amendment being moved; and I ask as a matter of Order whether you cannot put the number of the sub-section, or in some other way indicate the question before the Committee, so as to enable me, should the Committee reject the hon. Member's Amendment, to move my Amendment, which raises a different question?

MR. J. E. REDMOND

The right hon. Gentleman should have intervened earlier.

THE CHAIRMAN

If the hon. Member for Waterford likes to give way the right hon. Gentleman could move his Amendment.

MR. J. E. REDMOND

That would be the more regular course, I submit.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

I do not wish to take the hon. and learned Member unawares. But if this is done the hon. Member will himself be debarred from moving the Amendment on which he has just spoken.

THE CHAIRMAN

That is so. If the right hon. Gentleman moves his Amendment it would be impossible for the hon. Member to move his Amendment subsequently.

MR. J. E. REDMOND

In these circumstances it will, perhaps, be more desirable that I should insist on my Amendment being moved.

THE CHAIRMAN

I can only put the omission of the first word "until," as the Amendment of the hon. Member.

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

Perhaps the difficulty would be got rid of if my right hon. Friend moved to insert after "until" the words "Parliament otherwise ordains."

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

Yes; I accept that suggestion.

Amendment proposed, to leave out Sub-section (1).—(Mr. J. E. Redmond.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'until' stand part of the Clause."

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

I am not able to assent to the statement that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman raises a clear issue. If the Amendment was carried the omission of the subsection would leave things exactly as they are; that is to say, the collection and management of the Revenue would be in the hands of the Imperial Authorities, and, therefore, the hon. Member would of course require to proceed by further provisions in order to attain his end. The hon. Member said that this change, as regards the imposition and collection of the Revenue, could not be considered by the Government as a vital change in our financial position, because neither the Chancellor of the Exchequer nor the President of the Local Government Board referred to that part of the plan. It is perfectly true that they did not refer to it; but the reason was that this part of the plan was not assailed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and consequently there was no necessity to defend it. We regard this change as a very great change indeed, and the whole system of receipt and account in connection with the collection and distribution of Irish Revenue would be altered and dislocated if the plan of the hon. Member were accepted. In the alteration which we made from the original plan of the Bill the main object was to secure simplification. We cannot accept the Amendment because it would break up the character of the plan, and, further, because controversy would be raised which might perhaps otherwise be avoided.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I rise at once not because I have any desire to intervene in the special matter of controversy between the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Waterford; but if I were called upon to decide on the issue between them, I could not think it consistent with my duty to go into the Lobby with the hon. and learned Member. I presume this would be the appropriate time for me to ask the Government by what machinery they propose during the transitional period of six years to deal with the protection of the Revenue in Ireland? As the Chief Secretary was aware, there was a time when there was a special machinery for dealing with the Excise in Ireland. That was found to be very expensive, and a saving of about £20,000 a year was effected by the transfer of the duly of protecting the Inland Revenue to the Royal Irish Constabulary, who now perform that duty. I believe that body has been increased by 400 men, who are employed and paid for Revenue purposes, and without those 400 men I take it that it would not be possible in any way to cope with the problem of illicit distillation, which is a serious problem in large tracts of mountainous country like the Highlands of Scotland and the West of Ireland. The Bill, as I understand it, contemplates that the whole of the Royal Irish Constabulary shall be withdrawn as soon as the new Irish Legislature sends a certificate to the Lord Lieutenant that local police has been provided in any county. It is not, I presume, intended by the Government to intrust to such local police the whole responsibility of protecting the Imperial Revenue, and yet they would apparently deprive themselves, or they might find that they had deprived themselves, by this Bill of the existing machinery for that purpose. The problem therefore arose, which the Government, I suppose, have faced, though they have not told us anything about it, by what machinery they are going to protect the interests of the British, and, indeed, in this matter, of the Irish taxpayer also. This must have been present to their minds in formulating their plan. Do they mean to go back to the original and costly system by the abolition of which some 20 or 30 years ago £20,000 a year has been saved? If they do not mean to do that, what do they mean to do?

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

It was very considerate on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to assume that I was ignorant of this particular detail. But it so happens that I am myself the author of this change. I think so far back as 1853—

MR. GOSCHEN

I think it was in 1846.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

No, a much more important change, which I have always regretted, was made in 1846, when the entire general charge of the Constabulary Force was put on the Consolidated Fund instead of one-half of it being provided in Ireland. But in 1853 it was represented to me by an excellent public servant, the Chairman of the Inland Revenue, that an economy might be made with great administrative advantage to the Service—and that economy was, I think, considerably more than the right hon. Gentleman has stated it to be, for it was something like £40,000 a year—by the abolition of the Excise Constabulary, and by the transfer of their duties to the regular Imperial Constabulary. I made the change, and there is no doubt that it has been successful, and that the duties have been discharged by the Constabulary with perfect satisfaction to the authorities. I quite admit that the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman in respect of the collection of the Imperial Revenue by the local police is one which may require some consideration, but it is not an imminent or pressing question at the present time. There can only be county police under some county local government or some local government in county areas outside the areas of the Municipalities. No such areas have been formed or authorities constituted under which there could be police, and, therefore, although I feel the force of the inquiry, these changes must be made before the question can be considered as a practical one. The right hon. Gentleman has said that this machinery will be for the collection of the Imperial Revenue. But the Irish interest in this collection will continue, because two-thirds of that Revenue will constitute the fund, from which the charges of local government in Ireland are to be wholly or substantially met. I do not think, under these circumstances, that the time has come for giving a final answer upon the modifications in the present arrangements which will have to be made to secure the repression of illegal distillation when the proper time arises.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON (Armagh, N.)

said, it was somewhat interesting to him to regard the difference with which the Prime Minister treated his Irish allies in the matter of the collection of the Revenue and the way in which the right hon. Gentleman treated them on other occasions. When it was a matter of protecting the rights of the Irish minority, or a matter of retaining the Imperial supremacy, the Prime Minister entirely confided in hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and it went to his heart to hear any doubts cast upon them. But when it came to what the right hon. Gentleman, no doubt, considered to be the far more interesting question of the collection of the Revenue his attitude towards the Nationalist Members changed. The Prime Minister's position on the sub-section which the hon. Member for Waterford proposed to omit showed that there lingered in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman a certain doubt as to the willingness, or possibly as to the capacity, of the future Irish Government to satisfactorily fulfil the functions of collecting the English tribute. It was a matter of perfect indifference to him if Home Rule ever were granted whether the tribute was collected or not. So far as he was concerned, he hoped it would cease altogether. He thought that being betrayed was bad enough, but paying the betrayer was still worse. But it was interesting now to learn that the right hon. Gentleman had not got the faintest idea in the world as to how the collection of this tribute was to be made. There was not to be established in Dublin a Prætorian Guard, but there was to be established in Ireland a local police. The right hon. Gentleman knew a great deal, but he did not, he thought, know very much of Ireland, for if he did he would not look to the local police of Clare or Kerry to collect the tribute which was to flash the pockets of the hated Saxon. He did not interfere in the Debate because he inclined to the one course or the other course. It was a matter of indifference to him. He should neither support the hon. Member for Waterford nor vote for the Government. This was one of those family quarrels which sometimes occurred now, notwithstanding the union of hearts, but which led to nothing. Hon. Members below the Gangway would accept any re-arrangement the Prime Minister might fix upon. The right hon. Gentleman had nothing to fear, because hon. Members below the Gangway were bound to accept his proposals if he only put his foot down. Those hon. Members, however, must have internally smiled as they listened to the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because they knew well that if Home Rule were granted the British tribute would be at their mercy. If the Prime Minister looked at the Amendment Paper he would see a later Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for North Dublin, providing that the tribute was to be paid only when the surplus in the Irish Exchequer was not less than £,500,000. The first object would be to pay their own expenses, then to pay the Government officials; and to do that they must have a surplus. The Amendment was a sort of old friend of his, because it was the way in which they dealt with the landlords in Ireland. They advised the tenants to pay their landlords under certain restricted conditions. They were first to pay the shopkeeper, then to pay their dues, then to provide for themselves, and to retain enough to enjoy life, and then, if the tenant chose, to pay the remainder to the landlord. In this case they found the tribute was to be paid, but it was only to be paid if £500,000 of surplus remained to be distributed amongst the officials of the future Parliament. This Amendment, which he was not discussing now, threw its shadow over the present discussion, because it showed the meaning and intention of the hon. Member and his friends. When the Home Rule Parliament was established and the British Exchequer demanded its due, and that due was refused on pure and patriotic motives, he would like to hear what the right hon. Gentleman would have to say. Again, how would the right hon. Gentleman stop smuggling; how would he prevent distillation? The right hon. Gentleman said he did not know, nor did anyone else know. When the scramble was over for the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer of the Irish Government, and when the other posts were distributed, as they would be, amongst gentlemen of great ability below the Gangway, naturally their first motive and object would be, not to secure the Revenue of the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, but to pay themselves and their friends, and to maintain with proper dignity that Government of which, no doubt, they would be ornaments. He should vote neither one way nor the other, and he hoped those of his friends who sympathised with him would adopt that course. Of course, there might be English and Scottish Members who might view this from the standpoint of the British taxpayer; but he did not. That was the British taxpayer's look out, but he looked at it from the point of view of the Irish minority; and he might say for them that if they snapped the connection between this country and Ireland so far as the collection of the British tribute was concerned, he, for one, did not care a farthing.

* MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

thought the Committee would agree with him that speeches like that last delivered did not conduce to the relevancy or order of discussion. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member upon his Amendment, he preferred to explain the Amendment himself, which he would do when they came to it. With respect to the remarks of the Prime Minister, he wished to make one or two observations. The right hon. Gentleman said that if this sub-section were omitted things would remain as they were now. Might he point out that if the sub-section were omitted things would not remain as they were if a subsequent and consequent Amendment was adopted? All that was necessary would be to alter the first three or four words of Sub-section 8, to substitute for the words "after six years" the words "on and after the appointed day." By that the 10th clause of the Bill as it originally stood would be revived. The right hon. Gentleman said the omission of this sub-section would have the effect of giving over at once the control of Irish taxation to the Irish Legislature, the result of which would be to break up the plan. The essence of the plan consisted of two parts; first, in taking one-third of the Irish Revenue for the British Exchequer; and, secondly, in allowing the Imperial Parliament to fix the rates of Customs, Excise, and postage. If they went back to the 10th clause, which he contended would be the effect of omitting this sub-section, they would leave this Imperial Parliament the power of fixing all Excise, Customs, and Postal Rates, and the rest of the clause would give to the Irish Exchequer two-thirds of the Revenue; therefore it seemed to him that the argument of the right hon. Gentleman fell to the ground. The meaning of the Amendment was that the Irish Legislature should at once have the control of all its own taxation, with the exception of the fixing of the Customs, Excise, and Postal Rates; and so far as his hon. Friend, himself, and those who agreed with him were concerned, they regarded it as a matter of first-rate importance. He would not dwell upon the fact that the keeping from the Irish Legislature, even for a definite period of six years, the control of all its taxes was a humiliating proposal. He would not dwell upon that, because it was self-evident, and he looked forward with great apprehension as to what might take place in such a state of things both in the Parliament of Ireland and outside its walls; but he would dwell upon the fact that the keeping away from the Irish Legislature the power of controlling all its taxes for six years would gravely hamper the Irish Legislature in the management of Irish affairs. For instance, supposing, under the arrangement of the Bill, somehow or other, by a miscalculation in the Returns, by an enormous amount added to the pension list in respect of the Civil Service and Police, a deficit occurred, they would be absolutely unable to make up that deficit, because they would have no control over the existing taxes in Ireland. When the right hon. Gentleman told him they would have power under the Bill to levy new taxes he bogged to assure him that his (Mr. Clancy's) conviction was that he would be a bold Minister who would propose to introduce any new taxes in Ireland for the next 10 or 20 years. Therefore, he was afraid it would hamper and disorganise and dislocate their whole system in Ireland, if they were deprived even for only six years of all control over their taxation. He was afraid that the collection, not merely of Customs and Excise Duties, but all other taxes, by Imperial officers who were to be established all over Ireland as now, would create a state of things likely to lead to political friction, and he was borne out in this by the words of the Prime Minister. In introducing the Bill the right hon. Gentleman spoke of the desirability of keeping Imperial officers as much as possible out of connection with the internal affairs of Ireland. Instead of doing anything to keep them out of such connection, for the next six years—the most critical period in the whole history of Ireland, the time when Home Rule would be on its trial—Imperial officers would be then, as now, diving into all the affairs of Ireland, and he was afraid the result would be political difficulty and friction. He admitted there was one consideration that would weigh with himself in accepting this clause, and that was the doubtful character of the Financial Returns. ["Oh, oh!"] There was no doubt about that; everyone admitted it, and the Government had practically admitted it by offering a Royal Commission to ascertain the facts. Considering that fact, he sometimes thought it would be better for the Irish Government to have nothing to do with the taxation of Ireland until they knew the real facts of the case. But a consideration like that did not outweigh the other considerations to which he had referred; and believing that it did not outweigh them, he had no hesitation in supporting the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

