Commons Sitting of 27 July 1893

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
That they have agreed to,—
Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Bill, without Amendment.

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

1. Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Act, 1893.

2. Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1893.

3. Land Tax Commissioners' Names Act, 1893.

4. Prison (Officers' Superannuation) Act, 1S93.

5. Friendly Societies' Act, 1S93.

6. Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1893.

7. Railway Regulation Act, 1893.

8. Barbed Wire Act, 1893.

9. Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 4) Act, 1893.

10. Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1893.

619

11. Education Department Provisional Orders Confirmation (Chiswick, &c.) Act, 1893.

12. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 6) Act, 1893.

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

14. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 8) Act, 1893.

15. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 12) Act, 1893.

16. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 14) Act, 1893.

17. Local Government Board's Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 16) Act, 1893.

18. Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 17) Act, 1893.

19. Local Government Board's Provisional Order Confirmation (Housing of Working Classes) (No. 2) Act, 1893.

20. Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 6) Act, 1893.

21. Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 7) Act, 1893.

22. Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 8) Act, 1893.

23. Local Government Board (Ireland) Provisional Order Confirmation (No. 9) Act, 1893.

24. Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1893.

25. Water Order Confirmation (No. 3) Act, 1893.

26. Electric Lighting Order Confirmation (No. 5) Act, 1893.

27. Electric Lighting Order Confirmation (No. 6) Act, 1893.

28. Electric Lighting Order Confirmation (No. 7) Act, 1893.

29. Gas Orders Confirmation Act, 1893.

30. Gas Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1893.

31. Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Confirmation Act, 1893.

QUESTIONS.

  HALF-PAY ALLOWANCES FOE UNEMPLOYED COLONELS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War when will the increase of half-pay allowances for unemployed Colonels, whose promotion has been stopped by the recent Warrant, and for which increase was provided for on the Estimates, he granted; and whether officers whose services are required as umpires at the forthcoming manœuvres will receive tentage but no pay or allowances, although such duties involve considerable expense, especially if such officers are not on active employment at the time?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,: The Royal Warrant granting an increased rate of half-pay to officers who have completed a period of service as Lieutenant-Colonels will be issued immediately, with effect from April 1 last. The officers employed as umpires at manœuvres accept the duty without extra pay or allowances.

HAY CONTRACTS IN AUSTRIA-HTJNGABY.
THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the export of hay from Austria-Hungary has been stopped; and whether the Government will make representations, so that exceptions may be made in favour of those who have made contracts before the date of the forbidding of the exportation, which contracts are as yet unfulfilled?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. Grey,): The exportation of hay from Austria-Hungary has been stopped, and Her Majesty's Government have made urgent representations that contracts entered into previously to this prohibition should be excepted from its provisions. It is understood that this matter is still under consideration at Vienna and Buda-Pesth.

BOY CLERKS IN THE CIVIL SERVICE.
MR H. L. W. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that there have been very few vacancies for boy clerks of late in the Civil Service, and many have in consequence been obliged to seek other employment, although the record of their work for three years has been satisfactory; whether he has noticed that the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, in their Second Report, thought it might be desirable to reserve an increased proportion of men clerkships for them; and whether anything has been or will be done to carry out this recommendation?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): Entry to the Second Division is obtained by open competition, and it is not desirable to lower the qualifications of that class of the Public Service by the appointment of persons who cannot obtain clerkships in the ordinary method. An exception is already made in favour of boy clerks. They are allowed to compete among themselves for the Second Division on any occasion of open competition for the same, and one-fourth of those so competing are admitted. I do not think that the exception should be further extended.

THE ARMY PAY DEPARTMENT.
MAJOR DARWIN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether be will consider, with reference to the new Warrant, which it is understood is about to be issued with regard to the Army Ray Department, the advisability of making arrangements under this Warrant for appointing a Chief Paymaster to a suitable position at the War Office in order to represent the Army Pay Department and to bring it into closer relationship with the War Office?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is intended to employ at the War Office a member of the Army Pay Department on the staff of the Quartermaster General for the purpose of conducting the business of the personnel of the Department and of the corps of clerks; but it is not proposed to employ a Chief Paymaster on this duty.

GIBRALTAR.
MR. E. H. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to a statement made by the Gibraltar Ratepayers' Defence Association in a letter to the Secretary' of State for the Colonies, and contained in the Blue Book for May, 1892, page 11, that the present colonial engineer, when formerly acting as engineer to the Sanitary Commissioners, was removed from the latter office on the ground that he could not and did not satisfactorily perform the multifarious duties which he had undertaken; that on two separate occasions this same official had been reprimanded by Secretaries of State for the Colonies, under circumstances which alone justify the want of confidence expressed at the public meeting in regard to his having the control of any works wherein the ratepayers are concerned; and whether the scheme proposed by the said engineer for boring a tunnel, six feet by five feet, through the Rock of Gibraltar in search of water, has now been finally abandoned?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): As regards the question referring to the colonial engineer, similar questions were asked and answered in the House on the 9th of May last year. There is nothing to add to the answers then given. As regards the last question, I am not yet in a position to extend the answer I gave my hon. Friend the other day.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATTON IN HOUNSLOW.
LORD G. HAMILTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if the following statements are correct: that a notice was received on the 15th May by the Local School Authorities of the large and populous school district of Hounslow, requiring them to provide additional school accommodation for 300 children within one month; that proposals were thereupon made to the Education Department by the said School Authorities to supply the necessary school accommodation, but on the 6th June, nine days before the expiration of the month, the Vice

623
President of the Committee of Council ordered a School Board to be set up; and, if so, under what clause of the Education Act of 1870 was this summary action taken?
THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): A final notice was issued by the Department on the 15th May, requiring provision to be made for 295 children, under Sections 9 and 10 of the Act of 1870. On the 18th May the ratepayers of the school district passed a resolution for a- School Board in due form, and an order for a Board was issued accordingly under Section 12 (1) of the Act of 1870. The action was in no sense summary, but in accordance with the ordinary practice of the Department.
LORD G. HAMILTON: Is it not necessary, according to the section under which the right hon. Gentleman says he acted, to have in writing the signatures of 50 ratepayers, or one-third of the number in the district? And was not the meeting on which the Education Department took action merely attended by 40 persons and the resolution carried by a bare majority? Does the right hon. Gentleman think lie is acting rightly in forcing a School Board on a district with a population of 19,000 people?
MR. ACLAND: A great many School Boards have been formed under the sections, and as long as the Department is satisfied that the Clerk of the Guardians has duly summoned the meeting, all Vice Presidents proceed to act. It appears that this mooting was attended by 67 ratepayers, any 10 of whom could claim a poll, but that was not done. If the clerk certifies that the meeting has been duly summoned and held, it is quite impossible for the Department to go into the size of the meeting.
LORD G. HAMILTON: I shall call attention to what I believe to be the illegal action of the Department in the matter.

DEATH IN A CORK LUNATIC ASYLUM.
MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the attention of the Irish Prisons Board has been called to the facts connected with the death of Henry Pedley, in the Cork District Lunatic Asylum in February last, as proved at the trial which has just
624
taken place at the Cork Assizes, where Daniel Murphy, an attendant in the asylum, was tried for the manslaughter of Pedley, and acquitted; is he aware that it was established in evidence at the said trial that Pedley died from blood poisoning arising out of the fracture of four of his ribs from violent treatment received in the asylum; whether it is intended to institute any inquiry as to how Pedley's ribs were fractured; and whether any person is responsible for his death?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The facts are as stated in the question, and one of the Inspectors of Lunatic Asylums has been instructed to hold an inquiry into the circumstances connected with Pedley's death.

THE IRISH SOCIETY'S ESTATES.
MR. MAINS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Attorney General for Ireland of the late Government instituted a suit before the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, against the Irish Society, with reference to their Irish estates, in consequence of a Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons which investigated this matter in the year 1891; and whether he can state what the exact object of the suit is, what stage it at present has reached, and when it is expected to come to a hearing?
MR. J. MORLEY: The action referred to was not, I am informed, instituted by the Attorney General for Ireland of the late Government. It was instituted in January, 1892, in the Chancery Division, before the Master of the Rolls, by the Rev. Hugh Johnson, of the Presbyterian Church, against the Irish Society and others, and the Attorney General's connection with the case was limited to his having granted the usual fiat for the proceedings as required when proceedings are taken by information. The object of the suit was for a declaration that the defendant companies were the trustees of lands in Londonderry for the objects of the plantation of Ulster, and that they should apply the purchase-money of the lands and profits thereof for those objects. I believe the plaintiff has not yet de-

625
livered his statement of claim, and the case cannot come to a hearing until he does and the defendants file expenses.
SIR T. LEA: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that several actions in this case have been tried before the Master of the Rolls, and have all resulted in verdicts for the defendants?
MR. J. MORLEY: I am not acquainted with the facts, but I know the hon. Gentleman has taken great interest in the case, so it is no doubt as he has stated.

SUNKEN ROCKS OFF KERRY.
SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a fisherman named Patrick Murphy was drowned recently while fishing near Bailydavid, County Kerry, through the striking of his canoe on some sunken rocks; also that six persons have boon drowned at the same place during the past few years; whether repeated representations have been made to the Congested Districts Board to have these rocks removed; and whether, if the Congested Districts Board are unable to remove them, the local coastguards will be instructed to blow them up?
MR. J. MORLEY: It is a fact, I am informed, that Murphy was drowned as stated; but the local police are not aware that any other person has been drowned at these rocks within the last 40 years. The Congested Districts Board have received a Memorial for the removal of the rocks, and the matter is now under consideration.
SIR T. ESMONDE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Fishery Inspectors have recommended the removal of these rocks?
MR. J. MORLEY: I have not heard that.

DINGLE FISHERMEN'S HOUSES.
SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Local Government Board will send an Inspector to inspect the houses of the Dingle fishermen, who have forwarded them a requisition to that effect, as those fishermen state that many of their houses are unfit for human habitation?
MR. J. MORLEY: The Dingle Board of Guardians met last Thursday, and, having considered the representation under the Labourers' Act made to them on behalf of the fishermen, passed a resolution, in which they state that they are satisfied that the applicants are bonâ fide fishermen, and not labourers, within the meaning of Section 4 of the Act of 1886. The medical officer's certificate shows that in only two eases are the houses of the applicants unfit for habitation. The Local Government Board are of opinion, under the circumstances, that the provision of the Act referred to, empowering them to order an independent inquiry, does not apply to a. case such as the present one.

THE ISLANE OF CANNA.
MR. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he has received a Petition from upwards of 400 persons, praying for the extension of the telegraph to the Island of Canna for the accommodation of a large fishing population frequenting the harbour in that Island; and if he is prepared to grant the extension asked for?
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. Morley,): I have received the Petition to which the hon. Member refers. An extension of the telegraphs to Canna would lie very costly; and as the receipts would not he sufficient to cover the expenses, estimated at a, sum equivalent to £260 a year, it is not in my power to carry out the extension unless a guarantee can be given.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION CULLIPOOL.
MR. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if the Scotch Education Department intends to grant the school accommodation petitioned for by the inhabitants of Cullipool, Luing, and Easdale?
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): The Department has been in communication with Her Majesty's Inspector on the subject of the Petition referred to. He finds it necessary to visit the places named before making his Report, and he hopes to do so early next month.

ABSTRACTER CLERKS.
MR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there are still upwards of 400 writers unpromoted to the class of assistant clerk or abstracter, created by the Treasury Minute of 10th August, 1889; whether there is any practical difference between the work performed by those yet unpromoted and those who have been promoted to this class; and whether he will take steps to ensure that all the eligible writers remaining unpromoted shall be promoted without any further delay?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The statement in paragraph I is correct, but nominations to abstracterships already made will bring the number down to about 386. Appointments to abstracterships are not made unless a Department satisfies the Treasury that there is work to be provided for, which is superior to copyists' work. As difference of duties is the only justification for appointing abstracters and increasing the public charge, it is impossible for me to give the pledge asked for.

SAMOA.
MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has noticed, in the Official Report of the British Consul just issued, that trade in Samoa is paralysed in consequence of the politically disturbed condition of the country, that all progress has been checked, that no public works have been attempted during the past year, and that, under existing circumstances, it is almost hopeless to expect the carrying out of any public works; and whether, in view of these facts, he will confer with the other Treaty Powers with respect to giving early consideration to the serious situation that has arisen in Samoa, and taking the requisite steps to establish some stable form of Government in a group that now numbers 300 British-born subjects amongst its population?
SIR E. GREY: I must refer the hon. Member to a reply given on the 17th, from which he will see that we are in communication with Germany and the United States, and that the three Treaty Powers have sent ships of war to Samoa with the object of putting an end to political disturbance.

"SPOILING THE PEOPLE."
MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been directed to an article in The Star of Saturday by Mr. Theodore Dodd, entitled "Spoiling the People;" whether he is aware that Mr. Culley, Commissioner of Woods and Forests, stated in 1889 that there was an immense acreage of quit rents, extending over a large part of Ireland, which belongs to the Crown; what is the amount of quit rents in Ireland now in arrear due to the Crown, and would those quit rents, if recovered, be appropriated in aid of the Public Revenue; whether it is the fact that there are large tracts of laud in Ireland in which the Crown has a reversion on lease fee; and whether, in view of certain recent proceedings, the Government will oppose any attempt to give away to the landlords any quit rents or Crown rents, or remissions of land held on lease fee?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Mr. Culley stated in 1889 that the quit rents belonging to the Crown in Ireland issued out of properties containing an immense acreage extending over a large part of Ireland. Of course, Mr. Culley referred to the quit rents as originally imposed. A large number have since been sold, and the properties for which these quit rents were payable are now free of such rents. The amount of the arrears of quit and Crown rents in Ireland on the 31st March last, considered to be recoverable, as shown in the Accounts of the Commissioners of Woods, was £15,883 16s. 6d., and this amount would, if recovered, be appropriated in aid of the Public Revenue. It is not known that there is any reversion in the Crown to lands subject to quit rents proper excepting in the ordinary way of escheat. In the case of Crown rents, the Letters Patent or Crown Grants reserving them sometimes contain a limitation, and no such routs are now sold until inquiry has been made as to whether there is a reversion in the Crown.

BURIAL GRIEVANCES AND CLERICAL INTOLERANCE.
MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department

629
whether he has received from Mr. J. Latham, of Bryun, near Wigan, a confirmation of the statement that the Rector of Downall Green, Lancashire, on learning that, he intended to have a Nonconformist Service at the burial of his wife, refused to grant him a private grave, and that the interment, therefore, took place in a grave in which two bodies had already been buried; whether he has also received from several inhabitants of the parish a statement to the effect that the rector has in other cases refused to allow parishioners to be buried in private graves when the relatives have not required the Church of England Burial Service, and, as a consequence, Nonconformists to obtain private graves, have been obliged to surrender their right to a Nonconformist Service; whether be has received from the Rev. G. Jarman, tin; Nonconformist minister who was obstructed in the performance of a burial service in Whitchurch Churchyard, Somerset, on 9th July, a copy of a letter addressed to him by the Rev. E. J. Franklin, the Vicar, in which he expresses sincere regret that he interfered with the Funeral Service, he having previously assured the Secretary of State for the Home Department that he bad offered no obstruction; and whether, in view of such occurrences, he will consider the expediency of adopting some means for securing for Nonconformists the free exercise of their rights under the Burials Act of 1880?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQCITH,): As to the first two paragraphs, I have received the statements to which my hon. Friend refers, together with some comments by the rector upon them, and a. Petition signed by certain inhabitants defending the rector's action. I am satisfied that the rector claims and exercises the right of appropriating private graves to members of his own congregation, and of leaving Nonconformists to be buried in graves where one or more interments have already taken place, lie seeks to justify his action on the ground of the limited space; available for new graves in the churchyard. I am not prepared to say that the rector is not acting within his legal rights. I can only express my own strong opinion that such a discrimination as he seeks to exercise is in entire
630
variance with the intention and spirit of the Burials Act. 1880. The answer to the third paragraph is in the affirmative. As I stated on a previous occasion, I think that the Vicar in this instance violated the law, nor can I look upon the statement which he made to me in the first instance as a fair or complete account of the facts. As to the last paragraph, where the law is not broken it is obvious that no one can interfere with, however much he may condemn, the proceedings of the clergy. Where the law is broken it is open to anyone to prosecute.

LABOURERS COTTAGES IN THE ROSCREA UNION.
MR. GILHOOLY: On behalf of the Member for the Ossory Division of Queen's County, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (1) the cause of the delay in building two labourers' cottages in the Bonis-in-Ossory and one in the Moneenallassa Electoral Division of the Roscrea Union, Queen's County, which were sanctioned by the Local Government Board on 30th May, 1S90, the final award for compensation being made on 18th January, 1892: (2) whether this Board rejected representations for 13 new cottages in lieu of 13 old ones condemned by the medical sanitary officer as unfit for human habitation: (3) whether he is aware that a representation for a house was sent in prior to 1892 for Richard Council, whose present house was condemned by the medical sanitary officer, but was rejected by the Roscrea Board on the ground that there were vacant houses in the district, but, on a second representation being sent in, the Local Government Board ordered them to make further inquiries, and they had to acknowledge through their officer that they were in error: (4) and whether he will instruct Mr. E. Bourke, Local Government Board Inspector, who is to hold an inquiry at the Roscrea, Workhouse on Friday, 18th August, to inquire into this case for the purpose of including it in the scheme under consideration?
MR. J. MORLEY: (1) It appears that the Guardians have accepted a tender for the erection of two cottages in the Borris-in-Ossory Division, but that the contractor has so far failed to perfect his

631
bond. As regards I he cottage in the other Division mentioned, the occupying tenant has refused to accept the compensation awarded to him, and the Guardians have taken steps to obtain possession of the site. (2) A number of applications were rejected by the Guardians in September last because the applicants were not labourers and on various other grounds, but not for the reason assigned in the second paragraph. (3 and 4) The statements in the third paragraph are substantially correct; but I am informed by the Local Government Board that the proposal that, the case be dealt with at the inquiry to be held on the 28th instant (not 18th August, as stated) is one that cannot legally be adopted. The ease can only be disposed of in a new scheme.