said, he agreed with the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. E. Redmond). The proposal of the Government was that for six years the control of the taxation should remain in the hands of the Imperial Parliament, and that it should have power to control and alter the taxation of Ireland; but that it should hand back to the Irish Government for the purpose of carrying on its own business two-thirds of that taxation. As a British taxpayer, and as a friend of Ireland, he objected to that arrangement. He thought it would work evil to both the Imperial Government, and the Government sitting in Dublin. It must necessarily hamper the action of any Chancellor of the Exchequer there, because he would have to consider an entirely new state of circumstances in any dealings he might have to take in the annual review of the finances. It was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday that even now, in dealing with the finances of the Empire, he had to consider their effect on Ireland, and that the Representatives of that country would have a good deal to say with regard to any proposed change. That was true; but there was this entirely new feature introduced—that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in considering the effect of any alteration of the taxes, must not only consider how that alteration would affect the different classes of taxpayers, but he must consider what effect it would have on the balance at the disposal of the Irish Government. Hitherto, whatever change was made in the taxes the Irish administration was bound to be carried on, and the money would have to be found for it. But now it would have no effect whatever on the expenditure in Ireland if the duty on tea or spirits or any other source of Revenue was reduced. If they were going to allot two-thirds of the Revenue derived from Ireland for the maintenance of the Irish Government they would have to consider, whenever any change was made in the taxes, how that two-thirds would enable the Government of Ireland to be carried on. That was a new thought, a new complexity, a new embarrassment, in dealing with the taxation of the Kingdom. They could not make changes they might otherwise desire to make, because it would disorganise the Irish balances. But if, instead of giving the Irish Government two-thirds of the Revenue from Ireland, they resolved to accept the proposal of the quota which the Irish Government should pay—that was that the Irish Government should pay a fixed sum to the Imperial Exchequer, the embarrassment of the Irish Exchequer would be greater, because then the diminution of the Irish Revenue would not apply to two-thirds, but to the whole. In his opinion the only way to reserve to themselves liberty of action in respect of Imperial taxation, and, at the same time, to keep themselves free from embarrassment would be to assign to the Irish Government not the two-thirds, or not what would remain after a fixed quota was paid, but to assign to them what might be necessary for the purposes of government and take the remainder. Then they would be at liberty to deal with the taxation of the country, and a fixed quota would be left to the Irish Government. The proposed mode of dealing with the Irish finances took away from the Irish Government the prime motive for economy. It was said that the Irish Government would have ample stores of money if it exercised due prudence; but to what purpose would it exercise due prudence? It was the glory of a Chancellor of the Exchequer to remit taxation. No prudence on the part of the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer—and he thought the Prime Minister would be keenly alive to this argument—no prudence would enable the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer to remit taxation. He would have no motive to do so. He would have to spend to the limit that was assigned to him; and the scheme of the Government, while it would embarrass the Imperial Parliament, would not tend to develop that virtue which his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government relied on. He would pass from that point to the third line of consideration, which involved perpetual difficulties between the two countries. How could they get rid of the difficulties of Irish finance when the Irish Representatives in that House could raise the question in certain respects every year, and year by year? and evil must result between the two countries if this proposed dual arrangement was started. In a previous speech he made an observation which he would take the liberty of repeating. He ventured to say that the peaceful, easy, and smooth relations between Great Britain and her Colonies was owing to the absence of any pecuniary relations. He had also referred to the experience of the United States, which was absolutely free from all pecuniary relations between the Federal and the State Government. If the Government introduced a system of pecuniary arrangement between Great Britain and Ireland, a system liable to revision and change, they would be creating a source of corruption and of perpetual intrigue. He was glad to see the Member for Longford (Mr. Blake) in his place, and he would challenge him to question the accuracy of the statement he was about to make, that the history of Canada was full of warnings in this respect. Sir John Macdonald was a clever manager of men and an able manipulator of political issues; but Sir John Macdonald's success in carrying out his objects and the security he had arose from the way in which he went from Province to Province offering them subventions of money. The history of Canada was pregnant as to the evil of a system of pecuniary relations between a central and a subordinate Government, and the Colony of New Zealand gave a lesson of the same kind. The Government was rushing, without considering what experience taught them, into setting up in Ireland a system the evils of which had been demonstrated elsewhere. If they were to accept Home Rule, and if a separate Parliament was to be set up in Dublin, the only way to do it was to make a clean cut fiscally between the Exchequers of the two Kingdoms. His right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was in favour of the unity of trade; but the unity of trade was not worth keeping if it must be kept by a corrupt arrangement between England and Ireland. The sincere and outspoken Leaders of the Home Rule movement demanded freedom in respect to taxation and trade, and the best interests of this country required that that demand should be acceded to if the Government was going to make the false step of setting up Home Rule in Ireland. But he believed they would not settle the Home Rule Question in that Parliament, or perhaps in the next; but if the constituencies insisted on the setting up of Home Rule, let the opportunity be availed of of going back to the scheme of 1886 or some modification of it that would leave them free, leave them untainted, and that would give Ireland an opportunity of working out its future free from the corruption and taint which would affect it also under the present financial scheme.

* MR. BLAKE (Longford, N.)

It is not to be denied, it needs no precedent to prove, that complicated or intimate financial relations between subordinate and central Governments afford opportunities of evil which do not exist in the absence of these relations. But I think it is not to be denied either that it is possible to achieve objects which are in the best interests of both Islands without encountering all the dangers to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, and which, I think, he has immensely exaggerated. It is strange to hear from the Benches on which the right hon. Gentleman sits the suggestion that the true method of Home Rule is one which should separate the trade relations of the two Islands; because—wisely, as I believe—with reference to the first cast of the Bill of 1886, the most cogent objection taken, apart from the question of representation here, was the objection indicated at a time when it was thought that there might be a separate Custom and Excise Revenue, and thus a possible separation of trade, with Protection in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has stated that the candid Home Ruler is saying he is not satisfied with the present arrangement as to trade relations, and that it must be changed. But so long ago as 1886, when the Bill assumed in that respect the form in which it came before Parliament, the Leader of the Irish Party accepted fully and frankly the proposition that, for the purpose of trade and commerce, the Islands should be one. Since that time, up till now, that view has been accepted and adopted by those who, from the Sister Island, do advocate Home Rule. I regard as a cardinal point; I have regarded it as even more in the real interests of Ireland than in those of Great Britain, that there should be absolute freedom of trade between these communities. The feeling in Ireland which subsisted with reference to that subject was, as we all know, due to the fact that the power of Britain had in former years been used with different trade notions and different views, in a manner absolutely impossible to conceive of revival now. That real freedom and community of trade are best secured by the present plan is an obvious proposition. I say that regarding this as a cardinal point, and adopting the views which the Liberal Unionists in 1886 took upon that subject, and which largely moulded the legislation of 1886 and 1893, it becomes obvious that here, and here alone, must centre the legislation with reference to trade, and, therefore, the legislation on Customs and Excise. If that is so, since it is perfectly clear that with reference to Ireland a large portion of the public resources necessary to meet her Public Local Expenditure must be derived from Customs and Excise, since it is out of the question to suggest increased direct taxation to any large extent as a means of Revenue, it is obvious that we are obliged to face the difficulty to which the right hon. Gentleman alludes. My opinion is that, subject to certain questions which are to be disposed of at the end of the transitional period, the system of the quota is the best and most convenient system of making the adjustment. With reference to what the right hon. Gentleman has said as to Canada, I will observe, although the person to whom he referred was an opponent of mine all my political life, that it is just to him to say it was not with reference to such transactions as are pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman as dangerous, but with reference to another class of transactions altogether, that the difficulties, mainly at any rate, have occurred in Canada. They occurred in Canada because there was an interlacing of another and altogether different description from that proposed in the case of Ireland. They occurred with reference to those very local subventions which have been the subject of so much discussion here, such as light railways or local grants, those transactions to which you propose to put au end altogether as Imperial transactions, with respect to which you cut a short and sharp mark of division between the two communities, and as to which you say that for the future Ireland herself shall bear the burden of local development and local improvement. Because in Canada the Constitution—interpreted rightly or wrongly—interpreted in some respects in my judgment against its true meaning, was interpreted as being adequate to permit the intervention of the Central Authority with reference to the question of local improvement. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the States as having altogether got rid of that difficulty. Not so. The question of local improvements in the States is a burning question to-day. Therefore it is, I think, you are really avoiding the main point of danger when you make it distinct and clear that whatever the division of the Revenue may be, Ireland herself, out of her own resources, is to provide for the future for her own local improvements and development. I admit, as I have said, that you cannot have complicated transactions without some danger of jarring machinery. But to suggest that of the two dangers which are set before us by the right hon. Gentleman the one he proposes we should encounter is less grave than the one he proposes we should avoid seems to me entirely out of the question. I believe the true interests of these two Islands are largely bound up in the unity of their trade arrangements. I believe their true interests are largely bound up in the maintenance of the representation at Westminster. These are two points for which the Liberal Unionists contended in 1886. A great many of them did, at any rate. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Courtney) shakes his head, but the right hon. Gentleman who loads him will not shake his head. On these two main and cardinal and related points, in respect to which I sympathised with them then, my only distinction from them now is that while I sympathised with them as they were in 1886, I do not sympathise with them as they are in 1893.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The House always listens with interest to the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down; and having listened to the few remarks he has just made, it is no disparagement to his speech to say that it was but au imperfect answer to the very weighty observations of the right hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Courtney). With most of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the hon. Member did not attempt to deal; he confined himself to the last argument.

MR. BLAKE

That was all I heard.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The right hon. Gentleman pointed out the grave dangers which might arise between England and Ireland if money relations were to come in between the two Governments. In answer to that, the hon. Gentleman said that the differences between the Central Government of Canada and the Provincial Governments had not arisen from the amount which the Provinces had to pay, but from the subventions to be given by the Central to the Local Authorities.

* MR. BLAKE

said, that what he intended to say, and what he thought he did say, was that they arose mainly from the circumstance that the Canadian Constitution had been construed to mean that the Central Government itself might and should undertake and effect local improvements.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Quite so: and his argument was that as it is not contemplated we should go on either contributing or making local grants to Ireland, that particular source of difficulty would be removed. But Irish Members will not come to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and say, "We will give you our votes if you make light railways." What they will say is, "The country wants light railways; increase the amount of money we get from Imperial taxation or we will not support you." The danger only changes in form; the corruption is precisely the same. Most of us know how the most united families maybe riven asunder by a wretched quarrel over a paltry sum of money. Is not that more likely to be the case where the members of a family are not joined together by the closest and most long-standing family affection? One of the most remarkable parts of the speech of the right hon. Member for Bodmin was that in which he pointed out that the motives of economy would, to a great extent, be absent in Ireland under the proposed system. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out one of a series of dangers, all analogous in their character, which would arise from Irish finance being bound hand and foot by this arrangement. The hon. Member for Longford said that all Irish Home Rulers were agreed that this kind of control must be exercised by this House over Irish finance; but he evidently did not hear the speech of the hon. Member for North Dublin, who pointed out what confusion must follow, both inside and outside the Irish Legislature, if the scheme of the Government were carried out. I cannot doubt that in this case the Member for North Dublin was a true prophet. The position of the Irish Government would be absolutely intolerable under this Bill. The Irish Government could not possibly carry out works which were necessary without a large capital at their hand, and they could not get a largo capital out of the produce of taxation or out of the £500,000 surplus so generously given to them at the expense of the British taxpayer. They must, therefore, get the money by borrowing; and on what security would they borrow? Under what I will call the February scheme there were the Income Tax and other sources of taxation which the Irish Government might have hypothecated, but now the whole control over taxation is taken out of their hands. They cannot touch the Customs; they cannot touch Income Tax; they cannot touch the Stamps. It is quite true that they have a right to two-thirds of the taxation in Ireland; but all that taxation is determined not by them, but by the British Parliament. The Irish Legislature cannot turn to one single source of Revenue with a view of borrowing in the English market for any purpose whatever. Who would lend money upon an income which was not in the control of the borrower? That is only one of many illustrations made in the preceding Debate by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and the right hon. Gentleman who spoke this evening; and if in the vote we are about to give I had merely to consider how this system would work in Ireland, and how it would affect the Legislatures in Ireland and in England, I should not hesitate to support the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. But I do not mean to give that vote. We have something more to consider than the ease and future government of the Irish Legislature. My own view is that we are trying an impossible experiment, and, for my part, I wish to see it tried, if at all, on the smallest scale possible. The scheme is an impossible one, but we are met by these antagonistic impossibilities on every clause of the Bill. We have always got to consider on every proposal of the Government whether the impossibility on the right is or is not worse than the impossibility on the left. One of them we have to choose, and we have to estimate the comparative degrees of absurdity which we are compelled to swallow by the legislative speculators who promote this Bill. Though with some hesitation and reluctance, I choose the absurdity which gives least power to the Irish Legislative Assembly. On the whole, I am disposed to think the least intolerable course to be pursued is either to abstain from voting altogether or to support the Government against the hon. and learned Member for Waterford.

MR. SEXTON

The question raised by the right hon. Gentleman as to the security which the Irish Government might have to give for loans is not one which arises on the present Amendment. It is a question relating to a surplus which they may have from income. It is presumed that they should have a surplus, and certainly if you have not a surplus you would not have a good security to offer for loans, and the surplus, from whatever source it may come, will have to be provided. That question arises hereafter. The right hon. Gentleman, as it appears to me, pointed his speech against the Bill at large, against the principle of Home Rule, and he conceived he was making a point against Home Rule. I consider the drift of his speech was a condemnation of the present system. He said under Homo Rule the Irish Members would use their opportunities to corruptly influence the Government with regard to the contribution of Ireland towards Imperial Expenditure. We have now 103 Members in this House; and if the Irish Members are inclined to use their influence corruptly, they could use it now; the only difference is that now you have 103 Members who could use their influence every day throughout the Session, while under Home Rule there will only be 80 Members, and they will only have an opportunity of using their influence corruptly with regard to the Irish contribution once in three years. I think that would be a great relief, and would greatly reduce the opportunity for using the influence which the right hon. Gentleman fears. Sir, perhaps it is time now to turn for a moment to the Amendment. I would say, before coming to it, that the Unionist Members—especially those from Ireland—are in the habit of charging the Irish people and their Representatives with bad faith, or, at least, a disposition to it.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

denied that he had so charged the Irish people.

MR. SEXTON

No; I think the right hon. Gentleman within the limits of controversy is always tolerably courteous. But I notice to-night that the Leader of the Irish Unionist Party, who has so often charged us with bad faith, has himself introduced, for the first time, the suggestion that Ireland would be entitled to repudiate her contribution to the Imperial Revenue.

COLONEL SAUNDERSON

I did nothing of the kind.

MR. SEXTON

Not only that, but he closed his speech by saying he did not care a farthing about it, and that he would not assist in the collection of the Imperial Revenue. It was not from any Irish Nationalist in Ireland or elsewhere, but from an Irish Unionist—from the Leader of the Irish Unionist Party—unless the Member for South Tyrone aspires to that positiou—from the Leader of the Irish Unionist Party has come the suggestion which I repudiate, for Ireland would not dream of repudiating the Parliamentary obligations into which her Representatives had entered. As to the form of this Amendment, it is open to the criticism passed upon it that if the sub-section were omitted Sub-section 8 would carry on the provisional arrangement for six years, and after that would transfer the powers of collection to the Irish Parliament. But, undoubtedly, a further Amendment would be necessary. Now, Sir, in considering this we have to bear clearly in mind that this is a transitional provision, and that the Bill is largely a provisional Bill. The Bill proposes that the Irish Legislature should enter gradually into their powers; that the legislation on the Land Question should be delayed for three years; the appointment of the Judges shall not be handed over to the Irish Parliament for six years; that the control of the Constabulary until their dissolution shall remain in Imperial hands, and that some of the powers of the Irish Legislature, especially with regard to the alteration of the constituencies, shall not be exercised for six years. I say if it was proposed permanently, or for any extended period of time, to withhold from the Irish Legislature the power of taxation or from the Irish Executive the function of the collection of the Revenue, I would not countenance any such change in the scheme, because I believe that the imposition and collection of taxation are a necessary part of any scheme of autonomy, and, therefore, the withholding of these powers and functions could only he countenanced for a temporary period and having regard to the provisional character of the Bill. I would remind the Committee that in the Bill of 1886 the provision was that all Irish Revenue should be collected by an Imperial officer. And upon the question of the collection I am disposed to think that for the first few years of its existence the Irish Legislature will be abundantly occupied with more urgent questions which call for legislative action, and perhaps more especially with regard to reform of the administrative system in Ireland, and that they will lose nothing particular by not having placed upon them the function of collecting the Revenue. It is no disparagement to the Irish Legislature to withhold this function for a limited term of years, because the Bill contains an explicit enactment that power over the imposition and collection of Revenue shall pass to the Irish Legislature at the end of the term, and there is no disparagement in the partial retention due to the principle of expediency. There is some financial gain—not very considerable it is true, but it may be material to the Irish Parliament in its early days—in allowing the collection of Revenue to remain in Imperial hands for a term of six years. Ireland pays 62 per cent. of the cost of collecting the Revenues. If Ireland collected the Revenue for herself and debited Great Britain with the cost of collecting her half the net cost to Ireland would be £115,000.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

£120,000.

MR. SEXTON

She pays £95,000 under the present scheme; therefore she gains, by letting Imperial officers collect it, the sum of £25,000 a year. It is not a great sum. It is not £230,000, as gentlemen opposite who have not gone into the figures seem to think. I think that sum of £25,000 is of some importance in the first years of the Irish Legislature. Then as to the fiscal effect of the collection of these taxes. The hon. Member for Waterford is aware that under the plan of 1886, under the plan of February last, and under the present plan, the fiscal unity of the Three Kingdoms is preserved. That is to say, the imposition of Customs and Excise remains in the hands of the Imperial authority. Customs and Excise are five-sixths of the Revenue of Ireland; therefore, if the hon. and learned Gentleman should carry his Amendment, the only fiscal effect would be that Ireland, if she wanted money, could only raise it by increasing the Death Duties or the Income Tax. With regard to the Death Duties, and more especially with regard to the Income Tax, the Irish Parliament, as contended by some hon. Members, might act oppressively or unjustly with regard to certain classes in Ireland, and I am not at all sorry to say here that I think it is no harm for us to agree that the power of levying these taxes for six years should not be transferred to us, so that the Irish Parliament, whatever general course it takes, may be able to give security to those classes in Ireland who fear unjust treatment that it has no such intention as they apprehend. Suppose the Irish Parliament wanted to raise money, would they do it by raising the Income Tax or the Death Duties? I think, in the first place, that the Irish Legislature would be very unlikely to increase the Revenue at all. The Revenue is already oppressive. The Revenue of Ireland is already double what is indicated by the yield of the direct taxation, and it is four times what is indicated by Mr. Giffen's calculation. I think it is extremely unlikely, then, that the Irish Legislature in the first years of its existence would resort to any new tax whatever, or any increase of the present taxes. But if they did, I see no great difference, I confess, between raising what they needed by increasing the Income Tax or the Death Duties, and raising it by new taxes. If they require additional Revenue it will be open to them to raise it by a new tax, and I see little difference between the one and the other. There is an important political effect connected with this scheme, and I say it is superior to every scheme that has gone before it. This is the first scheme that has given both Parties—both the Imperial Government and the Irish Government—and the British people and the Irish people a direct interest in keeping up the Revenue. Neither the plan of 1886 nor the plan of February last gave both Governments and both peoples an interest in keeping up the Revenue, and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister gave a conclusive reply to the Leader of the Opposition when he said that that interest is a better protection with regard to smuggling and illicit distillation, or any frauds upon the Revenue, than could possibly be secured by any preventive law. What is the political effect of this scheme, and especially of the present section? Has the Committee observed that since the promulgation of this scheme we have not heard a single word or syllable about Ulster? A most curious silence, a most instructive silence, has succeeded all the reverberating eloquence of the last six months. What is the secret of the silence? Of course, it can no longer be said that during the first six years we shall oppress the monied classes by Death Duties or Income Tax. There is something more important still. The burden of the threats of certain Unionists in Ulster was that they would resist the payment of the Queen's taxes in Ireland. It was very easy to suggest that, and it might be popular in certain quarters in Ireland so long as the authority to impose the taxes was the Irish Legislature, and so long as the officers collecting them would be Irish officers; but I doubt that even the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) or the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) will now rise either in this House or elsewhere and repeat the threats they made three months ago, that if this Bill were passed their friends of the Unionist Clubs in Ulster would resist the payment of taxes. They will not find any English audience so prejudiced, even in a Primrose Habitation, as to believe that their friends in Ulster have the least idea of resisting the imposition of taxes proposed by the Imperial Parliament or the collection of taxes by Imperial officers. Thinking, then, that it is no disparagement to the Irish Parliament to withhold these powers for a limited time, and thinking that this new scheme will finally lay the Irish bogey—and I have given the matter sincere consideration—I am of opinion that in the interests of Ireland it would be wise not to press the Amendment.