OVERCROWDED RAILWAY TRAINS.
MR. PAUL: I beg-to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has boon called to the fact that on Saturday the 22nd of July, at Clapham Junction, about 20 passengers with tickets were thrust into a luggage van of the 2.58 train for Woking and Aldershot, there being just room for them to stand up in, and no more; that many of them were women and children; that, though they were told they would be released at Surbiton, the van did not come near the platform at that station, and they were forced to remain in this position as far as Woking; whether such conduct on the part of the Loudon and South Western Railway Company is in accordance with the law; and whether any steps can be taken to protect the public from such danger to their safety and destruction of their comfort?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I have communicated with the Company, and learn that, in consequence of several attractive events, including regattas and the Bisley meeting, on the afternoon of Saturday the 22nd instant, the suburban traffic was very great, and the resources of the line severely taxed. The Company do not admit that passengers were thrust into a luggage van, and inform '.no that their officials, anxious to accommodate everybody, suggested to some 15 or 20 passengers that they should get into the
632
guards' vans rather than be compelled to wait for the following train. Overcrowding is the subject of bye-law, and it is difficult to prevent it; but I have asked the London and South Western Railway Company to give careful attention to the matter.

THE KILLOUGH SCHOOL TEACHER.
MR. TUTTE: I beg-to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland can he state the reason why the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland refused to grant the teacher of Killough, County Westmeath, boys' school, his full class salary for quarter ended 30th June, 1893, having regard to the fact, that the daily attendance during that period was up to the required average; and why the Commissioners refused to give the said teacher the benefit of Rule 164 (a) in granting his salary for quarter ended 31st March, 1893, the diminished attendance during that quarter having been caused by a serious outbreak of scarlatina and measles in the locality of the school?
MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that salary at the highest rate was not refused for the June, 1893, quarter, but that second-class salary only was paid as a provisional arrangement pending further consideration of the case by the Commissioners. For ii similar reason salary at the second-class rate was paid provisionally for the March quarter of 1893. If it can be clearly established that the cause of the decline in the average attendance was of a temporary character full-class salary will be paid.
MR. TUITE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the teacher sent a medical certificate to the National Education Commissioners proving that the falling-off in the daily attendance was due to the facts stated in the question?
MR. J. MORLEY: I can add nothing to my answer.

ARMS IN IRELAND.
MR. CARSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is intended to re-enact during the present Session of Parliament the Act of 1881 regulating the carrying and possession of arms in Ireland and the preservation of the public peace in Ireland, and which

633
expires this year; and, if so, when a Bill for that purpose will be introduced?
MR. J. MOELEY: This subject has not escaped the attention of the Government; but I hope the hon. Member will postpone the question to a later day.

POLICE RETURNS IN IRELAND.
MR. CARSON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, under the Police Code in force in Ireland, the Police Authorities of each county are bound to lay before the Judge of Assize at each Assizes a Return of the crimes and outrages reported to the police since the last Assizes; for what purpose is this Return laid before the Judges of Assize; how long has the practice of laying such Reports before the Irish Judges continued: whether any such Returns are laid before the Judges of Assize in England: whether the Irish Executive uses its own discretion as to the principles on which these Returns are framed; whether the Reports laid before the Chief Justice at the Assizes in Clonmel were framed, so far as injuries to property were concerned, on the same principles as those1 laid before him at Kilkenny; and whether he will state to the House what were the terms of the strongly-worded complaint and criticism of the Executive by the Chief Justice at the late Kilkenny Assizes.
MR. BODKIN: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I ask if it was suggested by the learned Judge in the speech referred to that outrages believed by the police to be bogus should be included in the Return: and whether the result of such a manipulation would be to enable evil-disposed persons to pretend that crime is on the increase in Ireland since the suspension of the Coercion Act, whereas in reality the contrary is the csse?
MR. J. MORLEY: I am not aware of the learned Judge's object in making the recommendation. I do not suppose it was made, otherwise than with a view to the Public Service. The answer to the first of the hon. and learned Gentleman's questions is in the affirmative; hut it is specifically directed that care is to he taken that none but outrages, recorded as such at headquarters, are included in the Return. In answer to the
634
second question, there is no record of any reason for laying these Returns before the Judges; but I should suppose that the principal purpose was to give the Judges assistance in determining sentences, in case any particular form of crime should be especially prevalent. The Chief Justice at Kilkenny observed that the Code said that the object is that the Judge may address the Grand Jury with reference to the state of the county. The Code docs not appear to contain any statement of the kind. The practice has existed since 1862. I understand that no such Returns are laid before Judges of Assize in England; but, as the Chief Constable is a local and not a central officer, I am unable to say what actually takes place. The Irish Executive does and must use its own exclusive discretion in framing these Returns, for it is the Irish Executive and not the Judges who are responsible to Parliament. But I may repeat that no change whatever, great or small, in the principles, in the practice, or in the officials concerned has taken place since the present Government came into Office nor for many years past. The County Inspector at Clonmel Include certain cases which, according to the instructions in the Code, should not have appeared in the Return. The County Inspector in that made, by inadvertence, a mistake. The Lord Chief Justice described the system of preparing the Returns as unsatisfactory, as mistaken, and as confused, and in much need of amendment. I regard this as strongly worded. I had in view, not merely his language at Kilkenny, but the proceedings at Clonmel on July 12, when the Lord Chief Justice cross-examined the County Inspector at much length in open Court as to the system on which these Returns are prepared by the Executive Governmenl—a performance entirely unusual, and open to grave objections.
MR. CARSON: May I ask whether the Code does not provide that the County Inspector is to attend and to afford any information or explanation that may be required; and whether the matter on which the Chief Justice questioned the County Inspector was that it was stated in the Return that there were no eases of intimidation, whereas amongst the Reports there were actually two

635
cases of mutilating cattle because evicted farms had been taken?
MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask whether the Code has any statutory authority, or whether it is a local regulation of the Police, and whether it is a private or a public document: and also whether the Chief Secretary can suggest how the Members for the University or the Chief Justice got a copy, because we have pressed several times to have a copy laid on the Table, and were always refused by the late Chief Secretary?
DR. COMMINS: Is the designation "outrage" not given in the Return to ordinary police offences, thereby misleading everyone interested in the administration of justice?
MR. J. MORLEY: I am equally shocked at the designation "outrage" being given to what are offences against the law, and which I am perfectly sure those who read these Returns do not think of in that connection. The Code is not exactly a private document, because I believe there is a copy in the Library of this House. My hon. and learned Friend is perfectly right. There is no statutory obligation on the part of the Executive Government to furnish these Returns, and there is no right on the part of the Judges to call for such a Return except so far as the Code directs it. The hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin is quite right in saying that the Code directs the County Inspector to afford any information or explanation that may be required: but what was peculiar in these proceedings at Clonmel was that, I think for the first time, these communications between the County Inspector and the learned Judge took place in open Court, and not, as hitherto, privately, and that the proceedings in open Court were made the opportunity for criticising the system of the Executive Government.
MR. DUNBAR BARTON: Had not the learned Judge's remarks to the County Inspector in Court reference to the entry in the Return which the Chief Secretary has stated was mistaken and contrary to the rules of the Code: and J may further ask whether, if the learned Judge had not called attention to the matter, the mistake would have passed unnoticed: is it not the duty of the Judge to refer
636
to any defects or irregularities in the Returns, whether they affect the Executive favourably or unfavourably?
MR. T. M. HEALY: And may I ask whether the police are directed, in cases whore no prosecution is pending at the suit of the Crown, to submit themselves to the cross-examination of Judges: whether this has occurred before: and whether the Judges receive salaries for cross-examining the police?
MR. J. MORLEY: I think this is a practice more honoured in the breach than in the observance. It puts the officers of the Executive Government in a false position, and I think it puts the learned Judge himself in a false position. The hon. and learned Member for Mid Armagh cannot have read very carefully the cross-examination by the learned Judge of the County Inspector, or he would see that the question is much wider than he supposes.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Docs the right hon. Gentleman say there is a copy of the Code in the Library?
MR. J. MORLEY: I believe there is. It is not for sale, and consequently, in that sense, the Code is a private document.

THE NEWFOUNDLAND LOBSTER FISHEKIES.
SIR C. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether an English steamer, subsidised as a mail steamer both by the Canadian and by the Newfoundland Governments, and running from Nova Scotia to Newfoundland, lately brought down 400 boxes containing cans for packing lobsters consigned to a firm nominally French: whether these were landed on the Newfoundland Government public wharf at St. George's Bay: whether the consignees refused to pay duty or to acknowledge the Colonial Custom House: whether, after due notice, the Customs seized and condemned the shipment for non-payment of duty: whether the French Admiral protested, and, sailing for St. John's, addressed the Governor in a Despatch asking for payment for the lobster cans seized and refund of duties paid by French residents on other goods imported by the same steamer: and whether Her Majesty's Government are in correspondence with

637
the French Government in support of the action taken by the Colony?
MR. S. BUXTON: The facts appear to be correctly stated in the first five paragraphs of the question. With regard to the last paragraph, a protest has been received from the French Charge d'Affaires, and the matter is under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

THE BEHAR CADASTRAL SURVEY.
MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Law Officers of the Government of India or the Government of Bengal have been consulted on the question of the legality of the proposal of the Bengal Government to impose the heavy burden of the cost of the Behar Cadastral Survey, by au Executive order, exclusively on the landlords and tenants of that Province without special legislation; whether all the Native Associations of Bengal connected with agriculture have submitted a Joint Memorial to the Viceroy, urging that this order is ultra vires and illegal, and intimating that any attempt on the part of the Government to recover such cost is likely to be generally resisted in the Law Courts; whether the Viceroy will instinct the Government of Bengal to introduce a Bill on the subject into the reformed Legislative Council, with permission to the Official Members to vote thereon as they may think proper: and whether the Correspondence on the subject, including the opinions (if recorded) of the Law Officers, can be laid before Parliament?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. G. RUSSELL,): (1) The order for undertaking a Cadastral Survey in North Behar was issued under the Bengal Tenancy Act. The Secretary of State is not aware whether the Law Officers of the Government in India were consulted respecting the order, or upon the question of apportioning the cost of the work under Section 114 of the Tenancy Act. (2) The Secretary of State has not heard that the payment of the cost of the Survey is likely to be contested in a Court of Law. (3) If the existing law sufficiently provides for the Cadastral Survey, it is not probable that the Indian
638
Government will introduce a Bill on the subject. (4) The Secretary of State will consult the Government of India as to the possibility of laying Papers before Parliament on the subject.

ELPHIN POSTAL SERVICE.
MR. BODKIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he hits some time since received a Memorial, numerously and influentially signed by the inhabitants of the town of Elphin, in County Roscommon, complaining that by a delay of nearly six hours en route of the ear conveying their mails they are deprived of all benefit of the accelerated mail service, and are compelled to leave any letters arriving by the evening mail, however urgent, unanswered until the following day; and whether he will give the said Memorial his careful and immediate consideration, with a view to providing a prompt remedy for the grievances complained of?
MR. A. MORLEY: I will make inquiry into the circumstances and communicate to the hon. Member on the subject.

LOCH BROOM.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty charts show that there are islets and rocks in Loch Broom preventing the safe navigation of the loch from its entrance to Ullapool?
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH,): There is nothing to prevent the safe navigation of Loch Broom from its entrance to Ullapool. The Sailing Directions state that it is remarkable for being perfectly free from rocks and dangers of any sort, excepting the squalls natural to narrow seas encompassed with mountainous land.

NICKEL-COVERED BULLETS.
MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Army Medical Officers are giving attention to the peculiarly destructive character of wounds inflicted by the nickel-covered bullet?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Army Medical Officers are fully aware of the effects of the nickel-covered bullets. Extensive experiments have been made, and every oppportunity is taken of studying the question.

THE STIRLING TAILORS' STRIKE.
MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a tailor named M'Kinley, in Stirling, whose workmen are on strike, is having work done for him by soldiers in Stirling Castle; and, if so, what action will be taken in the matter to put a stop to such proceedings?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I was informed of this case some time ago, and at once inquired into it. It appears that the civilian master tailor at Stirling Castle did as a favour to Mr. M'Kinley, who had on a former occasion given some help to him when he was short-handed, make two kilts; but he states that when he did it no thought of the strike was in his mind. When the fact was brought to the knowledge of the Military Authorities of the district the necessary orders were at once given to prevent any such occurrence in the future.

THE CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
MR. M'CARTAN: I beg-to ask the Postmaster General, with regard to the clerks employed at the Central Telegraph Office, who are divided into three classes—namely, second, first, and senior, whether all of these are instrument clerks; whether, under the present system, clerks on reaching the top of one class may have to wait for years before promotion to the next class, notwithstanding that their duties and qualifications are similar to those already in the upper class: whether he is aware that this system has been for years the cause of great dissatisfaction among the clerks who have frequently petitioned against it; whether this Department is the only one in which such a system of classification is adopted; and whether he will now make inquiry to see if anything can be done to remove the grievance complained of? I will also ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that during the period of the administration of the Fawcett Scheme (1881–91) no second class clerk in the Central Telegraph Office of good character reached the maximum salary of his class before his promotion to the first class; whether the early promotion in these cases was due to
640
the increase of traffic; and whether, in view of the large increase of work, now proved by the employment of a large body of permanent temporary hands and much overtime, he will consider the advisability of reverting to this method of promotion?
MR. A. MORLEY: The answer to the first paragraph is in the negative. The answer to the second paragraph is in the affirmative; but, as a matter of fact, there are only about 20 out of 600 telegraphists in the first class who have reached the maximum, and there are none in the second class. Petitions have, no doubt, been received in favour of an increase in the number of places on the higher classes, and such additions to those classes have from time to time been made as the circumstances have appeared to justify, but not, I can well believe, so as to fulfil all expectations. The system of division into classes in operation in the Central Telegraph Office is, so far as I am aware, common to the whole of the Civil Service. In connection with the foregoing matters I cannot admit the existence of a well-founded grievance.

THE AUSTRALIAN COLONIES.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a request has been made by the Colony of South Australia to appoint the Chief Justice, the Hon. Samuel James Way, to-the office of Governor of the Colony; and what reply has been given to that request?
MR. S. BUXTON: No such request as that stated in the question has been made. Chief Justice Way already holds a commission as Lieutenant Governor, empowering him to administer the Government in the event of the death, absence, or incapacity of the Governor. The Agent General has communicated a copy of a letter from the Prime Minister requesting that, as Government House at Adelaide is not ready, and as economy is desirable, the administration of the Lieutenant Governor, after the departure of the Governor, should be temporarily prolonged. This request will receive consideration at the proper time.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that the Australasian Colonies contribute a

641
sum equal to £40,000 per annum (together with residences, &c.) for the salaries of Governors appointed and selected by the British Government; and whether a recommendation will be made to the Colonial Governments that, in view of the severe depression in the Colonies, one Governor General of Australasia or Viceroy be appointed at a salary of £10,000 a year?
MR. S. BUXTON: The answer to the first question is "Yes," and to the second one "No." Such a recommendation would imply a want of knowledge by Her Majesty's Government of the theory and working of the Australian Constitutions.

THE KINGSTOWN MAIN DRAINAGE BILL.
MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland will he explain on what grounds the Local Government Board of Ireland have refused to sanction a clause agreed upon by both sides in the Blackrock and Kingstown Main Drainage Bill, giving powers to consolidate the loans of the respective townships, and to have their repayments spread over a period of 60 years; and whether the Government will facilitate this arrangement in the interests of the ratepayers?
MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that the Local Government Board for Ireland have, in pursuance of the 52nd section of the Public Health Act, 1890, made regulations with reference to the issue and dealings with stock by Urban Sanitary Authorities. These regulations are similar to the regulations on the same subject made by the English Local Government Board, and provide, among other things, that in fixing the period within which loans shall be discharged, the Board shall have regard to the amount of the loans and the period allowed for paying them off by the statutory borrowing powers. The clause in question conflicted with these regulations on points of vital importance, and the Local Government Board could not, therefore, consent to its insertion in the Bill.
MR. FIELD: Am I to understand there is no prospect of the Board agreeing to the clause under any circumstances?
MR. J. MORLEY: It would be ultra vires.