MR. W. REDMOND (Clare, E.)

said, he should not have risen to speak, but that he felt so strongly on this matter. They had had two speeches from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway representing Irish constituencies, but not of the Party to which he (Mr. Redmond) belonged. One of them—the hon. Member for North Lougford—in the course of an extremely able speech, had said absolutely not one word about the Amendment under consideration, and the other—the hon. Member for North Kerry—in the course of a very strong speech, had pointed out why he and his friends did not intend to support the Amendment. Now, he (Mr. Redmond) could not understand the feeling which prompted any Irish Representative to assent to the postponement for six years of the right of Ireland to control and manage her own taxes, and, so far as he was concerned, sooner than consent to an arrangement of that kind he would resign his seat, because he felt absolutely certain that the arrangement would not satisfy the national aspirations of the Irish people. The hon. Member for North Kerry said that for a period of six years it did not really matter very much whether the Irish Parliament had the collection and management of the Irish taxes. He (Mr. Redmond) took an exactly opposite view. The first six years of the Irish Parliament would be the most critical Years of its whole existence, and during those six years it would be brought to a test whether the Irish people were likely to rest content under the Bill, and whether the Bill would work. He was, therefore, strongly of opinion that, instead of suspending the powers of the Irish Parliament for six years, their powers should be as free and as full as possible during those years. If the Bill broke down he was confident that it would be in consequence of the restrictions which were contained in it, and which would irritate the Irish people, without doing good to Great Britain, to Ireland, or to the Empire at large. The hon. Member for North Kerry gave two reasons for supporting the proposal of the Government. He said, in the first place, that it would disarm the hostility of the Ulster people. The hon. Member had pointed out that since this new financial scheme had been introduced no threats from the Ulster people had been heard of refusal to pay taxes. But if the Irish people were to submit to the proposed humiliation in order to conciliate Ulster where was the line to be drawn? On that argument the Irish people might be asked to surrender every one of the rights and privileges to which they were entitled under this scheme of self-government. He did not believe that this proposal would conciliate Ulster; but even if he thought it would, he would not consent to it, for he did not approve of showing a weak front to Ulster. He had been seven years a Member for an Ulster constituency, and his experience was that the more they tried to conciliate the prejudices and the opposition of the men who were opposed to Home Rule, the more were those prejudices and opposition strengthened. The only way, in his opinion, in which the opposition of Ulster was to be met was by the majority of Ireland taking a firm stand, and declaring it to be their set purpose to manage their own affairs. It was a most humiliating thing to ask the overwhelming mass of the people of Ireland to forego the elementary right of freedom—that was to say, the right of collecting and managing their own taxes —in order to conciliate a section of the people in the North of that country. Ulster should be given to understand that, like every part of every other civilised country, she must submit to the majority. The second reason that the hon. Member for North Kerry gave was that the Irish people would be saved a pretty large sum of money by the proposal of the Government—namely, the cost of collecting the taxes, amounting to something like £25,000 a year. He did not think the hon. Member for North Kerry was right in saying that a saving of £25,000 a year would be effected. Granting, however, that that would be the case, he, as an Irish Nationalist, would not be a party to surrendering the right of Ireland to manage her own taxes for a money consideration. The power of collecting and managing taxes was the first power in any self-governed country in the world, and he said that not with the idea of unnecessarily throwing cold water on the scheme, but because he believed that, candour was the best policy. The Prime Minister might have thought that he had good reason for proposing the present alteration in his financial scheme, but it was the feeling of a large section of the Irish people that the change would be a humiliating thing to Ireland, as well as being a useless step. The Bill contained many restrictions. The Irish people wore not to have control of their Police for a stated period, or control of the Judiciary or of the Laud Question. All these restrictions, in his opinion, were unnecessary and unwise, and if the Bill failed it would be on account of those restrictions. But of all the unfortunate restrictions contained in the measure this with regard to taxes was the worst. If the Irish Members accepted the proposal they would lower themselves in the estimation of the people of the civilised world, who sympathised with the Irish people in their struggle for self-government. He opposed the scheme not alone on its merits, but because he believed that it would be the means very largely of wrecking the Bill. He could not conceive an Assembly of Nationalists of all sections in Ireland in which the Executive had not control over the taxes of the country. For himself, he should consider it a humiliation to take part in such an Assembly. A Member of the Irish Parliament might pretend to be invested with power; but when he left the House the first tax collector he met might insult him and treat him with disrespect, and over the most insignificant person of that description neither he nor the Irish Government nor the Irish Parliament would have control. He believed there were a large number of Irishmen who, under those circumstances, would refuse to take part in what might be termed such a mockery of government. He made bold to say that the more this proposal was discussed in the country, and the more it came homo to the minds of the Irish people that they were to have no control over their own purse for six years—the most critical part of their Parliament's experience—there would be dissatisfaction felt with the scheme over the length and breadth of the country. Whether the Amendment was supported by few or many, a Division would be challenged and taken; and whatever the result would be it would be placed on record that, at any rate, some Irishmen by their voices and votes resisted the humiliation that it was sought to put on their country. The tendency of the Bill in many respects was to distrust the Irish people. A Bill of this kind, if properly amended, would, no doubt, settle the quarrel between England and Ireland, and clear the House of the eternal Irish Question. It would make the people of Ireland content and satisfied to live on terms of the utmost friendship with England; but those desirable objects could only be brought about in one way—by trusting the Irish people and saying, "We believe you when you say that if we give you liberty you will use it wisely and well." But through this policy of restrictions the Bill would probably fail. If it succeeded it would be in spite of the restrictions. If he were the only person in the House to do it he would oppose this scheme and support the Amendment. He did not hesitate to say that the hon. Member for North Kerry was actuated by what he considered the necessities of the case. He regretted that he was in opposition to that hon. Member; but, certainly, when the time came he should challenge a Division.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

said, that the hon. Member who had just sat down had spoken strongly for the Irish people, and the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) had also spoken for them; but one branch of the Irish Party was going to vote for the Government, and the other against it, so that it was difficult to know what the views of the Irish people were. The two Irish Members who had spoken were to be thanked for their candid outspokenness. The hon. Member who had just sat down had spoken of the opinion of "the civilised world;" but he might depend upon it that the people of Great Britain would do what they thought best, irrespective of outside opinion, which the hon. Member summed up as that of "the civilised world." The British people were not to be threatened in that manner. Then the hon. Member spoke of "Ireland's" struggle for liberty. Well, he (MR. Jesse Ceilings) thought the people of Great Britain were beginning to see through all those phrases. If the hon. Member had spoken of years gone by no doubt there would have been something in what he said. The sea did not go down when the wind ceased, and no doubt there was a great deal of feeling remaining from the past history of Ireland. That feeling he had shared, but he would like to see it disappear now that the causes which legitimately gave rise to it had passed away. There was now no liberty which Great Britain possessed which was not enjoyed by Ireland. The British people were beginning to see through all this talk about Irish liberty, and to find that Ireland not only possessed all the liberty that England possessed, but a great many advantages besides. As to Ulster, it should be borne in mind that the people of Great Britain would have something to say to the mariner in which it was proposed to hand the Ulster people over to the proposed Irish Parliament. The hon. Member must remember that the Government majority at the present moment was purely accidental. It was gained not on Home Rule, but on other matters. [Cries of "Question!"] The hon. Member must remember that every Division in Committee showed that there was a majority of the British Representatives against the Government. The British people had put up with many threats—[Cries of "Question!"]

MR. W. REDMOND

The right hon. Member says I have used threats. I would not be bothered threatening him.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Question before the Committee is as to the collection of taxes in Ireland.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

I am sure, Sir, you will allow mo to reply to speeches on the other side.

THE CHAIRMAN

No; not if those speeches were out of Order. I do not think the hon. Member is justified in his present line of argument.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS

said, that that being so, they were very awkwardly placed—if speeches were made and Members were not permitted to reply to them. The speech of the hon. Member for North Kerry gave the Committee some insight as to the way in which the Bill had been manufactured. They saw a fresh step in the genesis of the measure almost every time the hon. Member spoke. He had said that the Ulster people would resist the payment of taxes if they were collected by an Irish authority. The hon. Member showed practically how an arrangement had been made with the Government for the British authorities to collect the taxes so as to place Ulster in the difficult position of resisting the British tax collector. Those tactics showed how clever the Irish Members were, and how abject and degraded was the position of the Government. The degradation was such as no British Government, he ventured to say since the beginning of the century, had ever submitted to. The hon. Member for North Kerry declared that Ireland paid too much; but the charges for the expenses of the Imperial Government were of fixed quantity. If they were not fixed they increased rather than diminished, and every shilling that Ireland paid less than its share it was quite certain must be made up by somebody; and, therefore, whatever the Irish Government did not pay—whether the charge upon her was too much or too little—would have to be paid by the British taxpayer. [Cries of "Question!"] This was a very interesting question to the British taxpayer. The Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry showed up the monstrous character of the Government proposal probably as much as any Amendment which bad hitherto been moved. Those who were in favour of Home Rule ought in consistency to vote for the Amendment, for if there were any matters more than others of internal concern, they were the imposition and collection of taxes. Not only would it be a domestic internal matter in itself, but in the case of Ireland almost every domestic transaction that the Irish Government would engage in would hang upon that. It had been said that it was necessary for the Irish to have a Government in order to develop their resources. Surely, in that regard, it was necessary that the country should have control of its own finances. One reason why he was unable to vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Waterford was this—he presumed that if the Irish Government had the collection of their taxes they would also pay for the collection. That was involved in the Amendment; therefore, by such a system of payment for collection the Imperial Government would save £200,000 a year. The hon. Member for North Kerry had said that the saving would only be about £25,000 a year, because the Imperial Exchequer would have to defray the cost of collecting the two-thirds of the Irish Revenue which it retained. That view was accepted by no less an authority than the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). Now, apply that principle to an ordinary transaction. One-third of a debt was due to the Imperial Government towards Imperial charges. Let the Committee apply this to an ordinary commercial concern. A owed B £1,000. A said—"I have had to get in my money, and I have paid a commission of 5 per cent. for collecting it. Therefore I will hand over £1,000 less 5 per cent." B would, of course, reply—"No; you owe me £1,000, and I must insist upon having that sum without the deduction of any commission." An illustration of this kind showed how ridiculous was the proposition that anything less than the full expenses of the collection of the Revenue should be paid by the Irish Government. He agreed with the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. E. Redmond) that it was a humiliating thing to say to a country to which we proposed to give enormous powers—"You shall have nothing to do with the collection and control of your own taxes." The Committee ought to be thankful to the hon. Member for having been so candid as to give fair warning of what would happen if the proposal of the Government were carried out. This proposal of the Government put an end to the angelic theory; and the Government, who could not trust the people of Ireland with the collection and control of their own taxes, ought never to say a word more about any want of trust of the Irish people. The more he saw of the shifts the Government were put to the clearer it appeared to him that they had given up the Bill in despair and wanted to see it out of the way as soon as possible. The Prime Minister said the question would be re-opened in six years. There was very little comfort in that prospect. The Government seemed to have adjourned every question that had any difficulty about it. It had evidently been arranged between the Government and the Irish Members that the British people should be hoodwinked for six years, and that the Irish people should have everything they were asking for. It was far better to settle these questions now than to leave them open for six years. At the end of the six years there might be a Government in Office which was only kept in power by the Irish vote, and which was content to throw over all its principles in order to retain Office and to keep in power by no matter what servile tenure, and in spite of any injury to the interests of the country. The result in that case would be that everything would have to be given away, for, whilst the Irish Members might be opposed to one another on certain questions, they were all united when it became a question of dealing with the British Government. The existence of the Bill itself was due to a process of this kind. No one in his senses supposed that if the Prime Minister had got a majority in 1885 there would ever have been a Home Rule Bill at all. This Amendment, would, if carried, make the sum the British taxpayer had to pay £200,000 a year less, and it was, therefore, impossible for him to vote against it. As he held that every farthing of the expense of collecting the Irish Revenue should be paid under any circumstances by the Irish Government he should not vote against the Amendment.

MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick's)

said, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down bad spoken of liberty, and stated that the Irish people possessed every liberty which the English people pos- sessed. The right hon. Gentleman ought to remember that the greatest liberty any people could possess was that of selfgovernment, which the Irish people had not yet obtained. The Irish people were, further, not allowed to carry arms or to equip Volunteers, both of which were matters which every liberty-possessing nation would desire to have within its power. It was proposed by the Government that the Irish Government should not have the power of collecting taxes. In his opinion that was the essence of self-government. Under the Parish Councils Bill every city, every Poor Law district, and every parish in England would have the power of taxation, and yet that power was to be withheld from the Irish people by what was called a Home Rule Bill. In his opinion, if the proposal of the Government were maintained, the Bill would not be a Home Rule Bill at all, and those who acted as Members of Parliament in Dublin would be simply the shadows of English Parliamentarians. The House of Commons would start the Irish Government in business, but would give it neither credit nor capital. He was of opinion that if this process of cutting down the powers of the Irish Legislature went on the Bill would become simply a measure of restrictions and negations. He protested in the strongest manner against the Government proposal.

MR. RENTOUL (Down, E.)

said, he failed to see how the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. E. Redmond), as a Home Ruler, could possibly have acted in any other way than he had done in bringing forward the Amendment. If the Irish Legislature was for six years to be deprived of the power of imposing, regulating, or collecting taxes, it would be placed in an absolutely ridiculous position. Neither under this scheme nor under previous schemes put forward by the Prime Minister was the slightest trust or confidence reposed in the Irish people. The best proof of one's confidence in a man was shown by entrusting him with one's financial affairs. The Government, whilst they were willing to hand over the liberty and property of the Irish minority to the Irish Parliament, were not willing to trust them with the collection of that portion of the Revenues of Ireland that had to be paid to the Imperial Exchequer. The arguments used by the hon. Member for Waterford were wise and sensible from his point of view. He (Mr. Rentoul) disapproved of the scheme entirely; but, certainly, if he were a Homo Ruler, he should follow the hon. Member into the Lobby. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Courtney) considered that the scheme would lead to a very great, amount of corruption. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was very clear and conclusive on that point; and the instances he gave from Canada, New Zealand, and elsewhere were not answered by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Blake). The hon. Member was generally regarded as a man eminently well-fitted to answer such an argument, and the fact that he did not answer it was a conclusive proof that it was unanswerable. The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) had been twitted by the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) with having given the first advice to the Irish people to repudiate their obligations. The hon. and gallant Gentleman had done nothing of the kind. He had simply said he did not care in the slightest degree what happened—whether the Irish Parliament succeeded in getting its Revenues or became bankrupt at once. It was quite natural that he should not care. Surely repudiations of obligations had been made again and again by gentlemen below the Gangway. They had frequently declared their intention of repudiating their obligations to an Imperial Exchequer and an Imperial Parliament. If the Trish Government needed to borrow, as probably they would, it would be impossible for them to do so for the first six years. They had clearly nothing to give as security. At the same time they would have no incentive to economy, because a certain amount of money would be given to them, and they would be bound to spend it. If they kept any of it back they would simply save the Imperial Exchequer, and the Irish people would imagine that they were desperately badly treated if the Dublin Exchequer saved a single shilling. The hon. Member for North Kerry said if the Irish Members wanted to use their influence for corrupt purposes they could do so at the present time. But, as matters were now, he (Mr. Rentoul) did not think they would be using their influence corruptly if they tried to get as many grants for Ireland as they could. Hon. Members were perpetually trying to get a new post office or a new telegraph office for their constituents, and nobody considered that that was corruption. If two hon. Members joined together in order to get benefits for the two constituencies, that would not be corruption. If 103 Members joined together in the same way, as long as they were Members of a united Parliament, they would not be acting corruptly. The hon. Member for North Kerry said it was no slight to keep the collection of taxes from the Irish Government for six years. If so, it would be no slight to keep it from them for 12 years or for ever. The hon. Member said that Ireland would save £25,000 by the transaction. Would the hon. Member be willing to continue to make that saving on the same terms? As an Irish Unionist Member he could not support the scheme of the Government, because it was an essential part of the Home Rule programme, and in like manner he was not able to support the Amendment, because it would merely put the Homo Rule scheme in a better and stronger position. For those reasons he should vote neither on one side nor the other.

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

said, there had not, he believed, been any Amendment proposed during the discussions on that Bill in regard to which he felt greater difficulty. The proposal of the hon. Member for Waterford was a perfectly logical one; but then he (Mr. Heneage) was opposed to Home Rule, root and branch. Still, they were discussing a Home Rule Bill, and the proper course was to consider it as a Bill which might pass, and to try to amend it in the best way they could. That being so, he could not conceive, from the Home Rule point of view, why the collection of the Revenue was to be taken from the Irish Government. The Irish people, according to the Ministerial speeches, were supposed to be endowed with all possible virtues; they were to be entrusted with the lives and property of everyone in Ireland, with the administration of the Criminal Law, and with the payment of interest on the capital lent by England; and surely if they could be trusted to do these things they could equally be trusted to collect the Revenue, which was to be paid not only to England, but also into their own Exchequer. That was a humiliating position, and therefore, logically, he felt bound to vote for the Amendment. But what were the reasons advanced by the Member for North Kerry in favour of the Government proposal? That hon. Member, as the result of six weeks' wrestling with the Government, had said it was to do away with the difficulty of Ulster. But if the object of the clause as it stood was to do away with difficulty about Ulster, he was not so sure it would do away with difficulty in other parts of Ireland, where the Imperial tax collector would come to the people in the foreign garb of which they had heard so much. Was not difficulty likely to arise in the South of Ireland, in the same way as the hon. Member for North Kerry imagined it would in the North of that country? Why had the Government abandoned their first proposal? They had had six years to consider what ought to be the proper adjustment of taxation between England and Ireland; but the only explanation of the abandonment of the proposal had been given by the hon. Member for North Kerry. In introducing the Bill the Prime Minister objected altogether to the method of quota, saying it would expose Irish finance to inconvenient shocks from changes introduced in English Budgets, and would give Imperial officers a meddling power in Irish fiscal affairs. This was in February; and in the interval the objections to the method of quota appeared to have been swept away, and financial arrangements were proposed at short notice on statistics that were entirely baseless. ["No, no!"] At any rate unreliable. No answer was given to the speech of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham by the President of the Local Government Board, whose speech had apparently been prepared for the introduction of the Financial Clauses, and whose arguments sounded like an overdue bill discounted at a heavy loss. The Chancellor of the Exchequer absolutely accepted every figure of the right hon. Gentleman, and said—"We have been horribly extravagant, and propose to be so still." Why had the Government proposed this new scheme? They had been told that the Irish would be economical and save money. But they well knew that in public and in private matters alike economy depended upon whether it paid, and he would point out that it would be the height of folly for the Irish Government to be economical, because their object would be to show that they were awfully poor and wanted another contribution from the English Exchequer. In fulfilment of the arrangements between the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for North Kerry there was to be a readjustment at the end of six years; and, consequently, the Irish Government would feather their nests during the six years. Why six years were chosen for finance and three years for the Land Question as transitional periods it was difficult to say; he should have thought the term would have been the same in both cases. But would it not have been better to see for six years how the taxes were collected, instead of waiting for that period to obtain any evidence on the subject? It would then have been their interest to collect their own Revenue and to be economical. As it was, the Irish Government would be able to make better terms at the end of six years, when they had driven the capitalists out of the country. Apparently the British taxpayer had no friends on the Treasury Bench, which was more pro-Irish than the Irish themselves, and that was the reason why the taxes were to be levied by the English and not by the Irish Government.

* SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)

said, that if the hon. Member for Water ford were at all displeased with those who sat above the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House, because their political conduct was opposed to his, he now had his revenge. It was extremely awkward for the Opposition to go into either Lobby; they were placed on the horns of a veritable dilemma, and were driven to a choice between two evils. Of all schemes this six years' scheme was certainly the most vicious. It was equally bad from the British and from the Irish point of view, and it would simply prolong the friction which the Prime Minister and his Colleagues complained had existed in the past, because they would have the responsibility of Irish fiscal matters after an Irish Parliament was established, so that really the friction would be indefinitely aggravated by this six years' arrangement. There would also be a struggle over the £500,000 surplus. It would be looked upon by the Irish as a concession. Without that concession they would have the strongest motive for economy in their Civil expenditure. But it would be perfectly clear that if the Irish Government economised they would lose the concession. They would, therefore, keep up their expenditure to such an extent as would justify the concession and make sure that it would not be withdrawn. He contended that this was a bad arrangement for Great Britain. Then there came the prospect of the inevitable re-settlement at the end of the six years, when the contribution of one-third from Ireland would have to be revised, and the eyes of every Irish Home Ruler would be fixed on that resettlement. The contribution of one third was already too small, and an injustice to the British taxpayer. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Member for West Birmingham had made it clear as daylight that one-third was not sufficient to enable Ireland to discharge her just obligations to the Empire. One-half, at least, should be proposed. The proposal of the Government was prejudicial to the interests of the British taxpayers, for it placed an additional expenditure on their shoulders by calling upon them to pay more than their fair share of the Imperial defence, in order to remove a just burden from their Irish fellow-subjects, an arrangement to which his English constituents would never consent. It would be found that when the revision took place, and after the Civil finance of Ireland had been manipulated with a view to making the new terms favourable, the last state of the pockets of the British taxpayer would be worse than the first. So that there was a prospect of that descending scale of badness from one plan to another, as foreshadowed by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. Then, supposing any distress arose in Ireland, as was only too probable, of course the Irish would say that, as Great Britain collected the taxes, managed the Revenue, and was to some extent responsible for the whole of the Civil finance, it must boar the burden of any distress that might happen. With reference to the argument about Ulster becoming accus- tomed to pay Home Rule taxes to Imperial collectors during the six years, he would say that were Ulster ever inclined to resist she would during the six years nurse her strength for her revenge, and would resist, undoubtedly, when that period was at an end; so that the difficulties would be still worse at the end of the term. For all these reasons he was opposed to the six years' plan of the Government.