COMMUNICATION WITH LIGHTSHIPS.
MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what steps have been taken, up to this date, to connect by telegraphic or telephonic communication with the shore any of the lightships as recommended by the Royal Commission on 8th December, 1892?
MR. MUNDELLA: Orders have been given to prepare the Kentish Knock Lightship for the reception of the cable without delay; and communication with the lighthouse of Lundy Island is being rapidly advanced.
MR. J. LOWTHER: Are we to understand that the specific recommendations of the Royal Commission are to be disregarded?
MR. MUNDELLA: No; the work is being done. We must proceed gradually, so as to find out what is the best thing to do.
MR. J. LOWTHER: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman understands my question. The Royal Commission specifically recommended that certain lightships should be immediately connected. With the exception of the case mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, is that recommendation to be disregarded?
MR. MUNDELLA: No. But we can only proceed with one at a time. The work could not be done like a private undertaking. We propose to try first the result on the Kentish Knock.
MR. J. LOWTHER: I shall call attention to this matter on the Estimates.
MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD: It is now the end of July, and the Report was issued at the beginning of the year, and we were promised that the vessels should be at once connected.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any idea when the work will be completed?
[The question was not answered.]

QUIT RENTS IN IRELAND,
MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will cause investigation to be made as to the estates from which quit rents are payable to the Crown in Ireland, and which are liable under the 219 section of the Act of Settlement for

643
the maintenance of a second College in the University of Dublin?
SIR; J. T. HIBBERT: I cannot answer the question of my hon. Friend without further inquiry than I have yet had time to make. Perhaps he will communicate with me again in a few days.
MR. W. JOHNSTON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how the negotiations are going on for the establishment of a Catholic College?
SIR J. T. HIBBEPT: I know of no negotiations.
MR. T. M. HEALY: Have not many landlords in Ireland refused to fulfil their obligations to the Crown in respect of these quit rents? Is not the owner of the Ponsonby Estate 40 years in arrear? Are the Government taking any steps to prevent the Revenue of Ireland being peddled away?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I cannot admit that the landlords have refused to pay.
MR. T. M. HEALY: How many Irish landlords are in arrear?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I cannot add anything to my answer.

COAL MINE INSPECTORS.
MR. SIDEBOTHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, there being only one class of Inspectors provided for under "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1872," there was any statutory office of Assistant Inspector; under what authority the Treasury claims to have had power to create the office of Assistant Inspector of Mines, and to invest the holders of such office with the statutory powers conferred on the office of Inspector under "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1872;" whether if, as alleged, an Assistant Inspector only became an Inspector by promotion, the 43rd section of "The Coal Mines Regulation Act, 1872, was complied with, inasmuch as such promotions or appointments of Inspectors were not published in The London Gazette; whether the intention of the Treasury Order of 14th June, 1859, was to meet cases in which the knowledge and ability deemed requisite for certain offices are professional and peculiar, and such as are not ordinarily to be acquired in the Civil Service; and on what grounds the Treasury refuses
644
to fulfil the terms of the Order of 14th June, 1859, in the case of Mr. Thomas Cadman, late one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Coal Mines in Monmouthshire and South Wales, and other gentlemen appointed under the Act of 1872?
SIR J. T. HIBBERT: An Assistant Inspectorship of Mines is not a statutory office. It was created by the Treasury in the exercise of their general powers, at the request of the Secretary of State. The Assistant Inspectors were to be young men attached to, and subordinate to, Inspectors. They were to have no claim to promotion to that office, but might be selected for appointment on a vacancy. They were to receive lower salaries and to be appointed at an earlier age. It does not rest with the Treasury to define the duties which the Secretary of State may assign to an Assistant Inspector. All awards under the Superannuation Acts are subject to the discretion of the Treasury, and the Treasury Order of June 14, 1859, does not, in their opinion, apply to the officers referred to in the question.
MR. SIDEBOTHAM: I shall call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

GENERAL FISCHER'S PETITION.
SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Secretary of Stale for the Home Department, with reference to the Petition of General M. F. Fischer, Royal Engineers, presented to this House and printed in the Appendix to the Twelfth Report of the Committee on Public Petitions (16th–29th May, 1893), page 89, in which the Petitioner appeals to this House on the ground that, as he alleges, he has been illegally deprived of certain rights guaranteed to him by the Government of India Act through the operation of a Royal Warrant, and, being desirous of raising the question of the legality of the said deprival, has, during the past three years, endeavoured to have a Memorial submitted to Her Majesty through the Home Secretary, in accordance with "The Petition of Right Act, 1860," but "has been denied all access to Her Majesty as a British subject," under a letter, dated 27th May, 1890, written by direction of the late Homo Secretary, declining to recommend that the Petition should be endorsed with Her Majesty's fiat in the

645
usual manner unless Clause 10 of the said Petition was withdrawn by the Petitioner; whether the ground on which the Secretary of State refused such recommendations is that the War Department is the proper authority to deal with Clause 10 of the Petition; whether the effect of this decision was to deprive the Petitioner of the opportunity of raising by a Petition of Right the question of the competency of the Crown to override an Act of Parliament by a Royal Warrant; and whether he claims the power to prevent, by withholding the fiat, any Petitioner from raising that or any other Constitutional question by a Petition of Right; and, if so, whether he will state the statutory authority under which he has acted in this case?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I am informed that General Fischer's Petition was referred both to the War Office and the India Office and the Attorney General. The result of the correspondence was that on the 27th May, 1890, General Fischer's solicitors were informed that the Secreary of State understood that the War Department was the proper authority to deal with Clause 10 of the Petition, but that if General Fischer would submit another Petition omitting Clause 10, or authorise the withdrawal of it, the Secretary of State would recommend that the Petition should he at once endorsed by Her Majesty. On the 30th May, 1890, a copy of the Petition was handed to General Fischer's solicitors to enable them to draw the Petition afresh if their client decided that this should be done. The Secretary of State does not claim any power, by withholding the fiat, to prevent any Petitioner from raising any Constitutional question by Petition of Right; but as it appears that the question raised in Clause 10 impeaches the action of the Army Purchase Commissioners, it did not seem to be one fit to be submitted to Her Majesty on Petition of Right. I was not aware, until this question was asked, that the Petitioner had raised any objection to the withdrawal of Clause 10.

BEHAE CADASTRAL SURVEY.
SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Government of Bengal
646
are proceeding with the Cadastral Survey in Behar notwithstanding the protest of the British India Association, the Behar Landholders' Association, the Bhangul-pore Landholders' Association, the Zemindars Punchayet, and the Indian Property Association, representing a, large majority I of the zemindars of Bengal; whether it has been strongly represented to Government that such surveys will, instead of being a relief to the ryots and a measure of utility to them and to the zemindars, be felt by all classes interested in hind in India, as a wholly unnecessary penal exaction resulting in no advantage to them or to the State; what, if any, progress has been made with the Surveys which have been sanctioned by Executive order; what the total estimated expenditure on such Surveys, which has been ordered to be borne by the zemindars and subordinate holders in equal moieties, is; and whether, in previous Cadastral Surveys of a, Province in India, the cost of such Surveys has been made a charge upon the General Revenues of the country?
MR. G. RUSSELL: (1) Yes, Sir; the Cadastral Survey of North Behar is being prosecuted after careful consideration of the arguments for and against the measure. (2) The view summarised in Clause 2 of the hon. Member's question has been urged on the Government in India by some of the opponents of the Survey. (3) Precise Returns of the amount of survey already done are not available; but it is believed that the survey of 1,000 to 1,200 square miles has been accomplished. (4) The estimated cost of the Cadastral Survey is 8 annas (about 8d.) an acre; of this, according to present arrangements, the General Treasury is to bear l–8th of the cost, while 7–16ths will be paid by the laud-holders, and the same proportion will be borne by the occupiers or ryots. (5) In temporarily-settled tracts the General Treasury usually bears nearly the whole cost of a Cadastral Survey, because the charge is recouped in a few years by the increase of Land Revenue secured. In permanently-settled tracts such as Behar no increase of Revenue will result from the Survey, and the Government only bears a portion of the cost.

LADY WALLACE AND HER TENANTS.
MR. M'CAETAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to a copy of a circular sent out by Mr. Fred L. Capron, agent to Lady Wallace, to the tenants on her Antrim and Down estates, in which they are threatened with the enforcement of payment, of all arrears of rent if they do not purchase at the price offered to be taken by Lady Wallace, and in which it is intimated that the tenants so purchasing will be forgiven one year's rent; whether he is aware that this year's rent, which is threatened to be enforced or offered to be forgiven, is rent that lay over as not collectable considerably upwards of 40 years ago, and that was never attempted to be collected in the lifetime of the late Sir Richard Wallace; and whether he will direct the attention of the Land Commission to the matter?
MR. J. MORLEY: I have seen a copy of the Circular referred to, which the hon. Member has been good enough to send mo. I am not aware that the facts are as stated in the second paragraph of the question. The matter, however, has been brought under the notice of the Land Commission, though I rather think their jurisdiction only extends to the cases which actually come before them.
MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the statement made by Mr. Justice Bewley, in the Land Commission Court, as reported in The Freeman's Journal of 25th instant, with reference to the treatment of the purchasing tenants on the County Down estate of Lady Wallace; whether he is aware that, in a number of cases on this estate, the late Mr. Commissioner M'Carthy refused to sanction as being excessive the amount of purchase money mentioned in the agreements, but lesser amounts were named; also that new agreements were made out in which the lesser amounts were stated as the purchase money, but no reference was made to any moneys having been paid by the tenants in excess of the amounts stated in the agreements; is he further aware that it afterwards appeared, though it had been concealed from the Court at
648
the time, that the tenant in each case had paid into the landlord's office additional purchase money to bring it up to the amount which the Court had refused to sanction: that, in the case of John Keman, who applied for £92, only £50 was sanctioned, and in the new agreement it was stated the landlord was selling for £50, notwithstanding that the tenant had to pay the additional £42 to the landlord, and that Mr. Justice Bewley declared the dealings to be cases of the greatest, injustice; and what steps will be taken to protect these and other tenants purchasing through the Court from the payment of prices which the Land Commission had refused to sanction?
MR. J. MORLEY: The subject of the first question has been brought under the notice of the Land Commission, though I rather think their jurisdiction only extends to the cases which actually come before them. With reference to the second matter, I understand that the facts are generally as stated in the question, and that the published report of Mr. Justice Bewley's observations is also substantially correct. The Land Commissioners inform me that the prices named in purchase agreements are for the parties and not for the Commissioners to settle, their duty being to consider the adequacy of the security for the advance applied for. The Commissioners have communicated with the Inland Revenue in reference to the case, and are also at present considering what steps should be taken by them in the matter.
MR. SEXTON: Seeing that the tenants have been charged an annuity on the basis that the whole of the money is being advanced by the State, and bearing in mind the fact that the Commissioners were not aware it was otherwise, what steps will be taken to reduce the annuity, and thus do justice to the Commissioners?
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is it the fact that the tenants paid money behind the backs of the Commissioners? Have they not themselves lessened the value of the security to the Land Commission?
MR. J. MORLEY: I will communicate with the Land Commissioners on the subject?
MR. T. M. HEALY: Did the tenants have to give promissory notes? Does not the Act provide for wiping out

649
all arrears of rent, and will the attention of the Land Commissioners he called to these notes?
MR. J. MORLEY: I do not suppose they have escaped the notice of the Commissioners.

THE EVICTION OF DANIEL NOONAN.
MR. FIXCCAXE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that. Daniel Noonan, Tomaline Doon, County Limerick, who was evicted on 27th February, 1893, a short time before eviction, served an originating notice to get a fair rent fixed, which notice was dismissed on purely technical grounds—namely, that the father on the marriage of his son, which took place over 20 years ago, reserved to himself a few acres of the farm without the written consent of the landlord, though with his knowledge; also that the tenant before his eviction offered to pay a rent as well as all arrears fixed by arbitration, and if both offers were rejected by his landlady: whether he is aware that the rent of the farm was £66, and the valuation £34 yearly, and that two experienced valuators swore before the Land Court that a fair rent would be about £28 yearly; also, that the tenant, in the presence of his late parish priest, the Rev. Canon O'Donnell, offered one year's rent, there being then only one and a half year's rent due, and a future rent of £40 yearly; whether he is also aware that the tenant offered to leave the fixing of the rent to Mr. Hobson, Sub-Sheriff, County Limerick, who is a relative to the landlady, and that on the day of the eviction the tenant's father, who is over 90 years of age, was evicted in a snowstorm; and if the landlady should still refuse those terms, will police protection, at considerable expense to the State, be continued to the emergency man in charge of the evicted farm?
MR. J. MORLEY: In September, 1887, Daniel and Jeremiah Noonan served an originating notice as lessees to fix a fair rent. In March, 1889, the case came before a Sub-Commission, and, with the consent of the solicitor for the tenant, the name of Daniel Noonan was struck out and the name of Jeremiah Noonan retained as tenant, it appearing that the holding was held under a lease for a term of 31 years and a
650
life, made to the said Jeremiah Noonan. On the further hearing of the case the application to fix a, fair rent was dismissed by the Sub-Commission on the ground that Jeremiah Noonan was not in bonâ fide occupation of the entire holding. I understand that he had, some years previously, assigned his farm, except a, few acres which he reserved for himself, To his son Daniel, and that it is alleged this was done with the knowledge and consent of the then agent of the landlady, Mrs. Gladstone. Whether the allegation is based on fact I cannot say. None of the members of the Sub-Commission are now, I am told, in the employment of the Land Commission, and no appeal appears to have been taken against this order of the Sub-Commission. The various other statements in the question are, I understand, on the whole correct; and with regard to the concluding paragraph, it will be the duty of the police, which they cannot avoid, to afford protection to the caretakers so long as may be deemed necessary irrespective of any action on the part of the landlady.

EDUCATIONAL AUTHORITY.
MR. SNAPE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education what are the main objects of the inquiries of the Departmental Committee appointed to represent the Education Department, the Science and Art Department, and the Charity Commissioners; whether they include an investigation into the relative spheres of action of the Local and Central Authorities; if not, whether the powers of the Committee can be extended to such an investigation; whether the membership of the Committee can be increased in numbers so that it may comprise other than official members; and how soon will some account of the proceedings of the Departmental Committee be presented to the House? I beg also to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Government will introduce legislation next year with a view of establishing a properly organised system of secondary education in England?
MR. ACLAND: The primary object of the Departmental Committee is to bring about more co-operation between the Departments concerned in matters in which they are jointly interested. The

651
value of such a Committee to the Departments is so great that it will very probably become a permanent arrangement. The question of the organisation of secondary education has been before this Committee, which will gladly receive information from the Local Authorities as to the subject mentioned in the hon. Member's question. If each Local Authority were willing to forward to the Committee an account of the present position of secondary education in its district, and to give evidence if necessary, much very valuable information could be acquired. I do not propose to lay any formal Report on the Table from the Committee; but I hope to publish at a later stage sonic of the information received, whether from the Departments or from outside, which may seem likely to be of general interest. Considering the special character of this Committee, as I have described it, I do not think it would be feasible to add further Members to it. It is impossible to give any promise as to legislation next year; but it is very desirable that some further powers should be given to Local Authorities with a view to the establishment of a well-organised system of secondary education.
MR. BARTLEY: Why should any selection be made? Would it not be more satisfactory to place the whole particulars before the House, and not make any selection?
MR. ACLAND: A great deal of it is purely Departmental matter, and refers to discussions between various officers of the Department.

ANTI-VACCINATION AT FULHAM.
MR. C. ALLEN: In the absence of the hon. Member for the Middleton Division of Lancashire, I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now come to any decision in respect of directing the issue of distress warrants at Fulham to enforce Vaccination Orders; and whether the police are authorised to call at the houses of defaulters and threaten the wives with consequences for default in obeying the Orders for vaccination, using the name and authority of the Secretary of State for the Home Department?
MR. ASQDITH: With regard to the first paragraph, it was through an omis-
652
sion on the part of the police to observe the instructions, which in all such cases require a previous reference to the Secretary of State, that the Inspector took the action which he did. No further proceedings have been taken for the execution of the warrant, and the instructions of the Secretary of State will be brought again to the notice of all the Metropolitan Police, and their observance strictly enforced. The answer to the second paragraph is in the negative.

PRACTICAL INSTRUCTION IN AGRICULTURE.
MAJOR JONES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his Department is prepared to assist Agricultural Colleges, and Colleges whore a leading position is given to agricultural teaching, to acquire model farms for the better instruction of students?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): I am afraid that the limited means at our disposal would preclude us from entertaining any application for assistance in the direction indicated by my hon. Friend; but I should be glad to receive information as to any particular proposals which he may have in view.
MR. ABRAHAM: Would not technical education, by the aid of model farms, prove more beneficial than vexatious restrictions against the importation of food supplies?
MAJOR JONES: Will the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiries to be made as to the cost of a few acres of land to be used for this work?
MR. H. GARDNER: I am afraid that with the small sum at my disposal that would be of no use. I should be glad, however, to receive any suggestions.

THE "VICTORIA" COURT MARTIAL.
SIR E. HARLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if, after the Court Martial upon the Victoria and Camperdown disaster, the full technical evidence as to the closing or otherwise of bulkhead doors, scuttles, &c, will be laid upon the Table of the House, or be accessible to Members, in view of the extremely meagre

653
reports in the newspapers upon these points?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Information on these points will be given to the House. The time to decide whether the Minutes of the Court Martial will be laid on the Table will be when the proceedings are complete and the Minutes are before the Board of Admiralty.

THE WEXFORD MAGISTRACY.
MR. THOMAS HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been brought to his notice that, at the recent Petty Sessions at Newtown-barry and Oulart, in the County of Wexford, a number of cases had to be adjourned owing to the absence of a, second Magistrate; how often cases in those districts had to be adjourned this year through the same cause; whether there are a number of gentlemen resident in those Petty Sessions districts fully qualified to act as Magistrates; and whether any appointment to the Bench has been made in those districts since the present Government came into Office?
MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that in no instance within the past six months did a. Petty Sessions lapse at either of the places mentioned in consequence of the non-attendance of a Magistrate, although it appears that on two occasions at Newtownbarry the Petty Sessions had to be adjourned owing to the absence of a second Magistrate. At Oulart Petty Sessions I understand that eight cases were adjourned in February last, and six during the present month, for a similar reason. With regard to the third and fourth paragraphs, the Lord Chancellor has no information as to the eligibility for the Commission of the Peace of gentlemen resident in the districts referred to, and no recent appointments have been made to the Oulart Bench. Two appointments, however, have been recently made to the Newtownbarry Bench.

THE OCCUPATION OF EGYPT.
MR. LA BO UCIIEKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay upon the Table the communications between Her Majesty's Government and
654
Foreign Governments, in respect to the occupation of Egypt, that have been submitted to the French Chamber of Deputies by the French Minister of Foreign Affairs?
SIR F. GREY: We do not propose to lay any further Egyptian Papers at present, but a copy of the French Yellow Book will be placed in the Library for the use of Members.

PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION FOR THE ARMY.
MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the preliminary examination for the Army is to be discontinued in future; whether, in consequence of this, certain subjects which were only taken up at that examination, and not required at the further examination, will henceforth be added to that examination; and, in that case, whether candidates who have already passed the preliminary examination will be excused from taking up again those subjects in the further examination which were included in the examination they have already passed?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is contemplated to do away with the preliminary examination, which has not effected the purpose for which it was instituted, and an announcement to that effect has been made. The subjects of the preliminary examination will substantially be incorporated in what will be the competitive examination. Candidates who shall have passed the preliminary examination will go up for the further examination in November next under existing Rules; but when only the competitive examination is in force, which will include most of the subjects of the present preliminary examination, it would be a loss to the candidates competing if they were not examined in those subjects, which will carry marks counting in the competition. It is to be remembered that the preliminary has only been a pass examination. On the general question I may say that I have decided that it is desirable that the whole system of entrance examinations on non-military subjects should be inquired into, and I have appointed a strong Committee to consider the question. Lord Sandhurst will act as Chairman, and I am glad to say that several Members of the House

655
have been good enough to agree to serve on the Committee.
COLONEL WARING: Will the candidates who have passed a portion of the preliminary examination be credited with it, or will they have to go through examination on the same subjects again?
LORD R. CHURCHILL: Will not the abolition of this preliminary examination increase very greatly the already large number of unsuccessful candidates at the other examinations?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The preliminary examination was expected to have the effect of weeding out unsuitable candidates, but it has failed in its object to a great extent.
MR. JEFFREYS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many candidates, after passing the preliminary examination, do not present themselves for the other examinations until two or three years have elapsed? Will he make the order retrospective, so that those who have passed the preliminary examination shall have the benefit of it when they come up again?
MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I believe this preliminary examination only answers to what is known as the Fourth Standard in elementary education, and, with the exception of geography and arithmetic, all the subjects are included in the competitive examination.

CHRIST'S HOSPITAL.
MR. H. R. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Merionethshire whether the Charity Commissioners have yet come to a decision as to the feasibility of providing places on the foundation of Christ's Hospital for the sons of naval officers?
The PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. T. E. ELLIS,): The Charity Commissioners have long since expressed their opinion that if certain endowments which were excepted from the Scheme of 1890 now governing Christ's Hospital, and which are still held by the old Governing Body, were restored to the hospital, it would be practicable to make some special provision in favour of sons of naval officers. The question which has arisen as to the destination of the endowments now with-
656
held from the Hospital has been certified by the Commissioners to the Attorney General, and the Commissioners now await the issue.

THE SIAMESE BLOCKADE AND RICE.
SIR W. PEARCE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information to the effect that rice will be considered a contraband of war by France during the Siamese blockade?
SIR E. GREY: The views of Her Majesty's Government as to contraband of war will be found stated in Blue Book, France, No. 1, 1885; but I may add that the question of what is or is not contraband of war does not arise in connection with a blockade.

A DISTURBANCE AT BTJNDORAN.
MR. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, as stated in The Daily Express of the 25th instant, on Sunday evening last an attack was made upon a Protestant congregation at Bundoran, County Donegal; that a mob of over 1,000 men gathered from Leitrim, and attacked every person suspected of going to the evangelistic meeting; and that the congregation were struck down with bludgeons and stones, and seriously maltreated; whether the police are able to identify the ringleaders; and if steps will be taken to bring them to justice?
MR. J. MORLEY: I have received a Report of this occurrence, and am awaiting further information from the Police Authorities as to whether any persons can be identified as having taken an active part in the assaults committed. I understand that the affair was of very short duration, and that no one has been identified as a party to the actual commission of assaults; but, as I have already said, if any persons can be identified as having taken an active part in the disturbance proceedings will be instituted against them. The police report there has been no repetition of disturbance since Sunday last.
MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Are steps being taken to prevent the: services being interfered with?
MR. W. JOHNSTON: Would these attacks be allowed under a Home Rule Parliament?
MR. J. MORLEY: I must ask for notice of further questions on this matter.

ALLEGED OUTRAGE AT KILKENORA.
COLONEL WARING: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that on Sunday night, the 16th July, the house of a farmer named Gildea, near Kilfenora, County Clare, was fired into, the supposed motive being that he is a friend of a man who took an evicted farm; and, if so, has the case been recorded as one of intimidation?
MR. J. MORLEY: It is alleged by the individual named in the question that two shots were fired at his house on the night mentioned. The police are not satisfied as to the genuineness of the alleged outrage, and, pending the result of further inquiries in the matter, the Inspector General will not, he tells me, record the case under any heading in the Returns.

THE EDUCATION ESTIMATES.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the Report of the Committee of Council on Education will be in the hands of Members before the Education Estimates are taken?
MR. ACLAND: I may remind my hon. Friend that the statistics for the year have been published some weeks, and the Report is only a running comment on them. It is now in the hands of the printers, and will be circulated to-morrow morning.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Did the right hon. Gentleman present the Report to the House in dummy, and does not Sir Erskiue May lay it down that this practice is irregular?
MR. ACLAND: I have simply followed the usual practice in these matters.

THE FRENCH BLOCKADE OF SIAM.
MR. CURZON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the blockade instituted by the French on the coast of
658
Siam is a pacific blockade, or is it an act of war and carries the consequences of such; whether it applies to the ships of all neutral States, including Great Britain; whether in that case any arrangement can be made for the transport of mails to Bangkok; and whether he is now in a position to make any statement concerning the progress of negotiations at Paris?
SIR W. PEARCE: Is it not the fact that the phrase "pacific blockade" is a contradiction in terms?
SIR E. GREY: I think the hon. Member will find that the phrase is discussed by various writers on International Law, though it is one which requires much consideration. In answer to the question, I have to say that Her Majesty's Government have been informed by the British Ambassador at Paris that no information is as yet available as to the precise date on which the blockade will be enforced, or as to its geographical extension. Assurances have been given by the French Government that sufficient time will, according to custom, be afforded for the departure of such ships as might have loaded their cargoes previous to the date of the enforcement of the blockade, and that the earliest possible information on all these points will be conveyed to Her Majesty's Government. In answering the last paragraph, I have to ask for the indulgence of the House while I make a rather lengthy statement. Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to make a full statement about Siamese affairs to-day. This is not owing to any reluctance to take the House into its confidence, but from the fact that M. Develle has been unable from various causes to see Lord Dufferin since their first interview on Saturday until yesterday, and we await a fuller Report of that interview. It may be well, however, once more to define the attitude of Her Majesty's Government in this question. From the very first if has refused in any way to intervene in the dispute between France and Siam. On the merits of that quarrel Her Majesty's Government do not feel called upon to pronounce an opinion. They have, therefore, limited themselves to providing for the safety of the British lives and interests at Bangkok, and it is to be regretted that some should appear to suspect in that provision—none too large for the security of life and

659
property in an Oriental population of 350,000 souls—an encouragement to the Siamese to persevere in a hopeless resistance. In tins connection it is, I think, unnecessary to state in this House, that from the commencement of this Siamese difficulty we have scrupulously avoided giving any advice to the Siamese Government, beyond, when they have asked for it, urging them to come to terms as quickly as possible with their powerful neighbour. But the events now passing in Siam are by no means indifferent to Her Majesty's Government. We have, in the first place, great commercial interests in that country, and British shipping constitutes 87 per cent, of the whole shipping in Bangkok in point of tonnage, and 93 in point of value. For this reason we regret that a blockade should be deemed to be necessary by the French Authorities, and it might raise some difficult questions of International Law; but it is not yet formally notified, and perhaps it is not too much to hope that the necessity for it may yet be averted. Moreover, the territorial arrangements consequent upon this dispute involves matters of British concern. Her Majesty's Government are glad to believe that the French Government are not less alive than themselves to the value of Siamese independence, and that they regard it as a matter of moment both to France and to ourselves that we should nowhere have conterminous frontiers in the Indo-Chinese Peninsular, for such a frontier would involve both States in great military expenditure and constant liability to panic. Her Majesty's Government can well understand the anxiety of the House for Papers on this subject, and they will take an early opportunity of gratifying that wish, by laying Papers on the Table which will embrace the course of negotiations on this subject for the last three years.
MR. CURZON: May I ask a further question with reference to the question I have put? In reply to the first portion of the question, the Under Secretary told the House that he could give no information, and that the Government had no information as to the time or extent of the blockade. My question, which is a very important one affecting commercial interests, is as to the character of the blockade. I wish to know whether the
660
hon. Baronet understands it to be a fact that, although it is, I believe, a recognised principle of International Law that a pacific blockade does not apply to ships flying the flag of another Power, France is, in spite of that, on the verge of establishing a blockade which would have that effect, and which would not so much injure Siam as British trade and shipping. I have just come from the City, and I find great anxiety exists there in commercial circles about this question. Our commercial interests with Siam are at a standstill.
SIR E. GREY: The information I have given in answer to the question is the latest information received by the Foreign Office by telegraph and in answer to inquiries made of the French Government as to the particular character they intended to attach to the blockade. So far we have received no formal notice of the blockade, and the French Authorities have not defined what the character of that blockade will be.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: We are anxious not to embarrass Her Majesty's Government while dealing with a matter of so much difficulty and delicacy; but I hope the hon. Baronet will take the first opportunity of giving us information on the points raised by my hon. Friend as soon as the Foreign Office is acquainted from Paris with the intentions of the French Government in respect of this blockade, and also of other matters in Siam.
SIR E. GREY: The importance of all this has been brought before the French Government, and Her Majesty's Government have been assured that the French Government will give us the earliest information in their power.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: As to the possibility of a pacific blockade, I wish to know whether it is not the fact that, although certain unauthorised persons in an unauthorised conference have suggested its possibility, every one of the text writers on the Law of Nations does not lay it down that a blockade is a procedure which can only be based on and arise from a state of war, and whether it is not so laid down by, among others, Grotius, Vattel, Puffendorff, Chancellor Kent, Wheaton, Story, Ortolan, and even Hautefeuille?
"SIR E. GREY: I cannot say that my researches in the text-books of Inter-

661
national Law have been so extensive as those of the hon. Member; but, as far as they have gone, I observe that there is some difference in the various text-books on this particular question, and where the International text-books differ I do not feel authorised to pronounce any decision.
MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the hon. Baronet name one text writer who admits the possibility of a pacific blockade?
[No answer was given.]
SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what British men-of-war are at present in, or are on their way to, Siamese waters—namely, before Bangkok and the mouth of the Menam?
SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The Swift and the Linnet are at Bangkok. The Pallas is off the bar of the Menam. The Admiralty have no information of the movements of any other ships in or to Siamese waters.

AUSTRALIAN AGENTS GENERAL.
MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in the interests of economy, and having regard to the prevailing depression in the Australasian Colonies, he will suggest to tin; Governments concerned the propriety of their abolishing the present system of separate London Agents General, with a view to Australasia being placed in the same position as Canada, and be represented in London by one High Commissioner?
MR S. BUXTON: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have known that the matter is essentially one for the Colonial Governments to consider and decide, and not a matter in which Her Majesty's Government could judiciously interfere.

"GRANTS IN AID."
SIR T. LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when the Return "Grants in Aid of Local Purposes in Ireland" will be laid upon the Table of the House?
SIR J. T. HIBBEBT: The Return is in hand and well advanced, and I hone that it will he presented at an early date.

SCOTCH POLICE SUPERANNUATION.
MR. HOZIER: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in view of the fact that the Regulations varying the basis of distribution under Section 17 of "The Police (Scotland) Act, 1890," of the Exchequer Contribution in Aid of Police Superannuation, although ordered to be printed on 28th June, were not distributed to Members until 13th July, he will extend the period of one mouth for which the said Regulations have to be upon the Table of the House; and whether he would consider the desirability of providing that Regulations of this character should, before being laid before Parliament, be submitted to Local Authorities, who at present have until the last moment no information regarding proposed quasi-legislative changes?
SIR G. TREVELYAN: With reference to the first portion of the hon. Member's question, I am not responsible for the distribution of Parliamentary Papers; but I may point out that under Section 17, Sub-section (6), of the Police Act, 1890, the Regulations in question do not come into operation until they have lain on the Table of each House for not less than 30 days on which the House has sat. These have accordingly three and a half weeks to run of the time in which the Regulations are before the House. The Regulations have been prepared according to the Act of Parliament, and in consequence of representations made to me from various parts of Scotland against the inequitable mode of distribution, in which I fully concurred. I do not think there is any convenient means of bringing the Regulations to the notice of all Local Authorities beyond those provided by the Act.

BOOKS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.
VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether the only prohibition of a charge for books in Public Elementary Schools is contained in Section 3 of the Education Act of 1891, and applies only to schools where the average rate charged and received in respect of fees and books and for other purposes was not, previously to that Act, in excess of 10s. per child in average attendance; whether in

663
all other schools a charge for books is permissible; and upon what statutory authority the Education Department have recently declared that managers of all schools, whether they are free or not, are bound to provide books and apparatus, and cannot make any charge to the parent in respect of them?
MR. ACLAND: No compulsory charge for books is permissible in any Public Elementary School. The statutory authority is that of Section 7 (4) of the Elementary Education Act of 1870, which provides that every Public Elementary School must be conducted in accordance with the conditions required in order to obtain an annual Parliamentary grant. The Code lays it down as one of these conditions that the school must be properly provided with books and other apparatus of elementary instruction. This Rule has nothing to do with the Act of 1891, though the working of the Act of 1891 has brought it into special prominence, and applies to all schools in receipt of annual grant, whether they have accepted fee-grant or not.
VISCOUNT CEANBORNE: Was not the practice of the Department in an entirely opposite direction until the right hon. Gentleman took Office? Why did nor, the right hon. Gentleman act as directed in the Act of 1891, Section 3?
MR. ACLAND: No; there is nothing in the Act of 1891 which supersedes the Act of 1870.
VISOCUNT CRANBORNE: In consequence of the unsatisfactory reply of the right hon. Gentleman I shall call attention to this matter on the Estimates.

INDIAN COMMANDS.
SIR SEYMOUR KING: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India on what grounds the regulation that one-half of the commands in India, shall go the Indian Army are habitually disregarded: whether the old Indian Royal Artillery and Royal Engineer officers who are for the purposes of the Regulation treated as Indian Army officers are so nominally only, and in reality are classed as in Imperial Service, and whether all Home commands are open to them, whereas none are open to the Indian Army; and if the Government of India can arrange with the Military Authorities that the Regulation
664
shall be carried into effect by dividing the higher Indian appointments equally between the officers of British and Indian Armies in India?
MR. G. RUSSELL: If the question relates to the commands in chief in India, there is no Regulation which requires that one-half shall go to the Indian Army. If to district commands, the answer is that they are equally distributed between the two Services. Officers of the old Indian Artillery and Engineers have always been considered as officers of the Indian Army for the purpose of selection for district commands, and have been selected accordingly. They have also occasionally held Home commands, but it is not correct to say that all Home commands are open to them. The Secretary of State does not propose to take any action in the matter.

THE MATABELE RAID INTO MASHONALAND.
BARON H. DE WORMS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether be has received from Sir Henry Loch any further information relative to the Matabele raid into Mashonaland; and, if so, whether he will communicate it to the House?
MR. S. BUXTON: A telegram was received yesterday from Sir H. Loch, in which he says—
"From information received I believe Impi had acted contrary to Lo Bengula's wishes, and that if facts were clearly placed before him he would withdraw it; and, knowing that he would probably accept my word before that of others, I. therefore, sent explaining what had occurred, and pointing out the danger of exciting the anger of white men, and asked him to at once withdraw Impi, punish the Indunas, and live in peace. Whether I shall have been successful in preventing war cannot be known till I receive Lo Bengula's answer; but I apprehend Her Majesty's Government will approve my having exercised my authority and influence in the interests of peace. Latest information received last night the whole of Impi has returned to Matabeleland."
Her Majesty's Government have approved Sir H. Loch's action.