MR. CARSON (Dublin University)

said, that, as representing an Irish Unionist constituency, he took up a somewhat different position from that taken up by those Representatives of British constituencies with whom he was generally associated. He should upon this occasion most certainly vote in favour of this Amendment, and in favour of any Amendment which tended to reduce or abolish any taxes paid by Ireland to England. He wished to explain the reasons for the vote he was about to give. He was not averse to Ireland's paying her share of Imperial taxes, but he desired that she should do so under present conditions. As long as Ireland was to remain de facto a part of the United Kingdom, he was quite willing that she should pay her fair proportion of the Imperial Expenditure. But he changed that position when Ireland was to a large extent severed from Great Britain, and when the Unionists he represented were no longer to have the same benefits from British rule they had hitherto received. They were told Ireland had been overtaxed and unfairly treated in the past. He wanted to know what were Irish Loyalists getting by this Bill that they should consent to the same unfair treatment in the future? The Prime Minister had said that Ireland, in former days, had been most shabbily and unjustly treated in money matters; and he, as the Representative of the Unionists, objected to that shabby and unjust treatment being perpetrated under the Bill at the same time that they were cast off from all Imperial advantages. It might be all very well for hon. Members below the Gangway to consent to fix a tribute upon the Irish nation as the price they were to pay for having Executive power in Ireland. But he was no party to that bargain. He was not willing to assist in having the interests of the Irish Loyalists sold out at a specific price by this Parliament. That might be very natural for hon. Members below the Gangway, who probably would personally gain something by this Bill.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (ironically)

Hear, hear!

MR. CARSON

said, he felt highly complimented to think that his suggestion that this was a bargain between right hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Irish Members, by which the interests of the Loyalists were to be sold, met with an enthusiastic reception from the Prime Minister. But the question he had to ask was, what would be the real position of Ireland under the clause? According to the clause Ireland would continue to pay to the Imperial Parliament exactly the same taxes which the right hon. Gentleman had described as shabby and unjust. In addition, the Unionists and Loyalists would have to pay as much taxation as hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway chose to impose; and, instead of being able to borrow money upon British credit for the purpose of developing Ireland, they would have to raise that money on the credit of hon. Members below the Gangway. He could not see the slightest reason why, in addition to all that, he, as the Representative of a Unionist constituency, should consent to have a stereotyped Imperial tribute imposed upon Ireland for the purpose of having the aid of England behind hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway in enforcing the payment of the taxes which they imposed. Therefore, as a Unionist Member, he would have no hesitation in voting against the clause. It might be said that it was quite fair that this tax should be imposed by the Imperial Parliament. But why was it fair? Why should not the Irish Parliament assess the amount to be paid to Great Britain? Was it because the Government did not trust the Irish Parliament? They had been listening to nothing during the whole course of the discussion but the trust they ought to place in this angelic union of hearts. When the property of the Irish Unionists was at stake the Government were prepared to impute to the Irish Parliament a double dose of original virtue; but when they came to deal with that Parliament in relation to Imperial taxes they were prepared to impute to it a double dose of original sin. It seemed to him that the Government were per- forming the very interesting operation of blowing hot and cold. If the Bill was to be based upon the assumption that they could trust the Irish Parliament in relation to the property of anybody, the very best argument they could use as showing their real confidence, as contradistinguished from their political confidence, was by trusting it in relation to Imperial matters, as well as in matters only affecting Irish Loyalists. He had read the very interesting speech made by the Secretary for Scotland on the First Reading of the Home Rule Bill of 1886. With that speech he entirely agreed. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that if an independent Parliament were set up in Ireland the time would come when the two Parties in Ireland would unite to get the tribute. Let there be no pretence about the matter. When Ireland was cut off the Loyalists would try to get rid of this tribute, because England had betrayed them and deceived them.

MR. LOGAN (Leicester, Harborough)

Loyalists?

MR. CARSON

Yes; they were Loyalists so long as England was loyal to them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said they ought to be loyal to England when England was disloyal to them. That was a position he refused to accept.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT, Derby)

I beg pardon. I did not say that. I said you had let the cat out of the bag.

MR. CARSON

said, he thought that it was the right hon. Gentleman's cheers that let the cat out of the bag, because what the right hon. Gentleman said was—"Great Britain may betray you; Great Britain may deceive you; Great Britain and Great Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer may go back on every word they have spoken in the past, may swallow everything they have said hitherto to eucourage the Loyalists of Ireland, and may, to their own satisfaction, continue to stew in Paruellite juice, but because the Chancellor of the Exchequer has changed his views you are to be satisfied to be handed over to men whom he himself has over and over again in this House and elsewhere described as disloyal." Hon. Members opposite might talk of conditional loyalty and laugh at it if they liked. What he said was that the moment England was disloyal to the Loyalists of Ireland there remained no reason why those Loyalists, whose allegiance was to be transferred by Act of Parliament, should continue to be loyal. Talk of conditional loyalty! Had there been no conditional disloyalty on the part of hon. Members below the Gangway, who had declared over and over again that they would willingly unite with England's enemies when an opportunity should arise and England should be in difficulties? Why were they loyal now, or, rather, why did they make a pretence of loyalty? Because they knew that when these legislative and Executive powers had been transferred to them they could snap their fingers at the Imperial Parliament and do with Ireland as they pleased, for the only control the Imperial Parliament would have over them would be through this flimsy veto. Remember that the Irish Loyalists had asked over and over again that there should be some real veto, as in the case of the Colonies; but that was refused, and the Loyalists would, under the Bill, be in a worse position than the Colonies. The Government wanted Ireland to pay taxes which they dared not ask the Colonies to pay. It would be said that Ireland was to have Representatives in that House, and he admitted that that made some difference. [Ministerial cheers.] Yes; but the Party opposite were quite willing to exact the same tribute from Ireland when they were ready to exclude the Irish Members. When the Irish people wore told that they were to pay £2,800,000 a year for the privilege of having Representatives in that House they would consider that they had got a very hard bargain. If the clause were agreed to as it stood, one of the principal questions that would be raised at the very next General Election would be how to get rid of this involuntary tribute. If Ireland was to be transformed into a Colony it would only be logical on her part to demand that she should be treated as a Colony in money matters. Under this sub-section Ireland would be treated shabbily and unjustly, and in the future, therefore, he should vote against it.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 249; Noes 53.—(Division List, No. 240.)