THE QUEENSTOWN MAIL SERVICE.
MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if it-is proposed to make any alteration in the service of the homeward American Mail between Queenstown and Euston?
MR. A. MORLEY: Yes, Sir. In view of the acceleration of the Mail Service to and from Queenstown, it has been decided to abandon as too costly the experimental arrangement of sending American Mails from Queenstown to London by special train, and packet services when they reach Queenstown at certain times when connection with the regular day and night services to London would not be maintained. The arrangement will be to carry on to Liverpool Mails which cannot advantageously be lauded at Queenstown, and send them by special or ordinary train from Liverpool to London.
MR. MACARTNEY: Has the Postmaster General considered the great inconvenience which will be caused to traders with the United States by this decision?
MR. A. MORLEY: I do not think it will make much difference in the time of arrival in London.
MR. M. HEALY: How often has this extra service been run, and what has been the cost?
MR. A. MORLEY: It costs about £130 each time. It was estimated it would be required 11 times a year: but it has been required more frequently, and the Estimate has been considerably exceeded.
MR. MACARTNEY: I shall call attention to this matter on the Estimates.
MR. FIELD: Does not the existing contract terminate on the 30th September, 1894, at a year's notice? What steps have been taken to provide for its continuance?
MR. A. MORLEY: I must ask for notice of that question.

POLLUTION OF THE RIVER IRWELL.
MR. HOLLAND: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to a meeting held in Salford on tin 25th instant to protest against the polluted condition of the water in the Ship Canal Docks; and, if so, whether the Local Government Board will do what they can to expedite the works for the purification of the River Irwell?
THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): My attention has not been called to the meet-
666
ing at Salford to which reference is made; but I may state that the Local Government Board are dealing as promptly as possible with the cases which come before them with regard lo works required for the purification of the River Irwell. I will do my best to prevent delay.

THE BILLS OF SALE BILL.
MR. BARROW: I beg to ask the Attorney General whether he will consider the desirability of omitting from the Bills of Sale Bill, 1893, now before the House, the clause exempting debentures of the nature of Bills of Sale, created by Incorporated Companies, from the operation of the laws regulating Bills of Sale; and whether he knows that the Council of the Associated Chambers of Commerce has emphatically condemned the exemption referred to?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. RUSSELL,): I cannot agree to the suggested omission, for the reason that the Bill is substantially a codification of the law as it now exists, and that existing law exempts debentures from the rules regulating bills of sale.
MR. BRUNNER: Is the Bill to go before a Grand Committee?
SIR C. RUSSELL: No: if is proposed to send it to a Select Committee.

THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON LABOUR.
MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Report of the Royal Commission on Labour will he presented to Parliament in the course of the present Session?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): I am afraid there is no likelihood that the Report of the Royal Commission on Labour will be presented during the present Session. I am informed that it is improbable that the Report will be completed until towards the close of the present year.
MR. FIELD: May I ask what the Commission have been doing during the last few months, and will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to how long it is since it last had a, meeting?
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: If that question is to be raised, it must be

667
brought forward in the form of a discussion upon the proceedings of the Commission. It would not he courteous on my part, and it would be totally inconsistent with the practice, it I were to assume to myself the authority of superintending its proceedings.

THE OPIUM COMMISSION.
SIR G. CHESNEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is contemplated to charge the cost of the Opium Commission, about to be appointed, to the Imperial or to the Indian Revenues?
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Without prejudice to any ulterior question which may arise out of the results of the inquiry, the view of Her Majesty's Government is that the cost of this inquiry should, in conformity with what we think to be usage and propriety, be charged on the Indian Revenues.
SIR G. CHESNEY: In consequence of the answer of the Prime Minister, I shall take the earliest opportunity of calling attention to the matter, and to this improper application of the Indian Revenues.
SIR J. GORST: May I ask whether it is not the fact that such a charge cannot be made on the Indian Revenues without the consent of the Indian Council; and has the consent of the Council to such an application of the Revenues yet been obtained?
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I must ask for notice of the question.
SIR J. GORST: I will put it on Monday.

THE EVICTED TENANTS IN IRELAND.
MR. J. E. REDMOND: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can hold out any hope that the Government will deal during the present Session with the question of the evicted tenants in Ireland?
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: This question is still under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government; but the time has not yet arrived when I can make any statement on the subject.

CATTLE DISEASE IN ENGLAND.
COLONEL WARING: I beg to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether there is any truth in the rumour of the
668
outbreak of some unknown cattle disease in England during the last few days? I may add that the disease has been described as rinderpest.
MR. H. GARDNER: No, Sir: I have received no information of any outbreak of the rinderpest or other disease.

LAUNDRIES IN SCOTLAND.
MR. PAUL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the disclosures in Miss Irvin's Report on the evils of public and private laundries in Edinburgh and other cities of Scotland, which are due to want of regulation and inspection; and whether he will consider during the Recess, if there is one, the desirability of including laundries under the Factory and Workshops Acts? Also, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Edinburgh Trades Council and Working Men's Federation have passed a resolution in favour of the regulation of laundries at the cost of the State?
MR. ASQUITH: Miss Irvin's Report has been before me. I am one of those who regret that laundries were not included in the Factory Act, 1891. The matter is at present under consideration, and I am having inquiries made in various parts of the United Kingdom on the subject.
MR. JOHN WILSON: May I ask whether, considering the wearing-out nature of the industry, the Home Secretary will take early steps to place u under the Factory Acts?
MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Is it not the fact that, had Parliament in 1891 made laundries liable to inspection, it would have necessitated the inspection of some convents?
MR. ASQUITH: That is a matter on which I cannot pronounce a definite opinion at the moment; but since the Act of 1891 we have been able to appoint female Inspectors, and that might possibly get rid of the objection.

THE SPECIAL CLOSURE RESOLUTION.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I desire to put a question to you, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the interpretation to be put on the special Order of the House to be enforced to-night. A good many clauses will come up after 10 o'clock. They are new clauses, and,

669
according to the immemorial procedure of the House, new clauses are read a second time before the Question can be proposed that the clause he added to the Bill; hut I cannot see that this contingency has been provided for in the Closure Resolution. I should like to know, therefore, whether the Closure Resolution, in addition to limiting our discussion in Committee, will abolish the recognised stage of Second Beading discussion of the new clauses as well as all discussion of Amendments to them?
MR. SPEAKER: It is quite true that the Resolution of the 30th of June was passed when I was in the Chair; and the right hon. Gentleman is justified, perhaps, in asking me for an interpretation of it. But I must observe that the Resolution is a direction to the Chairman of Committees, and that he has already acted upon it, and that he will be called upon again to act upon it in Committee tonight. I would suggest, therefore, that it would be more respectful to the Chairman of Committees that the question should be put to him, and I see no reason why the right hon. Gentleman should not do so now.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Acting on that suggestion, I would venture to ask the Chairman of Committees if he can reply?
THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS (Mr. MELLOR,): With your permission, Sir, I will answer the question at once. The Order of the House of June 30 directs me to put successively the Questions that the several new Government clauses be added to the Bill, and it orders me to do that in succession, one clause after another. That special Order of the House, while it is in force, in my opinion, supersedes the ordinary Rules of the House, that the first Question to be debated should be the Question that the new clause be read a second time, and I think there is good reason for that, judging, I mean, from the construction that I have been able to put upon the special Order of the House. The reason is this—that, as the new clauses cannot be debated or amended, the Question should be put at once that the clause be added to the Bill, so as to avoid two Divisions on precisely the same subject.
MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his clear
670
answer. I would ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is his intention, by means of the Closure, to deprive hon. Members, not only of discussion on the Committee stage, but also of the principle of the clauses on the Second Reading?
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I understand the question to refer to the subsequent proceedings on adding the new clauses to the Bill. I have no power to give a construction of the Order.
MR. BARTLEY: Are we to understand from the ruling of the Chairman of Committees that the new Financial Clauses, which, of course, represent a totally new financial arrangement, are to be taken, and that there is to be not only no discussion on the Amendments, but none on the Second Reading stage, and on the Question, "That the Clause be added to the Kill?" [Cries of "Order!"]
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The hon. Gentleman has put a question of Order which I have no authority to interpret.
MR. BARTLEY: Then, Sir, are we and the country to understand that there is to be no discussion on this perfectly new Bill? [Cries of "Order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

BUSINESS OF SUPPLY.
VISOCUNT CRANBORNEasked whether it was intended to take both the Scotch Education Votes to-morrow, or only Vote 9; and what would be the course adopted with regard to the other Votes on Monday?
MR. HANBURYasked in what order the Votes subsequent to the first for Scotch Education would be taken?
MR. SNAFEdesired to know whether the Business of Supply to-morrow would be limited to the Scotch Estimates; and whether the English Education Estimates would be taken as soon as those for Scotland were disposed of?
MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid, that, only one Education Vote for Scotland would be taken on Friday in Committee of Supply, and after that the Government would proceed with the English Education Votes. The other Votes would be taken in the order in which they stood.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL. (No. 209.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, New Clauses, 26th July.]
    [FORTY-SEVENTH NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    A Clause (Financial Arrangements as between the United Kingdom and Ireland).—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)
    MR. SEXTONsaid, be wished to move to amend the proposed new clause of the Prime Minister by inserting in line 18,after "determined," the words "from time to time." The object of the Amendment was to define more clearly the duty of the Committee to be appointed under Sub-section 3. By that subsection a Committee was appointed to discharge three several functions. The first related to the Customs and Excise Duties collected by Great Britain, and the Committee would have to determine what sum should be deducted from the Revenue of Great Britain and added to the Revenue of Ireland. In the second place, they would have to examine Customs and Excise Duties collected in Ireland, with a view to determine what part of the duty related to articles consumed in Great Britain. They would have to deduct the sum relating to those articles from the Revenue of Ireland and add it to the Revenue of Great Britain. In a subse-sequent clause as to the Irish Post Office the Committee would have to determine every year how much was the Revenue of the Post Office and how much was the expenditure on it, with a view to retaining the Revenue collected and defraying the expenses incurred in the case of Great Britain on the one hand, and of Ireland on the other. These important functions it was evident would have to be exercised from year to year. The Revenue and Expenditure of the Irish Post Office would have to be ascertained each year, in order to determine how much should be added to the Revenue or subtracted from it, and, in like manner, the amount of Customs and Excise would have to be dealt with. The sub-section
    672
    appeared to contemplate only one order of the Committee, to operate for six years; but the intention really was that there should be no general order, the amounts being ascertained each year. He, therefore, moved this Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in line 18, after the word "determined," to insert the words "from time to time."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid, he did not think these words were necessary; but at the same time, if the hon. Member desired to have them, as he did not think they would be injurious, he would offer no opposition.
    SIR H. JAMESsaid, this proposal was more serious than the right hon. Gentleman seemed to think. In the Act of 1888, whenever anything had to be done, the words "from time to time" were read in—which words were practically the same as "from year to year." It had been sought in the 5th section to insert the words in regard to the Queen's prerogative; but the Chief Secretary had expressed the view that the words would be road as in the General Act. If the words, therefore, were inserted specifically in the clause under discussion, it would he taken that they were not to he "read in" in other places.
    MR. T.M. HEALYsaid, the right hon. Member for Bury was a very clever gentleman; but he seemed to forget that on Wednesday week the hon. Member for Fulham raised this point as to the Lord Lieutenant, and the Government pointed to a provision in the Interpretation Clause bowing that the very thing contemplated was already covered. However, the hon. Member pressed the Amendment, and was supported by his Leaders and sub-Leaders; and in the end the Government, against their own judgment and inclination, agreed to the Amendment.
    SIR J. LUBBOCKasked on what principle the Committee would determine the payments in Sub-sections (a), (b), and (c), in regard to articles such as tea and chicory?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid, he understood that they would be matters of fact determined by local considerations.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, it would battle Treasury statisticians to find
    "The annual sum for the Customs and Excise Unties (if any) collected in Great Britain on articles consumed in Ireland."
    Casks of whisky could, no doubt, he traced; hut how could the amount to be returned on account of tea and chicory be ascertained?
    THE PRESIDEXT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,)said, it was desirable to adopt as sound a principle as possible in dealing with these matters. There would be no difficulty in dealing with tea and tobacco, hut there would be with chicory and dried fruits. The Report of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen) had dealt with those things on the basis of population, being, practically, the most satisfactory method. The object of the Committee would be to assess to the best of their ability these amounts. It was proposed because the Irish Members had already taken exception to Treasury experts assessing amounts of this kind. It was considered desirable that a Committee, jointly appointed by the Treasury and by the Irish Government, should ascertain what amount of duty was paid in Ireland on articles consumed in Great Britain, and what amount of duty was paid in Great Britain upon articles consumed in Ireland.
    MR. SEXTONhoped that in some place or other it would be secured that the Committee should report from year to year.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Yes.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to propose in the 3rd sub-section, after the word "Government," to insert the words "in equal proportion." The Amendment had regard to the constitution of the Committee, and the sub-section was somewhat vague upon the point. It said that the Committee was to be appointed jointly by the Treasury and the Irish Government; and he acknowledged with satisfaction and with gratitude that the Prime Minister and the Government had admitted that in a case where a Committee had to deal with financial questions affecting two authorities the Committee should be nominated
    674
    by both and not by one. The Committee was to be appointed jointly by the Treasury and by the Irish Government. What did "appointed jointly" mean? It might mean that the Treasury, having nominated certain persons to act, would invite the concurrence of the Irish Government to every name. It might be held that the Treasury and the Irish Government should concur in regard to every name, or it might be held that the Treasury should nominate certain persons and then invite the Irish Government to nominate the remainder, perhaps a very minor proportion. That would not be satisfactory to Ireland, and he would ask that the usual and reasonable principle which prevailed in the appointment of Joint Committees should apply to the case. Ireland had at least as great an interest as the United Kingdom, because in regard to the Customs the only question would be the question of the transfer of about £300,000 from the Revenue of one country to that of another; and he thought that the country having the smaller Revenue had an interest in the £300,000 as great as the country having the very much larger Revenue. The Excise question would be the transfer of £2,000,000 of Excise from the Revenue of Ireland to toe Revenue of Great Britain, which was about three times as great; and, looking at the relative interests of the two countries, the country having the smaller Revenue had a, greater interest relatively to its entire resources in the deliberations of the Committee than the country having the larger Revenue. However, he should be quite content to lay down the principle that the Committee appointed jointly should mean appointed in equal proportions. He did not apprehend that any great difference of opinion would arise, as the Committee would have to investigate facts and decide upon facts.
    Amendment proposed, in line 20, after the words "Government," to insert the words "in equal proportions."—(Mr Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, there could be no objection to inserting these words. He quite agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the amount involved

    675
    would be of more importance to Ireland than to England.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he should like to know—as it was germane to the Amendment—what class of appointment the Government contemplated? Was the Committee to be composed of English Treasury officials on the one side and Irish Treasury officials on the other, or would it be composed of experts and such gentlemen as might be well known for their financial knowledge in Ireland?
    THE CHIEF SECKETA11Y FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,)said, the view of the Government was that they should be officials from the Treasury.
    SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, that great difficulty might arise if the Members of the Committee should differ. It was important that they should know from the Government what course was to be pursued supposing the Members of the Committee were equally divided on any particular point.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, that the obvious course would be to give the Chairman a casting vote. Care would be taken on Report to insert words securing that result.
    COMMANDER BETHELLthought the Imperial Treasury ought to have a casting vote.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that Sir Stafford Northcote, dealing with the question of the Suez Canal shares, had said that the English votes on the Board would be weighed—not counted.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid that, as the Committee was to be appointed in equal numbers by Ireland and England, the Government recognised the necessity of having a casting vote, and they proposed to provide for that on Report. But as it was conceivable that, owing to circumstances beyond the control of the Committee, they might never come to that point on Report, it was desirable that an Amendment to that effect should be introduced at this stage.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he would ask that the Amendment be now accepted.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, be presumed there would be no appeal from the Committee. Was it the intention of the Government that the Committee should finally decide on the facts or not?
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, the finding of the Committee could not be quarrelled with.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, if the Committee were only to report he should not object to there being no casting vote; but as it was to determine the matters that came before it, surely provision should be made for a majority on one side or the other.
    MR. DARLINGwished to know if the hon. Member for Louth desired to imply that the votes of the Representatives of the English Treasury should be weighed and not counted? If the policy of weighing and not counting votes had been pursued during the consideration of this Bill he had little doubt that very different results would have been arrived at.
    SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, the Committee would have no means of determining the consumption.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, they could determine by population, and that was a fact.
    SIR J. GORSTsaid, it was (dear that the Committee would have to decide questions of great delicacy on which, without imputing any improper motives to anyone, differences of opinion wore likely to arise. If the English and the Irish Representatives on the Committee differed the whole Government would come to a standstill, unless some method were invented for deciding between them. He therefore asked the Government to pledge themselves to deal with the matter on the Report stage.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he would propose at once to insert the words "the Chairman to have a casting vote."
    SIR J. GORSTsaid, they should amend the Amendment by adding the words "with power to choose a Chairman who shall have a easting vote."
    COMMANDER BETHELLdid not think this proposal would remove the difficulty.
    MR. MATTHEWSsuggested that the Chairman should have a second vote.
    COLONEL NOLANthought that on a small Committee of four it would be placing too much power in the hands of one man to give him a second vote.
    MR. H. H. FOWLERsaid, that on an ordinary Select Committee the Chairman had no vote at all unless the voting was equal, when he gave the deciding vote. On a Private Bill Committee, however, the Chairman had a vote as a Member of the Committee, and a casting vote as well.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he had not quite gathered whether the Chairman was to be one of the four, or whether a fifth man might be brought in.
    MR. TOMLLNSONasked whether it was distinctly understood that the Chairman was to have two votes—a vote as a Member of the Committee, and then a casting vote?
    Amendment (Mr. J. Morley) agreed to.
    Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
    MR. SEXTON MR. SEXTON moved the insertion, at the end of line 20, of the following words:—
    "The said Committee shall inquire and report, before the end of five years from the appointed day, to the Treasury and the Irish Government upon what principles and in what mode the relative capacity of Ireland to contribute to Imperial charges might in their judgment be most equitably determined, and how the; amount of such annual contribution should be fixed; and, for the purpose of such inquiry and report, the said Committee shall have all the powers of a Private Bill Committee of the House of Commons."
    He said, the object of the Amendment was to utilise the ability and the special experience of the Committee for an inquiry in reference to the question of the future contribution of Ireland to Imperial charges. The Prime Minister had intimated his willingness to appoint a Royal Commission for the purpose of making such an inquiry. He did not know sit what time the Royal Commission might be appointed, how it might be constituted, nor what might be the terms of the Reference to it. Until such information was in the hands of the Committee it was not easy to anticipate what would be the precise value of its proceedings. If the Royal Commission were appointed soon, it might close its inquiry in a couple of years, perhaps just about the time when the Irish Parliament came into existence, and it would then be unable to avail itself of valuable experience that might be gathered be-
    678
    tween the appointed day and the end of the period of six years. He supposed it would only be instructed to inquire and report, and Parliament would probably reserve to itself the power of saying whether any alteration should take place in consequence of its Reports. Would it not be a, great pity and a great waste of force if the Joint Committee which had to sit from year to year for the purpose of discharging functions bearing upon the inquiry as to the amount of Ireland's contribution should not apply itself to that subject also? The Committee would have to determine the expenditure of the Post Office, how much Excise should be transferred from Ireland to Great Britain, and so on, these subjects having a, close bearing on the question of the contribution of Ireland to Great Britain. Would it not be a great gain to the House of Commons when it considered the revision of the financial relations if it had before it a Report from these gentlemen as to the experience they bad gained during the first five years of the existence of the Irish Parliament? He did not think it would be satisfactory, after the Irish Legislature had come into existence, that an inquiry on the subject of Ireland's contribution should be conducted by a Body named wholly by one of the parties—that was to say, the Imperial Government. The Amendment did not touch the question whether or not the Royal Commission should be appointed. Let the Government appoint one if they pleased, because tiny inquiry would be useful. In his opinion, however, it would be well, in addition, to allow the Joint Committee to make an inquiry, first because the Royal Commission would probably end its investigation at about the beginning of the term; and, secondly, because if was desirable that the Body which made the inquiry should have upon it Representatives of Ireland, he thought his proposal could do no harm, mid it might have valuable results.
    Amendment proposed,
    Line 20, at end. insert, "The said Committee shall inquire and report, before the end of five years from five appointed day. to the Treasury and the Irish Government upon what principles and in what mode the relative capacity of Ireland to contribute to Imperial charges might in their judgment be most equitably determined, and how the amount of such annual contribution should be fixed; and, for the purpose of such inquiry and report, the said

    679
    Committee shall have all the powers of a Private Bill Committee of the House of Commons."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I hope that my hon. Friend from whom this Amendment comes will not press it on the Committee—at any rate at the present time. I do not take the view as to the best instrument for this inquiry which he appears inclined to take. All who have paid any attention to the subject must agree that if the House adopts the principle of an intermediate period—and we are indebted to the hon. Member for the suggestion that there should be such a period—there must be a full inquiry before the close of that period. So far I think we are all agreed. Then the hon. Member argues, in the first place, that this Committee will be a competent instrument for conducting such an inquiry; and, in the second place, he is not quite satisfied as to the appointment of a Royal Commission by the Crown after the Legislature in Ireland has been constituted. Now, Sir, I do not think this Committee will of itself be an instrument very well qualified for conducting so large and searching an inquiry as must take place. The inquiry will embrace a great number of subjects, and it would not be well at all to limit the discretion of those who are charged with the conduct of it. But the object of these gentlemen who form the Committee will really be of a very limited character, very different in that respect from the searching inquiry which the Royal Commission will have to conduct. There is, besides, another consideration. We must consider not only the competence of the persons constituting the Body, but the weight and authority their Report will carry. I think it would be absurd to appoint on a Committee constituted for a purpose like this any large number of persons. The constitution of a Royal Commission is of quite a different kind. Except in rare instances, where particular circumstances make the adoption of a different plan desirable, a Royal Commission is generally composed of a number of persons sufficient to allow of the representation of a variety of views. As to my hon. Friend's difficulty that the Commission might be appointed by the
    680
    Crown after the Irish Legislature had come into existence, I would point out that the action of the Crown would be subject to the control of this House, and that in this House the Irish Members would be represented. I certainly incline to the opinion that this function is one much more closely connected with the duties of the Irish Members in this House than with Representatives of the Irish Legislature or its Executive on a Committee. I should hope that the Irish Members would be disposed to extend the principle of confidence upon which we have been acting throughout these discussions to this question. This would be more an Imperial than a local matter. It is part of the provisional arrangements which have been adopted. We are really postponing now that which is recognised as part of the duty of the Imperial Parliament—namely, the fixing of the financial relations between the two countries. I do not wish to bind my hon. Friend or others, but it does not appear to me that the appointment of this Commission ought to be made a matter of legislative enactment in this Bill. It would be better, probably, that some freedom should be allowed; but I am bound to say that this Committee would not be an instrument adequate to the settlement of so considerable and extended a question as that of the relative liabilities of the two countries. I hope, therefore, my hon. Friend will not press upon us the acceptance of his Amendment.
    MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's,): I confess that this question presents several considerable difficulties to my mind. From the observations I made a few days ago my right hon. Friend will see that in my judgment it would not be appropriate, nor wise, nor expedient to refer matters of principle to a Royal Commission. I believe my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister would experience considerable difficulty in finding persons to constitute a Royal Commission which had to decide on principles of taxation.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I entirely agree.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Then may we understand that the Royal Commission now contemplated by my right hon. Friend is not to deal with the principles on which taxation is to take place, but

    681
    is mainly to inquire into the facts of the case?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Certainly.
    MR. GOSCHEN: It will, I understand, inquire into the facts, and make recommendations with regard to taxation suggested by those facts? If they are to inquire into the taxable capacity, that involves a question of what are the principles on which they are to determine such capacity; and I would rather accept the Amendment of the hon. Member, because I should have confidence in the officials who would be appointed arriving at a proper solution of such a question, inasmuch as they would be persons who would be familiar with the whole subject. If, on the other hand, the inquiry of the Commission is to be strictly limited to facts, I think it is a. question whether such an inquiry could not be confided with great advantage to a. Royal Commission. My views on the Amendment would depend on the character of the Commission, and I should like to have some further information from the Government on that point.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: In my opinion, the sole and undivided responsibility for determining principles in connection with charges to be allocated in the ultimate arrangements between England and Ireland must rest with Parliament. In the first place, we must give unbounded power of inquiry into the facts; and if we give the Commission that power it will be impossible to prohibit the Commission from suggesting to the Queen, to the Government and Parliament, the inferences which may appear to arise out of the facts. I do not see how that can be shut out. It never has been shut out. But no power of the responsible Executive Government can be made over to a Commission. I should certainly, in order that the inquiry may be conducted with adequate weight, desire to see various interests and classes represented. I should desire, for instance, to see what are called the propertied and privileged classes—to see the classes connected with the land—represented. I think a Commission would be an efficient instrument; but the greatest care must be taken to avoid the possibility of a suspicion that the Commission is to take out of the hands of
    682
    Parliament any portion of its duties or responsibilities.
    MR. J. E. REDMONDsaid, a conclusive case had been made by the right hon. Gentleman for the Commission rather than against it. He understood the Inquiry to be desired by everyone on both sides; and, that being so, he did not think the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) need fear either as to the constitution of the Commission or as to the facts that would be laid before it. The present Parliament had made itself responsible for issuing the Commission, and no one would wish to deprive any class of fair and proper representation upon it. They had nothing to go upon tit present; but he would remind the Committee of the answers given by the Prime Minister in reply to questions of his, in which the right hon. Gentleman indicated that there was nothing in the mind of the, Government as to any intention to narrow the Reference to the Commission. The point he now desired to put to the Committee was that he confessed to some apprehension in consequence of the conversation which had gone on. The main object of the proposal of the Member for North Kerry was to throw the duty of this inquiry upon a Committee, which would not go into the matter until the Bill became law. To him it appeared that, as inquiry was essential, the sooner they had the inquiry made the better it would be. Whatever fate might overtake the Bill in another place, he wished to see one practical and important step taken towards Home Rule, and that would be done if the Commission were issued at once and the inquiry proceeded with. He feared the Amendment would have the effect of delaying the Inquiry, and he desired to impress upon the Government that the Commission should be issued by a, precise date without waiting for the Bill to become law. He would—if he might do so—ask the Member for North Kerry not to press the Amendment. He was aware that the hon. Member had suggested that this was not an alteration, but that it was intended to he additional—
    MR. SEXTON: Supplementary.
    MR. J. E. REDMOND: Supplemental to the Commission; but if the hon. Member induced the Government to

    683
    accept his Amendment there would be an alteration, and their interests would surfer in consequence.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the hon. Member for Waterford evidently misapprehended the object of the Amendment. He (Mr. Sexton) did not object to a Royal Commission being appointed; but he was anxious that six years should not be entirely lost, and that the valuable experience that would be gained might be utilised for the purposes of the House. A supplemental Body of this character ought to be useful in connection with the contribution question. He thought it would be seen that he had no desire to delay the appointment of the Commission; but the other Body might be appointed much earlier. With regard to what the Prime Minister had said, he (Mr. Sexton) did not wish to take away from the House the final decision on the question. But the effect of the Prime Minister's words was that, as he had suggested, no matter what Royal Commission was appointed, there would be some inquiry during the transitional period. He joined with the hon. Member for Waterford in urging that the inquiry, in whatever form, should be undertaken without delay. His main interest in the question of Irish Revenue was only in connection with the question of Home Rule. He doubted whether any inquiry would have much effect unless Home. Rule was carried. The inquiry he proposed would facilitate matters, and he did not see that it interfered with an inquiry by Royal Commission.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he considered, whether Homo Rule was granted or not, a Commission to inquire into the financial relations between the two countries would be a useful thing. He thought he now understood why time had been occupied in discussing the Amendment for a Committee to make this inquiry. The hon. Member for Waterford had asked for and had been promised a Commission.
    MR. SEXTON: I am as much in favour of an inquiry during the transitional period as he is.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, at all events, the Member for Waterford had scored for his section of the Irish Party. (Cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Order!"] Now the hon. Member for North Kerry
    684
    wanted to score something for the other section of the Irish Party—(Cries of "Question!" and "Order!"]—and the time of the Committee had been occupied—(Cries of "Question!"]
    MR. SEXTON: You are the only man in the House who would say it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
    Mr. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the fact remained that the Member for North Kerry asked for a Committee to decide upon a question which the Member for Waterford had been promised should be referred to a Commission. (Cries of "Order!"]
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he would like to ask were they to discuss this Royal Commission upon the Amendment before them? Hon. Members wished the Commission to be appointed; and, that being so, they should know whether it was to report before Home Rule was granted with regard to the insertion of certain Financial Clauses in the Bill. The Bill, as it stood, settled matters for six years; but if the Royal Commission reported during that period that Ireland did not pay enough, were they to have new financial arrangements during the six years' term? He thought the force of this question would be acknowledged. It was a question in which the British taxpayer was concerned.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman asked him what course he would take in certain contingencies. It was a hypothetical case—
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, there must be some substantial plan of dealing with the matter. The Government made themselves responsible for a Royal Commission. What would be, in the right hon. Gentleman's view, the effect of the Royal Commission? What would be its objects? That was the question.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he had thought that the object of the Commission had been stated by the Prime Minister. There was a Committee some years ago; and that Committee had a wider Reference than was now proposed. The right hon. Gentleman asked, supposing the Home Rule Bill were passed this year and the Royal Commission were to begin its operations next year, what would be the effect of the finding of the Commission upon the temporary financial scheme sanctioned by the Act? Well, his (Mr. Morley's) view was that

    685
    the financial scheme would remain in operation until the end of the transitional period, whatever the Report of the Commission might be. The Act would contain a financial scheme, and they would be bound to carry it, out.
    SIR J. GORSTasked whether, supposing the Report of the Commission were to support the view of hon. Members from Ireland that Ireland's contribution was too large, the Government would continue to exact that contribution for the unexpired period of the six years?
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, that a contingency such as that contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman must be dealt with when it arose. He did not feel obliged to pronounce an opinion beforehand.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. J. MORLEY MR. J. MORLEY moved an Amendment providing that the joint order of the Treasury and the Irish Government dealing with the specified items of General Revenue should be laid before both Houses of Parliament instead of "the House of Commons" only. The terms were to omit the words "House of Commons" from Sub-section 3. and substitute the words "both Houses of Parliament."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. CLANCYrose to move, as a Amendment, to add to the beginning of the 4th sub-section the words—
    "Whenever the surplus available for the Irish Government amounts to not less than £500.000."
    His object in moving this Amendment was clear enough. It was to guarantee a surplus for the Irish Government of £500,000. [Opposition Cheers.] He assured hon. Gentlemen who cheered ironically that there would be no mystery about what he meant. His proposal had been described by the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh as an extraordinary proposition, and as one that had been gathered from the Land League doctrines Well, if it was, and if it was carried, it would not be the first of the Land League doctrines that had been given effect to in that House. For the last 10 years the British Parliament had been engaged in passing into law various parts of the original programme of the Land League;
    686
    and if this was a part of that programme he was glad to say that it had the assent of a very high authority—one whose opinion bethought it would be admitted carried great weight. He had there an extract from a letter written to The Westminster Gazette a short time ago by Sir Robert Hamilton, a gentleman of great experience, and of long official service in the Government Departments, and he dealt with this very proposition. He said—
    "Provided that the figures of Mr. Gladstone are to be relied upon, it appears to me that £500,000 is not an inadequate surplus for the Irish Government to start with; but the figures of this sum are, to some extent, conjectural."
    He continued—
    "The Irish Members ask—I think fairly—that they should be made sure of this surplus. In these circumstances, the simplest way would be for the Imperial Government to guarantee it for a certain fixed time."
    He went on to say—
    "If the figures of Mr. Gladstone's estimate are borne out by the results, the Imperial Exchequer would not have to contribute anything; but, on the other hand, if the results turn out to be less than that estimate, then the Imperial Exchequer ought to make due provision for the Irish Government, and thus carry out their undertaking to provide a surplus of £500,000."
    After all, therefore, he was not making this proposal on his own authority alone, and he ventured to submit that such an opinion from an authority like Sir Robert Hamilton deserved the serious consideration of the Government. The reasons that supported this Amendment were perfectly clear. In the first place, they did not know what their receipts would be and what their expenditure would be, and the mistakes that had been already made in the Returns they had had justified them, in being suspicious as to all Returns. [Opposition Cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen who cheered that statement had helped to make that state of things certain, at least in regard to Irish Expenditure, because they had supported and helped to carry an Amendment with reference to the pensions of Civil servants and police that would saddle the future Irish Government with a burden of indefinite magnitude. That charge, in his opinion, rendered it very uncertain whether, even if the estimate of their receipts were correct, they should be left with any surplus at all; and he, for one, should be very slow