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

I propose to move the Amendment of which I have given notice, to omit the words "transfer hereinafter mentioned" in the first line of the clause, in order to insert the words "Parliament otherwise determines." I must apologise to the Committee for not having put this Amendment down on the Paper. The fact is that I did write it out, but forgot to hand it in to the clerks, and, therefore, it has not appeared on the printed Notice Paper. At the same time, I do not think that any inconvenience will arise, because the question I wish to raise is extremely simple. I wish to raise the question whether or not there should be, in reference to the financial arrangements, a transitional period? I would have preferred had it been in order, to have moved the omission of the first words of the sub-section: the omission, that is to say, of the words "until the transfer herein-of the mentioned;" but that was impossible owing to the hon. Member for Water-ford having precedence with another Motion. In order to bring myself, therefore, before the Committee, I have to insert the words "Parliament otherwise determines." The result is practically the same, because, of course, Parliament can always determine what it will do in regard to a Bill which has been previously passed. At the same time, I would rather not have inserted these words, because they seem to suggest that it might be desirable that Parliament should at some future time re-consider the terms; whereas I would rather that these terms, having once been settled, should never be disturbed except in some case of emergency, or for some extraordinary reason shown. The object, therefore, of my Amendment is to do away with the transitional period. I am not arguing now whether the proposal of the Government is a good or a bad proposal; I am only arguing in favour of a permanent, or practically permanent, settlement. I ask myself why have the Government insisted on a transitional period? I think there is reason for the Committee to reflect upon the situation in which we find ourselves. It is not only in regard to finance that there is a transitional period; it is most singular that, although we have spent nearly a whole Session in consideration of this Bill, we have not up to the present time, and Ave shall not after the Committee stage has been passed, have settled a single one of the principal questions which were open to discussion when the Bill was introduced. I venture to say that of all the critical questions—questions which were known to be critical, and upon which the determination of the Government was anxiously expected by the House and the country—not one single one of them has been settled by this Bill. Every one of them has either been evaded, or, by means of a transitional period or a temporary arrangement, has been left to the dim and distant future for its ultimate settlement. Now, what is the reason why we have a transitional period in regard to finance? Surely the Government have had time enough to consider this matter. They had, of course, the six years of Opposition, during which they must have prepared their plans. They brought their plans before the Committee, but, owing to a mistake which was discovered in them, they found it necessary to revise them. One would have supposed that, if their previous plans had been sufficiently discussed, the only changes they would have made would have been a change to meet the mistake which had been discovered. Not a bit of it; they took advantage of that mistake in order to alter their plan from top to bottom. Again, I say, I suppose that, at all events, that revolutionary change was made after due consideration, and at least we have reason to believe the Government have now prepared and proposed to the Committee a plan in which they themselves have confidence. If they have confidence in this plan, why do they propose it only for a period of six years? Well, Sir, we know perfectly well why they do it. They do it because they know and believe that their plan is the best plan, and a fair plan for the British and Irish people; yet they have been informed by their allies that they will never accept it as a permanent settlement; and as they dare not come before this Committee and propose a plan which would be refused as unsatisfactory by their allies, they endeavour to get out of their difficulty by this device of a transitional period. They propose one plan, and then, in a stage whisper to the opposite side of the House, they toll them not to pay any attention to it; that it is only for a transitional period; and that six years hence they can have their own way. That is the reason for the transitional period. The Government must be presumed to have confidence in their own plan, and I suppose their supporters have confidence in their plan. Then, I say, under the circumstances, vote for their plan as it stands, and do not vote for arrangements which will allow the whole plan to be reviewed and altered six years hence, when hon. Members opposite will be masters of the situation. Now they cannot impose their will upon you if you are not willing to be imposed upon, but six years hence you will be at their mercy, and if you pass this clause in its present form, you will be deceiving yourselves and deceiving the public; you will be accepting as wise and prudent a plan which in your hearts you must know will not last longer than the six years of the transitional period. Now, I want the Committee to consider other objections to this proposal for a transitional period. Consider the effect of a suggestion of this kind upon the future relations —the relations, that is to say, during the next six years between Ireland and England. Remember the position of Irish Members is perfectly clear. They want Home Rule. They tell you they want it very much; but they will not take it unless they got, at the same time, a sufficient subsidy. They have told you in plain words that to have their independence is not enough for them. They are not willing to have their independence unless they have a surplus also. And they have told you that this arrangement does not give with sufficient certainty the surplus they require, and that when they have got the opportunity they will ask for more favourable terms. Now, consider what will be the position of the Irish Legislature. I am sorry the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not present. The right hon. Gentleman treated the Committee to a brilliant burst of eloquence the other night; but he has again disappeared below the horizon. The right hon. Gentleman told us the other night that the expenditure of this country in Ireland had been abnormal, wanton, unnecessary, and extravagant. I will assume that as the basis of my argument. I will admit that the Government of Ireland, when Home Rule is passed, will be prudent, economical, and wise beyond the experience of British Governments, even when they have the advantage of the light of the right hon. Gentleman's countenance. When, however, this Government comes into power, it is impossible to suppose that they will be wantonly and unnecessarily extravagant. They will save all the money that we have wasted; but, says the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "Yes, do doubt they will do this"; he has so much confidence in the financial skill of the Member for North Kerry, that he is quite confident millions will roll into the Irish Exchequer sooner or later; but he thinks it is impossible that even the financial genius of the Member for North Kerry can produce all these results while he is winding up the concern. We have put such a burden on Ireland in the shape of unnecessary and unlimited officialism, he thinks, that until he has disposed of it the Irish Government will have no funds at all. Will the Committee look at that point a moment, and take one illustration? We have been told that the Civil Service in Ireland costs £300,000 a year. If the new Irish Government, directly after getting into Office, dismisses every person in that Service, they will have, of course, to provide pensions. These pensions will cost £150,000, and the Irish Government will then have £150,000 with which to provide its Civil servants. But on the supposition of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that our expenditure in Ireland has been, as he showed us, four times and six times as much as was necessary, that it had been dictated by wanton extravagance, surely half the sum proposed will be sufficient for the Irish Members to deal with all the necessities of the case, and they will still have a large balance at their disposal. And now I come back to my point, which is this: that it is perfectly certain, if the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer is accepted, the Irish Government will have—conditionally, as my right hon. Friend says—by prudent and economical administration, a very large surplus in their hands. But now, if that takes place, what will be the position of the Irish Government when it comes to this country six years hence, and pleads for a reduction of the tribute? They will have to say—"It is true that we have a plethora of money, and that the savings we have made on your wanton extravagance have been so large that our cellars are gorged with money; still, we appeal to you to reduce the tribute. It is true, the tribute is only one-half what we ought to pay according to any fair calculation; that we are prosperous almost beyond the dreams of avarice; that our people are much better off than your people; that our poor are less poor than yours; and that we are reducing taxation every year—still we appeal to you to reduce our tribute, and ask you to be content with a million or so less than you now take from us. Take your hands out of our pockets, but if you put them there take care that they are full of something to our advantage." What will be the result of this? Nobody denies to Irish politicians the possession of great shrewdness. I cannot help thinking that the idea will pass through the minds of hon. Members opposite that it will never do for the Irish Government to show themselves to be rich. They have absolutely no object for economy during the next six years. They will naturally say that they have no reason for economy; that their object should be to make their savings after the six years have passed; and that, in the meantime, they should do all in their power to get rid of any surplus in order that they might be able to come with better grace to this House and ask it, in consideration of their poverty, to make them a further allowance. Another point I wish to put before the Government is this. The effect of the transitional period is that up to and until that period the Imperial Parliament will control the whole of the taxation of Ireland, making to it the necessary contribution of two-thirds of the Revenue. After the transitional period the Imperial Parliament, according to the scheme, will still control five-sixths of the taxation of Ireland—the whole of the Customs and Excise; and the only taxes handed over to the Irish Parliament which they will not possess during the transitional period will be the Income Tax and the Stamp Duty. I believe this scheme will raise great difficulty, and will put much temptation in the way of the Irish Parliament. The Income Tax and the Stamp Duty are taxes on property; and it is the relation of the majority in Ireland to the owners of property, the constant difference of opinion as to the share of burdens which should be borne by the property classes and the poorer classes, which really constitutes the difficulty in that country. I repeat, therefore, that by giving the Irish Parliament the power to deal with the Income Tax they will subject it to a great temptation—they will give that Parliament a power which there may be great pressure on them to use unwisely, and from which there can be no possible advantage, even if they use it wisely. I do not know that the Irish Parliament would use that power unwisely. I say unwisely, because it must be perfectly clear that, if the Irish Parliament were to take advantage of its opportunities to raise the Income Tax in Ireland very much above what it was in England, there would, as a necessary consequence, be an immense transfer of property to Great Britain, by which the Irish Exchequer and Parliament would lose in the long run. The third point to which I would refer is this: that, in my opinion, the change which I propose is necessary to a plan of dealing with the financial relations between two countries—and I can quote my right hon. Friend as agreeing with me that it is the best possible plan. That is to say the quota. My right hon. Friend, in dealing with this matter on the introduction of the Bill of 1886, and again on the introduction of the present Bill, declared his own view to be that the quota plan was the most exact and most desirable plan to adopt. Why my right hon. Friend is now giving it up I cannot say. But undoubtedly it would be a much more simple plan if Parliament was to take the control of Irish taxation and reserve the quota of l—18th, as I think it ought to be, or l—40th, as the Government think it ought to be, and hand over the rest to the Irish Legislature. In order that that plan might be carried out it is necessary that the Imperial Parliament should have the control of Irish taxation. It is not, in my opinion, a disadvantage that we should thus withdraw from the Irish Legislature such a power of general taxation as already exists in the Parliament of the United Kingdom, because that is a power which more than any other would be liable to be abused. Any impartial reference to my speeches in the House in 1886 will prove that I asked for the retention of the Irish Members as a means to an end, not as an end desirable on its own merits. My argument was that it was impossible to have a subordinate Parliament unless they had representation of Irishmen at Westminster. But my view then was, as it is now, that, having given Ireland representation at Westminster, it was not necessary, desirable, or wise to give the Irish Legislature the extended powers proposed in this Kill. Lastly, with regard to the transitional period, I venture to impress upon the Government that by insisting upon this period of probation they are not consistent with what they have previously said in the House and in the country. One of the conditions which my right hon. Friend has always laid down in dealing with this question of Home Rule is that it should be a permanent and final settlement. In the last speech in which my right hon. Friend referred to the subject he called it a, permanent and continuous settlement.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

A continuing settlement.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

Do hon. Members see any difference? I shall be obliged to have the etymological distinction explained to me. It is sufficient for my argument to say that my right hon. Friend urged that this, if not a settlement for all time, should, at all events, be considered to be a permanent settlement. Nobody denies, least of all the Government, that in undertaking this tremendous revolution, in shattering the ancient Constitution of this country, in creating a double Executive, in setting up a quasi-independent Parliament, they were running some risk. I can appeal to the speeches of right hon. Gentlemen on that (the Government) Bench since the House went into Committee to prove that they admitted that there was a chance of their intentions being frustrated, and clearly they were right in saying that it would not be worth while to run this risk unless they believed it would give good and great results. They admit there is a chance that their intentions may be frustrated; and therefore, clearly they are right in saying it would not be worth while to run this risk unless you had as a possible result of your proceedings the final settlement of the quarrel of seven centuries. But where is the final settlement in this proposal? Why, it is hardly a settlement for a single Parliament. At the end of this Parliament we may be called upon to go over the whole thing again, and to consider a new Home Rule Bill. It is because the Government have persuaded me that it is not worth while to consider this question at all unless we are to have a permanent settlement that I move my Amendment, in the hope that the transitional period may be avoided.

Amendment proposed, In line 1, to leave out the words "the transfer hereinafter mentioned," in order to insert the words "Parliament otherwise determines."—(Mr. J. Chamberlain.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'the transfer hereinafter mentioned' stand part of the Clause."

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

The whole speech of my right hon. Friend only supplies arguments against his own Amendment. There is no doubt that when the clause of an Act of Parliament is prefaced with the words "until Parliament shall otherwise determine," there is placed upon it the stamp of its temporary and short-lived character. My right hon. Friend has examined the subject in the same spirit of exaggeration and hostility which have invariably marked his investigation of any portion of the plan of the Government. Would my light hon. Friend excuse my suggesting an analogy of the character which he bears with the character which is systematically assumed, I believe, under ancient rules, in the Court of Rome on a great and solemn occasion, when it is proposed in consequence of the peculiar excellence of some happy human being who has departed this life to raise him, so far as terrestrial judgment can raise him, to the order of the saints. For fear lest, under the influence of too favourable prepossession, the honour should be conferred without a sufficiently jealous scrutiny, there is always brought into the Court a gentleman who goes, or who is said to go, under the name of Devil's Advocate. The peculiar function of this gentleman is to go through the career of the proposed saint, to seize upon and magnify every human failing and error, to misconstrue everything that is capable of misconstruction; and when the able and ingenious Devil's Advocate has, like my right hon. Friend, his heart in the cause, then it becomes reasonably certain to the satisfaction of impartial and dispassionate men that everything has been said against the candidate for spiritual honours that can possibly be said, and not only so, but a great more than can be sustained. That is the case of my right hon. Friend. But on one point, owing to the excess of his zeal, he went a little beyond even the Devil's Advocate. I have never heard upon any occasion of persons entrusted with the charge of that high office—for they were not less discreet than able—saying in the course of the same speech what amounts to a practical confutation of the main proposition they were endeavouring to urge. That is the case of my right hon. Friend. What is the main charge he makes against the Bill? He described it the other night as a "bite at Home Rule."

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

It was a quotation.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

Oh, yes; I knew that it was a phrase which he was fortunate enough to detect in a leading article. It is not so long ago since he quoted a leading article in this House calling for scorn and contempt on it because it did not exactly suit his object. When it does suit his object he produces the article in his support. My right hon. Friend said—"We have settled nothing in this Bill about Home Rule." Settled nothing in this Bill! My right Friend, in discussing this matter, used language of habitual, gross, enormous exaggeration. What are the questions connected with Ireland that are not settled in this Bill? I grant there is the Land Question.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

An obligation of honour.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

Yes, an obligation of honour with respect to facts and circumstances that were then existing, and expressly stated by me, as my right hon. Friend must know, to be an obligation to these temporary facts and circumstances. The Laud Question, it is true, is a most important question. It is a question internal to Ireland, and it is entirely by way of exception that there is any reservation of it at all. What is the foundation for the charge that the Bill settles nothing? Finance? Yes. What did my right hon. Friend say in another part of his speech? Like the unskilful Devil's Advocate, having declared that the Government entirely upset and destroyed everything they proposed to enact with respect to finance, in another portion of his speech, when he had another object in view, he entirely forgot what he had urged, and said— Why, after all, what is the use of this charge about the six years? The Excise and Customs Revenue "—he might have added the Post Office—"are still withheld from them, so far as regards fixing their rates; and, consequently, this Bill, which fixes the principle with respect to these Revenues, will still be in force, and the whole substance of finance, with limited exceptions, will still be settled by the Irish. And that is the only point to which my right hon. Friend can refer as not having been successfully settled by the Bill. Now, what is settled by the Bill? It is settled by the Bill that Ireland shall make her own laws. It is settled that Ireland shall have two Chambers of Legislature. I want to know whether fixing the Legislative Body is, or is not, a capital and fundamental portion of any scheme of government for Ireland? We have settled the Executive, the relations between the Executive and the Legislative Body. We have absolutely settled the Judiciary.

LORD R, CHURCHILL

All by the Closure.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

The Police has been absolutely fixed. In naming these branches, have I not named all the most important branches of a scheme for the Government of Ireland with the exception of finance? And with respect to that exception, my right hon. Friend has himself said that the most important parts are fixed. In this instance my right hon. Friend exhibited, as he did in others, his practice of gross, habitual, and enormous exaggeration. My right hon. Friend is engaged in denouncing a measure with respect to the most important part of which more conclusive support could nowhere be found than in the speeches of my right hon. Friend himself, before he assumed his present position.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

Is not that exaggeration?