    687
    to join in working out a scheme of self-government with all the uncertainty as to whether they should have a surplus or a deficit in their very first year. Another reason for obtaining this guarantee was that for the first six years after Home Rule was established their hands would be absolutely tied in regard to their Revenue. They were to have no power to increase or re-adjust existing taxes to make up any deficit that might occur, and as for the answer that they could levy new taxes he would only say that he would be a bold Irish Minister indeed who would attempt to create a new tax in Ireland during the next 20 years. It had been said that they were asking for English money. For the seven or eight years he had had a seat in the House he had heard many audacious statements, but had never heard anything more utterly audacious than the assertion that by the scheme of the Prime Minister a single penny of English money would go into Irish pockets. After paying for every local service of an Imperial character, the Revenue of Ireland showed a surplus just now of £2,000,000. Was that Irish money or English money? Did they pretend that it was English? He repeated that he had never heard anything more utterly audacious than this claim, and he could only wonder that men who had characters to lose should transfer the stale fictions of the platform to the floor of that House. He did not believe that there were many Englishmen so stupid as to believe this fiction; but he had no doubt there were some who, on English platforms, would pretend to believe it. But if those Members had tongues the Irish Members had tongues too, and they would endeavour to show that not only was there not a single penny of English money coming to Ireland, but that the English were actually putting in their pockets money that belonged to the Irish. He had said this was not English money. He would go further, and say that even if it were it was owing to Ireland a hundred times over for the robberies inflicted by England upon Ireland in the past. England had robbed Ireland right through a century. Under the Act of Union they commenced by swindling Ireland, and driving her into bankruptcy. This same question of Ireland's taxable capacity was discussed at
    688
    the time of the Union, and the result was that Ireland was grossly overcharged. Pitt and Castlereagh imposed upon Ireland a contribution that she was unable to pay, and in the very first year after the Union money had to be borrowed to make up the deficiency, and in 15 or 16 years the Debt of Ireland by these charges rose from £24,000,000 to £120,000,000. The Committee would hardly believe it, but £90,000,000 was added to Ireland's National Debt to meet a deficit of £12,000,000. He had no hesitation in saying that that fraudulent overcharge of Ireland at the time of the Act of Union was nothing less than a gigantic and audacious swindle. By the means he had described the National Debt of Ireland had been quadrupled, while in the same period that of England had only been doubled. This, moreover, was a violation of the Act of Union, for it was stipulated that there should be no borrowing on Ireland's separate credit after the Union. It was also stipulated that Ireland should not be subjected to the high standard of taxation in England until the circumstances of the two countries became uniform. In 1817, however, the two Exchequers and the two Debts were consolidated, and Ireland, without the required uniformity having been reached, was treated on the high English level. In that backward age there were some who called this extortion a blessing, and in these few weeks past they had heard in the speeches of gentlemen of the Unionist persuasion the same audacity of assertion. The result of this over-taxation of Ireland was made clear in 1852, when the Spirit Duties were increased. A uniform rate was imposed on Excisable liquors throughout the United Kingdom, and the result of that system was that in 10 years the taxation of Ireland was increased by 52 per cent., while the taxation of England only increased during the same time 17 per cent. He did not know what they called that, but he called it robbery. Last night the Member for Surrey stated that while Ireland paid 13s. in Excise Duties, England paid 15s., but the explanation of that was that Excisable articles consumed in Ireland had been taxed fourfold the amount paid by Excisable articles consumed in England; and then, after raising the Irish duties out of all pro-

    689
    portion to the English duties, they came down here and told the Irish that because they paid more they were able to pay more. Anything meaner than such a statement by anyone knowing the facts he could not conceive. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer reminded them that the present Prime Minister was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in 1852, made the Spirit Duties uniform, but he was not the only Chancellor who pursued that policy. The late Chancellor himself was the last to lay au extra 6d. on the Whisky Duties. The fact that the two Parties in the State had combined to rob Ireland in the past was no answer to the Irish case. Since 1852 Ireland, it was computed, had been in this way robbed, on the average, of £1,500,000 to £2,000,000 a year. Mr. Giffen, a high authority, said £3,000,000, and his figures had never been disputed. In the face of these facts that could not be denied—[Opposition laughter]—ignorant laughter would not dispose of them—in face of these facts, how could the claim Ireland now made be refused? The right hon. Member for Cambridge University and the right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, objected to the misdeeds of men who were dead being made the basis of present-day claims. A more immoral argument he had never heard. It meant that if at any time they had got money, no matter by what dishonest means, they were to stick to it in spite of the immorality. He did not know what the late Chancellor of the Exchequer would say if they applied the same principle to Egyptian finance. He assured the late Chancellor of the Exchequer that they would never cease to revive the old transaction of the Act of Union. They should never cease to revive the transaction of 1852 and subsequent transactions of the same kind, and they would never cease—he spoke independently and sincerely—to bother and worry this Parliament until it granted to Ireland full reparation and its full measure of justice. He urged as an additional argument for this Amendment, that, in charging Ireland two-thirds of the cost of the Constabulary and England only a third, they were charging Ireland more than her fair share. The hon. Member for Waterford was represented as having said the other night
    690
    that the Irish Constabulary was an Imperial Force from its inception. What he said really was that it had been an Imperial Force almost from its inception. When the late Chancellor of the Exchequer thus misquoted the Member for Waterford, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the services of the police in the Fenian rising, and he was sorry he chose to describe the Fenians as "foreign ruffians who spread a network of crime throughout the country." The Fenians were not foreigners, and at their trial in Dublin they were denied the rights of foreigners. They were tried as Irishmen, and in respect to their characters they were as respectable and far more devoted than the smug hypocrites who slandered them, entrenched behind the Imperial Forces, inside and outside the House. That reference of the right hon. Gentleman to the Fenians reminded him that the very title of the Constabulary showed their Imperial character, for they acted the part of an army. In 1867 they put down the Fenians, and for that achievement they were called the Royal Irish Constabulary, and he repeated that the very name stamped them as an Imperial Force. He would respectfully submit to the Prime Minister that it was a settled principle of equity that when they got rid of a charge, the compensation to be paid in respect of it ought to come out of the fund which was relieved from the charge. Though no gentleman in the House would dispute that principle of equity, he was sorry to say that it had not always been observed in dealing with Ireland. At the time of the Church Act there was a charge on Imperial funds of £40,000 a year for the Presbyterians and an annual charge of £30,000 a year for Maynooth, and accordingly, when compensation in respect of those charges was made, it ought to have been made by Parliament out of Imperial Funds. It was, however, taken out of the Irish Church surplus, a purely Irish fund. The Constabulary had been maintained in the past out of Imperial funds for Imperial purposes, and he submitted that upon every principle of equity the cost of winding it up ought to come out of the fund from which it bad hitherto been paid. There was an additional reason why this ought to be done. Originally, part of the cost of the Constabulary

    691
    was borne by the counties in Ireland. In 1845 Sir Robert Peel brought in a Bill for the repeal of the Corn Laws, when it was pointed out that the repeal would disastrously affect Ireland, and Sir Robert Peel pledged himself there and then that, as some compensation for the repeal of the Corn Laws, he would have the whole cost of the Constabulary put upon the Consolidated Fund and taken off the counties of Ireland. Sir Robert Peel wont out of Office, and in 1846 a Liberal Government brought in a Bill based on the promise of Sir Robert Peel, and the cost of the Constabulary then became an Imperial, and not an Irish, charge. He might enter into the historical aspect of this financial question at length, but he would not do so; be would only refer to one particular, and that was the increase of the National Debt. He referred to this chiefly because of the argument used last night by the hon. Baronet the Member for Kingston (Sir R. Temple). His (Mr. Clancy's) contention in regard to the National Debt was, that they (the Irish) had never had a National Debt—that Ireland never had such a Debt, properly speaking, of its own. The National Debt, created at the time of the Union, was created for Imperial purposes—namely, to put down the rebellion. As to the National Debt created since the Union, Ireland had not had the least say in creating it, and, therefore, not being Ireland's Debt, Ireland ought not to be charged a, single penny in respect of it. But the hon. Baronet said last night that it was incurred to provide, for wars on the Continent, and thus Ireland, as well as England, was protected. Protection, indeed! It reminded him of the protection the bear gave to the victim when it hugged him to death. Protection! when this Parliament allowed the landlords of Ireland to grind their unfortunate tenants to the dust. Protection! when they kept four-fifths of the population of Ireland outside the pale of the Constitution. Protection! What they wanted to be protected against at that time was England; and he did not hesitate to say that if at any time during those years Ireland had thrown off the yoke of England by force of arms, it would not only have been justified, but called upon to do so. They never had
    692
    protection from England of the right sort; they had the protection of a stepmother—of an enemy; and the records of Parliament for the last 50 years showed that, because what they had been doing was to repeal and reform all their legislation of the early part of the century. They had had no protection from England, and owed her nothing in respect of her protection. To sum up, all he could say was that they did not know what their expenditure or their revenue would be, that their hands would be tied for the next six years, so that they would not be able to make up a deficit by imposing taxation; that it was not English money they asked for, but their own; and that even if it were English money, England owed it to them ten times over. These were the reasons in support of his Amendment which he ventured to submit to the Committee with all respect, and especially to the Prime Minister, who had on recent occasions referred so eloquently to the shabby treatment which Ireland had in financial matters received at the hands of the British Government.
    Amendment proposed,
    Line 21, at, beginning, insert "Whenever the surplus available for the Irish Government amounts to not less than five hundred thousand pounds."—(Mr. Clancy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I do not intend to discuss the historical argument that has been brought forward by the hon. Member, because I do not think we can deal with it adequately at this time. The only conclusion to which I am drawn is that in this intermediate arrangement for six years Ireland should be treated equitably and even liberally. This, I think, has been fulfilled by the proposals that have been made, and further than that we could not go at the present time. The Amendment of the hon. Member is rather a singular one, because the hon. Member says that when the surplus of £500,000 falls short, of that amount—say, for the sake of argument, that it falls to £499,000—in consequence of that fall one-fourth shall be taken away from the Imperial contribution; that is to say, the Imperial contribution from Ireland shall be reduced from oae-third to one-fourth.
    MR. CLANCY: That was not my argument.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That is the complement to this Amendment, and I treat it upon that principle. According to the Estimates that have been made, the Government show a surplus of £500,000, which, if the Estimates are realised, would remain to the credit of Ireland when she has back her portion. That is the whole meaning of the surplus. There is no such thing as a surplus ear-marked, and there is no such thing legally as a surplus of £500,000. As I understand the Amendment, it means that whenever in the balance-sheet of Ireland, between Revenue and Expenditure, there was a surplus of less than £500,000, then the Imperial contribution should be reduced by one-fourth.
    MR. CLANCY: No.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will explain.
    MR. J. E. REDMOXDsaid, that as he understood the Amendment proposed, the effect of it would be this—he would take the case the right hon. Gentleman had himself put—that in some years the surplus would be £199,000 instead of £500,000; in that case the operation of the Amendment would be that the Imperial contribution would be diminished by £1,000.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: My objection to it remains in full, because this is not a question of money to be handed over by us to Ireland in future years, in respect to which I could understand the argument which says you ought not to fall below the sum you set out with, but this is simply a question of the balance between Irish Revenue and Irish Expenditure. The effect of the Amendment would be to make ourselves dependent for a portion of the Imperial contribution upon the balance which the Irish authorities might think fit to establish. For example, if Ireland increased her Expenditure by £500,000, that £500,000 would be deducted from the Imperial contribution. The argument is that the Imperial contribution ought to be lightened—to be diminished—not in consequence of a diminution of the resources of Ireland, not in consequence of any alteration in the relations of the
    694
    two countries, but because the Irish Authority thinks fit to spend £500,000 more. That would be a fundamental departure from the main outlines of the scheme. It is founded on principles totally unsound, and to which, I am sorry to say, we could not give any agreement.
    MR. GOSCHEN: My right hon. Friend will understand the argument of the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) is, that Great Britain has robbed Ireland to such an extent in the past that it would be perfectly legitimate and perfectly just that we should in this matter make restitution to Ireland. I quite appreciate the course taken by my right hon. Friend, and I agree there is not time to answer the argument of the hon. Member, because, through the unfortunate manner in which we are dealing with the whole of these questions, of great importance both to Ireland and to this country, he feels he must not absorb more of the few hours left by replying at length to the hon. Gentleman. But let me point out the disastrous effect of that course. The hon. Member has made an elaborate indictment against the finances of this country. He has laid the indictment against my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and against other Chancellors of the Exchequer, that through the whole course of the century they have been unjust to Ireland. It is most important that the Prime Minister, who has conducted with such ability the finance of this country—I might almost say for half a century—should, with his great authority, be able to tell the Irish people that they were deceived—voluntarily deceived—by the statements so put forward by Irish Members. Is it not really disastrous that statements of this kind should not be answered, not by the Opposition, who are suspected by the Irish Members, but from the Government Benches? The right hon. Gentleman himself ought to be able to show that the view put forward of Great Britain having robbed Ireland for all these years is a false view and a slander on the right hon. Gentleman and other Chancellors of the Exchequer. The speech of the hon. Member for North Dublin is simply sowing the seeds of discontent with the arrangement proposed by the Prime Minister. That is very disastrous, and

    695
    my right hon. Friend has let words drop as if he endorsed the statement that Ireland had been unjustly taxed. The other day, when I dealt with this question, hon. Gentlemen opposite thought I was making a charge, an attack upon my right hon. Friend, because I said he was responsible to a great extent for the taxation of Ireland. That was not my object; but what I wanted to prove, both to this House and the country, was that it was impossible for the statements of the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) to be true, because if it were, the reputation of my right hon. Friend would rest on a false basis. I hold that he has taken the proper course in the great financial schemes affecting Ireland, and that he was animated by a just spirit, but I regret that the refutation does not come from his own lips. I will not attempt to deal with the figures of the hon. Member, but will leave that to others, and I only rose to enter my protest on behalf of previous Chancellors of the Exchequer against the silence of my right hon. Friend being taken as endorsing the views put forward by the hon. Member.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid, that a charge of sporadic and continual robbery had been put forward by the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Clancy), who challenged them to reply. The Prime Minister said there was not time adequately to reply to the historical argument. Doubtless, there was not; but as an English Member, he thought the time had come when they could no longer allow this imputation to be cast upon them without putting before the Committee and the country facts that were, or ought to be, well known The hon. Member, as a first charge against them, said that Ireland had a normal surplus of £2,000,000, and that practically she ought to enjoy the benefit of that surplus; but how did the hon. Member account for the position of Scotland? After all, there were three nations concerned in this partnership. The English nation, in round numbers, paid two-thirds—as a matter of fact, she paid seven-tenths—of her annual income to Imperial charge, Scotland paid two-thirds, while Ireland alone paid one-third, or, rather, three-tenths. As to the outcome of the Royal
    696
    Commission, he should not be sorry to prophesy that, whether or not England turned out to have played the part of the unjust judge, the Irish nation had played the part of the importunate widow. The hon. Member in his allegations, based on the Act of Union, forgot that such a person as the great Napoleon ever existed. Ireland, of course, had to pay her share of the cost of the gigantic struggle which convulsed the whole of Europe.
    MR. CLANCY: In which Ireland had no interest whatever.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid, that was the fallacy that lay at the base of all the hon. Member's arguments. It was not only a war of Greater Britain, of the United Kingdom, but a, war in which we took up and played the man's part for Europe against the despotism of the First Napoleon. Hon. Gentlemen might sympathise with the views that first animated the First Napoleon; but he asked whether, in the light of events, they would rather have been on Napoleon's side or ours? Would the fate of Ireland have been happier as a member of the Continental Alliance, with all her ports blockaded, with all her manhood drawn from her, and all her money drained into the Treasury of France? In the great Napoleonic struggle victory was cheaper than defeat, and that was the answer to the contention of the hon. Gentleman that Ireland was robbed by the Act of Union. He passed to the amalgamation of the two Debts in 1817. The hon. Member said that constituted another wrong and injustice to Ireland, and that it led to Ireland being taxed on a level with England. That, as the hon. Member afterwards admitted, was not true at that time. Let them consider whether the amalgamation of the two Debts in 1817 was a wrong to Ireland or not? So far from being a wrong it was a blessing. The other day he came across a quotation of Lord John Russell, from which it appeared that the Irish taxes in 1817 were bringing in a sum of £4,000,000 to the Revenue less than they were expected to bring in; and as the Expenditure was £7,000,000, in order to make up the deficiency Ireland, before 1817, would have had to borrow, these borrowings going to swell up the National Debt. After 1817 Ireland did

    697
    not borrow. If her faxes were computed to raise £7,000,000 and only brought in £4,000,000, the English and Scotch were the only people who were worse off by the arrangement. England had a strong case as against Ireland in this connection, and when the Royal Commission sat it would be found that the Irish Members had been living in a fool's paradise over this question of the financial relations between the two countries. Admitting that the taxation between the two countries was equalised, that equalisation had led to this result: that, whereas the English and Scotch paid towards Imperial charges £7 out of every £10 they raised, the Irish people paid only £3. Upon that absurd basis, which the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had pointed out was incurred by them in order to keep up what he called eleemosynary coercion, it was proposed that this basis of payment should be continued, and now the hon. Gentleman wished to have a guaranteed surplus of £500,000. One argument which had been most effectively used in support of Home Rule was that England would get rid of the cost of the Police, light railways, and other winks in Ireland. But, instead of that being the case, the clause as it stood placed upon the backs of the British taxpayers for ever a bargain which had been denounced in the strongest terms by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whilst the hon. Member by his Amendment wished to pile upon that an additional burden of £500,000 a year.
    MR. T. HARRINGTONsaid, if the case of the hon. Member who had just spoken and of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer were so complete, he expected they would have no opposition from them to the appointment of a Special Commission. Up to the present, however, they had given no countenance to the appointment of the Commission, and some observations of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer would seem to imply that their opposition to the proposal was to be continued. The principle of the Amendment was a fair one, and it was unjust that no proposal had been offered by the Government such as was suggested. What was their (the Irish Members) case? When flu Prime Minister proposed his Bill for the Better Government of Ireland, he
    698
    proposed that the Irish Government should have the power of taxing the Irish people, and he calculated as essential for the purpose of the Irish Government that there would be a surplus of £500,000. Since then he had changed his mind—the Government had changed the character of their proposal—and instead of giving to the Irish Government for the next six years the power of controlling and imposing taxes, they took it into their own hands. All the Irish Members asked was that if they deprived them of imposing and controlling the taxes of Ireland, they should at least guarantee to the Irish people the amount which upon their own calculation they put forward as necessary for the purpose of the Irish Government. Where was the unreasonable demand in that? The hon. Member who spoke last said they wanted the English nation to manage all these things for them. They did not; they were perfectly willing to take the offer the Government originally made, that the Irish Government should control the taxes of Ireland. They were willing, if the Government adhered to their original proposal, to take that offer now. If this country was to control the taxes after they set up an Irish Government they must on their part, in the name of the Irish people, protest against the imputation which would be made against them afterwards of mis-government, if, under the system now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Government, Ireland would not be able to maintain a surplus sufficient to carry on the Government. They were not wedded to the Amendment in this particular form; but the right hon. Gentleman would see the absurdity of first putting forward a proposition that the Irish were to control their own taxes, and making a calculation founded upon that of £500,000 as necessary for the carrying on of the Government, and then taking away from them the power of raising their own taxes. By doing so be left them absolutely powerless; and if the Home Rule Bill failed in its purpose, it would fail because of this provision: because the Irish Government would not be able to raise the money that it was the intention of this scheme to give them. He appealed to the Government to make some concession. It