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

My right hon. Friend has also given some specimens of more temperate arguments. He said— If the plan is good, why is it to last only for six years? Why is it not to remain? In what I cannot call a specimen of temperate argument my right hon. Friend then supplied the reasons for the limitation. They are not the reasons stated by the Government, who might he supposed to know something of their own interior minds; but they wore, according to the right hon. Gentleman— Because your allies have put yon under compulsion, and have given you to understand that they will not tolerate the permanent enactment of such a system as you have introduced. It is the old doctrine of the taskmaster and the lash. But that doctrine was much weakened in its impression on my mind, and for the reason I am about to state, though it is only one illustration of the licence continually assumed by the opponents of the Government—a licence which permits them to use, in the successive Debates upon the Bill, either a particular proposition, if it be unfavourable to the Bill, or the contradictory of it. My right hon. Friend continually casts upon the Government the stigma of being under the lash of taskmasters. My right hon. Friend has not sat through much of to-night's Debate, or he would have known that the contradictory of that proposition was vehemently urged upon the Government less than two hours before from that (the Opposition) quarter of the House. The Government were then told as positively and confidently—for posi-tiveness and confidence are the invariable concomitants of all the assertions of my right hon. Friend and his allies, as positively and confidently as when my right hon. Friend spoke of taskmasters and lashes—that the Government had no excuse for not doing something they were asked to do, because it was perfectly well known and notorious to the world that gentlemen below the Gangway would accept whatever they were offered.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

I never referred to the Parnellites as taskmasters. There are only nine of them.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

After that brilliant repartee I will pass on. I have quoted what has been said by one of my right hon. Friend's allies, and, therefore, my right hon. Friend's interruption was wholly without point. My right hon. Friend has a practice, which is one of the most unsatisfactory and one of the most mischievous that can be introduced in to public life. He constantly and deliberately, and with the utmost confidence and infallibility, ascribes to men who have a right to stand on a level with him, and who were at one time his colleagues and supposed to be his friends, motives for their acts the direct contradictory of that which they state themselves, and motives which my right hon. Friend knows they indignantly disclaim. My right hon. Friend knows, or ought to know, that the Government have stated their reasons for introducing this intermediate period: and he knows those reasons are absolutely different and totally irreconcilable with that which he himself alleged, not as a suspicion on his part, but as the absolute result of his infallible thought-reading. There is a profession growing up in the country in which my right hon. Friend appears to deserve the very highest honours and distinction, and that is the profession of the thought-reader. My right hon. Friend said that the Irish Members—not the Parnellites only, but the Nationalists—have a most dangerous notion in their heads. They had, he told us, compelled the Government to put off their decision upon the amount of the contribution, though the principle of a contribution was a thing absolutely fixed under the Bill. And why? "Because," said my right hon. Friend, "they know that in six years they will be absolute masters of the situation." Where does he get his gift of infallibility? By what superhuman gift does my right hon. Friend pronounce upon the state of things which is to subsist in this House six years hence? There are 103 Irish Members in this House now, but they are not omnipotent. On the contrary, we are told this very night by a high authority that they have nothing to do but to submit. If this is so, why, then, should 80 Members be omnipotent? I commend that view to my right hon. Friend. Hon. Gentlemen who are imbued more or less with the confidence and self-esteem of the right hon. Gentleman must see, when they predict the supremacy of 80 Members, what a sentence of condemnation they are passing upon the 570 Members who will be in this House along with the 80 Irish Members? They are to be nothing but their tools and their slaves! But what will the British public say outside who witness this enslaving? What will the people of Great Britain say of it? Will they stand by unmoved at this enslaving by the 80 Irish Members who would possess a special privilege?

LORD R. CHURCHILL

They would have their own Parliament.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

I should have thought it would be understood I was referring to this House. This miserable 570 will be the tools and the slaves of 80! They are to sit here as victims—miserable tools, slaves! It is, Sir, in my opinion, absurd. One of the illuminating doctrines delivered from that quarter of the House (pointing to Mr. Chamberlain) is that any body of Members representing any set of constituencies may lawfully combine together to obtain by their combination anything they can on behalf of their own particular constituencies, irrespective of the general welfare of England.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

We all hold it.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

The noble Lord cannot have heard the words that fell from my lips. If he had, he would not respond in those terms. Well, Sir, we are told that there is no necessity why Ireland should he furnished at the outset with a surplus. We are told we gave no surplus to the Transvaal. To the Transvaal! What was the Transvaal? It was little more than a village community. What were they?

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

40,000.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

Yes; 8,000 adults. But that is not all. These men had been deprived of institutions, and into their midst was sent a handful of English authorities; and, therefore, it is presumed they had lost those institutions. There is no parallel with the case of Ireland. Then, Greece is cast in our teeth. But the three Powers which founded Greece did give Greece a surplus, did propose, if they did not—as I think they did—guarantee a surplus—though the three Powers found themselves unable to obtain a considerable part of the interest on this Guaranteed Loan. They recognised, I think, that a commencing Government requires a surplus. But, Sir, what is the use of talking to Irish Members about economy before they have a Government to make economies? Does a Ministry cost nothing? Does building cost nothing? Does a legislative building cost nothing? How are all those charges to be defrayed? That is the crux of the question. We have told a simple tale to the House about all these matters in this period of six years. Originally our financial plan was for 15 years. It is now reduced to six years. The time at our disposal is a time which does not permit the Committee to probe so serious a question. The employment which is placed on the Irish Legislature irrespective of these questions is more than ample, and these few years it is proposed to adopt form a period of postponement, but a short and rational period, at the close of which it is most reasonable to expect that they will be in a condition to deal in a satisfactory manner with this subject. But the Committee is told that this Bill settles nothing. That is a common mode of describing the most positive Bills which the Opposition disapprove and do not believe in. The plan proposed by the Government is a most reasonable one, and the right hon. Gentleman has done nothing to shake or to undermine the Government plan, although he has used his utmost efforts to do so, and to do so in the spirit of that important functionary to whom I made an initiatory allusion.

MR. A. J. BALEOUR (Manchester, E.)

The right hon. Gentleman has left me but a few minutes, but I will endeavour to compress my argument into them. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman has not been mainly to the Amendment, but to the Second Reading stage of the clause. When the right hon. Gentleman ought to have replied to the arguments made on that stage of the clause he remained absent from the House.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

The right hon. Member for West Birmingham largely argued the question of surplus.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

My right hon. Friend never mentioned the Transvaal or Greece, and there is not an hon. Member except the right hon. Gentleman who would have been permitted so far to divert from the speech to which he was professedly replying. The point, however, to which I would first refer depends on a remark made by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham that the Irish Members are the masters of the Government. Well, are they not? The right hon. Gentleman looks forward to the end of six years, and says, who can suppose that, at that time, against the vote of 570 English Members, 80 Irish Members will be allowed to prevail? The right hon. Gentleman was unconsciously repeating his own speech made nearly 10 years ago. I recollect that speech well; it was a magnificent effort. The right hon. Member for Dublin University had been saving that the Reform Bill of 1884 would inevitably hand the Loyalists of Ireland over to the certainty of Home Rule agitation, which would probably be successful. What did the right hon. Gentleman say? He said (reading from Hansard)— He believed that if there could be only a sufficient proportion of Irish Members following in the train of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, 500 to 600 Members from England, Scotland, and Wales would be so intimidated by the action of the Irish Members that they would cast away all consideration of justice in legislation.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

asked to see the reference, and the volume was handed across the Table.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Almost verbatim what the Committee has heard that evening! In 1886 these 500 to 600 English Members were coerced by the followers of Mr. Parnell, and the right hon. Gentleman did come down and propose legislation which he then thought to be impossible. Well, Sir, I pass to the attack made on the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, and the Prime Minister's description of what he called the habitually gross and enormous exaggeration of the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with this Amendment. The Prime Minister said that Government had settled that there should be an Irish Legislature consisting of two Chambers, the Police, the Judiciary, and the Executive. With regard to the word "settle," I confess that it is an inappropriate substantive to use with regard to the decision which has been arrived at without debate or discussion. Up to the present, when we spoke of the House of Commons settling something, we usually meant that the subject had been first debated and then divided upon. The first of these processes is now omitted by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman says we have settled the Judiciary. There are clauses about the Judiciary, and I do not deny that, in a sense, it may be said that you have settled that question. But in what sense has he settled the police? Upon my word, I do not know. I raised the question this afternoon with regard to the Revenue and the existing Constabulary; and the Government said that, although the question was a very proper one to raise, they have not settled it, but that, perhaps in a year or two, they would be prepared with a solution to a problem which they admit requires one. The question of the police is only settled in a negative sense, and so little is it settled, that the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) looks forward to eight anxious years of debate in the Irish Legislature before it is settled. Have the Government settled the police of the country when they have only settled the police is not to exist, but have left it absolutely open as to what police will take their place? The right hon. Gentleman himself has admitted that, he has not settled the land; but he says he is only under "temporary obligations of honour." I have been accustomed to consider that the obligations of honour are permanent, but a new morality and a new linguistic usage are being introduced, and apparently the obligations of honour only exist during the temporary exigencies of Party, and when those exigencies of Party change the obligations of honour will, I suppose, vanish with them. Is the taxation settled? That is the very question under discussion, and it is not settled. The right hon. Gentleman said—"You should not impute to us had motives. We have given our reasons for settling it only for six years. It is contrary to the usage of Parliament to attribute to us motives which have never animated us." The only reason we understand for the change of front on the part of the Government is that they have heard a speech from the hon. Member for North Kerry, and that they thought the suggestion he makes is a good one. I do not see that that reason is contradictory of the motives attributed to the Government by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. There remains the vital question of the Irish Members in this House. Is that settled? I appeal to the Government themselves on that point. Clause 9, dealing with them, begins with the words "unless and until Parliament otherwise determines." The Prime Minister himself says, when similar words are proffered as an Amendment to another clause by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, that their insertion will be a conclusive proof that the clause is a temporary and short-lived one.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

I said in the most distinct manner that there are many points that might be construed as an honourable compact between Great Britain and Ireland for the term of six years, and I stated that the words referred to were introduced to show that the 9th clause was no part of the honourable compact between Great Britain and Ireland, and was reserved in quite another sense.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The meaning of the words of an Act do not depend upon the intention of those who insert them, but on the words themselves. If the words were introduced for the purpose of making this one clause short-lived the effect must be the same. The Prime Minister has likened the right hon. Member for West Birmingham to the "Devil's Advocate" in those ecclesiastical cases where the claims of a saint to canonisation were brought forward. I will not go into the propriety or the good taste of the metaphor, but I would merely point out that the functions of the Devil's Advocate are exercised only with regard to a defunct individual. If the Home Rule Bill is to be regarded as dead, the right hon. Member for West Birmingham will not quarrel with the metaphor. For my own part, when once the author of a Bill admits that it is a corpse, I am perfectly ready to take any part he likes in the canonisation of his defunct Bill. I do not think it worth while to continue the discussion any further; but there are other Members who may desire to take part in the Debate which I am sorry to say has been wasted—a portion of the time has been wasted—by the irrelevant and personal recriminations which the right hon. Gentleman embodied in the observations which he addressed to the Committee.

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

said, a great deal of the attack upon his right hon. Friend (Mr. Chamberlain) —

It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.