    699
    was all very well to talk about the Irish Government squandering the money given them; but if it were possible, as he contended it was, that by some unforeseen expenditure the amount of money which the Government themselves regarded as necessary to carry on the Irish Government should not be forthcoming, surely it was contrary to all reason and common-sense not to protect the Irish Government against such a contingency.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, the hon. Member for North Dublin made a plain, straightforward speech from his point of view, and proved from his figures that successive Governments of Great Britain had been robbing Ireland. He was not going into that question, but it was due to the Committee that the Prime Minister or some Member of the Government should say whether they agreed with that view or not. If they did, the argument of the hon. Member opposite was worthy of attention on the grounds of justice. But it was to be noticed that whenever the Government were challenged to reply to any of these difficult questions there came over the Treasury Bench one of those brilliant flashes of silence which seemed to answer their purpose in every difficulty. He wanted the Government to pay attention to the speech of the hon. Member for North Dublin for another purpose. That speech illustrated the union of hearts that was to continue. He felt thankful, as a Representative of the British taxpayer, that the hon. Member for the moment did not represent the majority of the Irish Members, because, if he did, English Members would stand aghast when they came to contemplate what the Government would have to yield to at the expense of the British taxpayers. But when they remembered that although the Barry of the hon. Member for Waterford was in the minority in that House they were far stronger in Ireland than their numbers would appear to indicate, they must come to the conclusion that the sentiments and speeches which they had heard from hon. Members opposite that night were the sentiments and speeches which would be taught from one end of Ireland to the other—that Ireland was the robbed party—and they knew how these sentiments were
    700
    likely to be adopted. If those hon. Members in a future Parliament should represent the sentiments of Ireland, what was the Government going to do that relied on those hon. Members opposite for their Office? They had two things to do. To resist and probably lose Office, or yield to the demands made at the expense of the British taxpayer. If it was a similar Government to the present, they knew the first alternative would not be taken. They would stick to the Treasury Bench through thick and thin; therefore this union of hearts was a very poor look-out. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment was very hard on the Liberal Unionists, calling them audacious, and using other epithets of a similar character. In doing so he was only copying, almost verbatim, the language the Prime Minister used on Tuesday night in an excited moment, and when he had lost his temper. The hon. Member for North Dublin slated that by the Act of Union the Irish people were robbed. Whether that were so or not, it was abundantly evident that by the Bill for the disruption of the United Kingdom, which the Government were forcing through by the gag against the will of the majority of Great Britain, the people of Great Britain were to be robbed. That was one thing they had to make clear. The hon. Member challenged his (Mr. Jesse Collings') statement that it would place upon the British people the burden of the deficiency which would result from Ireland paying less than her share to the Imperial contributions. He repeated his statement, and he declared from careful calculations that the cost of this Home Rule Bill to each constituency would be £4,000 per annum. In the City of Birmingham it would mean that a 4d. rate would have to be imposed in order to raise £32,000 a year, which would be the cost to that city to carry out the crazy scheme of the Prime Minister for breaking up the United Kingdom. He did not think that when this was recognised any city would put up with it. The hon. Member for North Dublin said they were going to worry and bother this Parliament until they got their rights. That was a nice prospect for the union of hearts, of the existence of which the Prime Minister had so often assured them.

    701
    The Act for breaking up the Union would rob the British taxpayer beyond all doubt, and the prospect which the speeches of hon. Members opposite revealed was anything but cheerful for the British people. The Liberal Unionists only desired what was fair under this Bill, if it should ever become law; but this it never would. All they wanted was that Ireland should contribute her fair share towards Imperial Expenditure. The old legal maxim, to the effect that those who participated in the benefits should share the burdens, ought to be applied to the case of Ireland. It would be a good look-out for the Irish Chancellor of the Exchequer to be assured of a surplus; but it would tend to make him somewhat careless in making up his Budget, because he would be assured that a surplus would come to him. On the other hand, the outlook for the British Chancellor of the Exchequer would be very bad indeed. They could see the spirit in which these proposals were regarded by hon. Members opposite. So far from being a final settlement, hon. Members opposite said plainly that I hey would worry and bother this Parliament. If anything could open the eyes of the Prime Minister to the madness of the scheme, the speeches of hon. Members opposite should do so. At any rate, those speeches would open the eyes of the British constituencies, and whenever the matter was referred to them both Bill and Government would he wiped away.
    Mr. H. S. FOSTERsaid, the Amendment had met with such scant courtesy, and such a poor reception at the hands of every Member who had spoken either from the Unionist or Government side, that he apprehended there was no serious argument which had to be met. But if the Prime Minister himself thought the Amendment unworthy of notice, certainly the observations with which the Amendment was supported were worthy the attention of the Committee, he was not at all surprised at the line of argument taken by the Mover of the Amendment, and it was only in accordance with the argument which the hon. Member and his Party persistently used. He accused the Go-
    702
    vernment of this country of having been parties to a gigantic and audacious swindle; with being guilty of robbery and immoral conduct. Coming from an Irish Nationalist Member they were accustomed to language of that kind, and the ground of want of time was a convenient excuse for the Prime Minister for not taking notice of this abuse, because the Prime Minister himself, unhappily, in advocating this measure, had occupied a great deal of time in throwing abuse on this country. Adjectives almost as strong as those employed by the Irish Members had been made use of by the Prime Minister of England against England. The good name of England would be sacrificed, if necessary, in order that the Bill or any particular clause in it should pass. The hon. Member for North Dublin interjected, in the course of the speech of the hon. Member for Dover, that the Irish people had no interest in the Napoleonic wars. That was quite in harmony with a statement of a late Member of the Irish Party, Mr. O'Kelly, who said—"An Irish rising would burst forth at the first signal from a French warship." Every one of the limitations of the Government would be accepted by the Irish Members protanto, and no further. They would use this Bill as a lever for extorting more from the British Government, and they had given fair notice of their intentions. In the face of those declarations, what became of the prospect held out from time to time to the electors of this country that if once a free hand wore given to the Prime Minister to deal with Ireland the Irish difficulty would be over? The hon. Member for North Dublin had also stated that night that Ireland owed England nothing, and that they were taking this measure as a right. This measure was being passed as there suit of fear, and he asked hon. Gentlemen opposite what kind of gratitude from Irish Members would result from this Bill if it were passed? These were concessions which hon. Members from Ireland had succeeded in wringing from the Prime Minister, and they were given to them as a weapon to enable them to extract something more. There was no sense of community with the English people; but, fortunately, the Irish Members below the Gangway (the

    703
    Nationalists) did not represent Ireland altogether, for there was a portion of Ireland which was loyal to this country, and which intended to remain loyal, and which, so far from desiring to weaken their connection with this country, desired to strengthen it. And now a word with regard to the Amendment. There was not time to discuss it. The Prime Minister claimed to dispose of it in a sentence. The Prime Minister reproached the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. E. Redmond) with want of care in regard to the Amendment; but the right hon. Gentleman himself might be accused of want of care in the reading of it. He did not seem to have gathered the meaning of the Amendment; as to whether one-third was an excessive contribution, and as to the proposal that there should be a contribution of one-fourth; but, independently of that, if the surplus was not £500,000 the Irish were to contribute nothing at all.
    An hon. MEMBER: No.
    MR. H. S. FOSTERsaid, it was suggested that if the surplus was only £499,000, the contribution to England would be £1,000 short; but he wished to point out that by the terms of the Amendment, unless they had the £500,000 surplus they would have a nil contribution. He was satisfied both sides of the House would not look at that view very favourably. The object of the Amendment seemed to him to be to put on record the fact that the Irish Members were not satisfied with what the Prime Minister to-day called a favourable and an equitable arrangement, but what next year he might consider a very inequitable arrangement.
    MR. RENTOULsaid, that the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy), in bringing forward the Amendment, stated that he did so for two reasons—first, because it was doubtful whether there would be any surplus at all in Ireland; and, secondly, because the Irish would not have control over their own taxation. As to the first argument, the hon. Member might set his mind at rest. He might be certain that there would be no surplus—a fact which ought to make him more firm in advocating his Amendment. With regard to the second
    704
    point, he (Mr. Rentoul) could very well understand the feeling of the hon. Member, and could thoroughly sympathise with him. Of course, if it was understood that the postponement of the various important matters in the Bill was to be for the purpose of getting some skeleton of a measure passed at the present time which could be afterwards filled up, and that by putting forward the measure the fears and apprehensions of the Loyalist minority could be lulled to rest, there did seem to be logic and sense in the plan of the Government. But the Ulster Members understood these tactics, and objected to the Bill. Although the questions of taxation, of judiciary, of police, and of the land were reserved from the Irish Legislature, the Ulster Members objected to the Bill just as much as they would have done if these questions had not been postponed, but had been dealt with in the measure. The hon. Member for North Dublin moved that whenever the surplus available for the Irish Parliament amounted to not loss than £500,000, then, and not till then, one-third of the General Revenue of Ireland would be paid into the Exchequer of the United Kingdom. Now, if this Amendment were accepted as part of the Bill, would it not be the positive duty of the Government of Ireland to keep the surplus always under £500,000? A point which seemed to have missed the notice of all the previous speakers was that the Amendment would be satisfied if the surplus was 1s. under £500,000. Under those circumstances, the Amendment was a much stronger order than had been at first thought. Hut the hon. Member spoke of the future taxation of Ireland, and said—"He would be a bold Minister who would impose any new tax on Ireland for the next 20 years." But would he be a bold Minister, in the estimation of the hon. Member, who would put a tax, say, on the linen trade of Belfast? though, of course, there were taxes that it would require a bold Minister to propose in an Irish Legislature. But the hon. Member had spoken of the indignation which, he said, was expressed on the platforms of England when it was pointed out that English money was being perpetually asked for to go into Irish pockets. Considering

    705
    the statements made, both inside and outside the House, during the last 20 years, considering the statements made by speakers from Ireland with regard to England and the English people, it was not to be wondered at that the constituencies of England would strongly resent the idea of English money going into the Irish poekots—especially if I he partnership was to be dissolved. The hon. Member had dealt with the police, and he had pointed out that it was an Imperial Force—a fact which was proved by the phrase "Royal" being applied to the Irish Constabulary. But strangely enough, in the next sentence, the hon. Member, referring to a remark made by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer two or three nights ago, alluded to the Fenians, giving them an extraordinarily high character as patriots of the first order.
    THE CHAIRMANpointed out that the observations of the hon. Member were not relevant to the Amendment before the Committee.
    MR. RENTOULsaid, he was referring to the words which the Mover of the Amendment used in the course of his argument.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, it did not follow that the observations were in Order.
    MR. RENTOUL: If you rule that I am not to refer to words used by an hon. Member—
    The CHAIRMAN: Order, order! The hon. Member's argument is not germane to the Amendment under discussion.
    MR. RENTOULsaid, the hon. Member had referred to the state of Ireland after the Union, referring to the large increase of Debt for which Ireland was liable, and some of his remarks were received with laughter by hon. Gentlemen who, probably, had not studied the question as deeply as the hon. Member had done. The hon. Member was decidedly correct in a great deal he had said; but he had left out of count why it was that the Debt of Ireland had increased at that time. The hon. Member had subsequently indicated that, to his mind, it would not have been relevant to have brought before the House what was
    706
    the state of the case at that time. Another hon. Member had referred to the enormous cost of the defence of this Realm during the Napoleonic Wars, and the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) had said—"What had we to do with that? We gained nothing by it." That brought out as forcibly as anything could bring out what they had repeatedly asserted—namely, that down to the present moment there had not been displayed by gentlemen from Ireland any particular interest in the honour and well-being and upstanding of England. When the hon. Member who was speaking at the time said—"The money was spent to protect you as part of the United Kingdom," the hon. Member for North Dublin said that the people who most wanted to be protected at that time were the people of England. If that was the view of the hon. Member and his Party, they certainly had not risen to the height of being strong supporters of the United Kingdom, or of the British Empire generally. But the hon. Member had spoken of Ireland having been robbed in the past. He had said—"Anything you give to us now will be only a fair set-off and reprisal for what has taken place in the past." It was remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in answering the Amendment, should have passed over that observation without a single remark, because if robbery was committed the Prime Minister for 40 years had been more responsible for it than any other living man. The Opposition, however, did not desire to allow the observation to pass; for the simple reason that if they did it would be used against them with considerable force. There was an immense amount of exaggeration about the wrongs which had been perpetrated by England against Ireland in the past, and when they asked hon. Gentlemen who made the assertion to descend to particulars they found that those particulars were remarkably shadowy, and that the greatest difficulty was experienced in supporting them. At the time of the Union Ireland had a population amounting to a little over one-third of the population of the United Kingdom. The contributions from different parts of the United Kingdom at that time were divided into

    707
    l7ths. Ireland bad to 2-17ths and Great Britain 15-l7ths. If the populations had been what they were now, the ease would have been very different; but hon. Gentlemen, when they spoke of Ireland's contribution at the time of the Union arid of the various calculations and fixtures that were made at that time, always markedly abstained from stating the relative populations in those days. He objected to the Amendment, not because he should think it unwise if Home Rule were carried—for if Home Rule were adopted he should believe in Ireland getting all she could out, of England—but he objected to it because of the argument that it was warranted by the robbery of Ireland by England in the past. As he could not agree with the hon. Member in this, he could not support the Amendment. Bur he liked the Amendment from another point of view—that was to say, because it would be one of the best platform arguments they could have. Nothing would weigh more strongly with the people of this country than to tell them that all that had been said in the past about getting rid of the cost of Irish police and light railways, and of doles and sops, was a fiction. He would neither vote for the Amendment nor against it, and he should, therefore, leave it to its fate.
    MR. SEXTON: It is a little late in the day for the hon. Member who has just sat down to profess any concern for the future prosperity of England. Yesterday the Leader of the Irish Unionist Party, the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson), declared that he did not care a farthing whether the contribution to Imperial charges was paid at all by Ireland if Home Rule was granted, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Carson) has declared that he would be loyal to England only so long as England was loyal to him. Before the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Dublin appeared upon the Paper, I had put down an Amendment to add to the end of the sub-section the following:—
    "Provided that if in any year the balance remaining out of the residue of the General
    708
    Revenue of Ireland and the Miscellaneous Revenue of Ireland connected with the Civil charges after payment of charges, existing or creative, in pursuance of this Act. including all charges for police, is less than £500,000, the difference shall he deducted from the contribution of Ireland's liabilities and expenditure, and paid into the Irish Exchequer as parts of the Special Revenue of Ireland."
    That Amendment was one which applied itself precisely to the subject. It only asked that if in any year when the charges which now exist, and which you have created, or the charges which you are about to create after the passing of this Act, were paid, less than £500,000 remained, that the difference, and no more, should be paid out of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom. I think that suggestion was in line with the fundamental idea of the Prime Minister on the question of finance—namely,, that Ireland should have a free £500,000. If an opportunity had been afforded to me to submit my Amendment to the House I think I could have made a case upon it, and in that case I should have thought it my duty to challenge the decision of the House. The hon. Member put down an Amendment in an earlier line of the clause, and thereby obtained priority over my Amendment by one of simpler form, but one which, as the Debate has shown, exposes itself to criticisms of a damaging kind. If the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman were carried the sub-section would read in those terms—
    "Whenever the surplus available for the Irish Government amounts to not less than £500,000 one-third part of the General Revenue of Ireland should be paid into the Exchequer of the United Kingdom."
    I am bound to say that, as the Amendment stands, it is open to unanswerable objections. The first is, that the Amendment is in no sense defined; and if in any year of the six, including the transitional term, the Irish Government, no matter what expenditure they might make not contemplated by the Act, it might still be claimed that they should be entitled to have a surplus of £500,000. It is obvious, I think, that such, a contention could not be maintained before the electors of the United Kingdom. In the second place, the effect of the Amendment would be that whilst in any year if £500,000 remained after all the out-

    709
    goings of the Irish Government had been paid, then a contribution would be paid to the Imperial Revenue; but if there was not £500,000 in the Irish purse after all charges had been paid, then there could be no contribution, because the hon. Gentleman will see that he makes no provision for a case in which there was not a surplus of £500,000; and if this surplus was less than that amount in any one year there would be no provision for the contribution to the Imperial Revenue, and therefore no contribution. Such an Amendment could not be seriously considered. In fact, he had been warned by several gentlemen above the Gangway that, this Amendment would offer the best platform argument that the Tory Party could possess. I do not feel that I could support any Amendment that I could not support as well before the British electors as in Ireland as being a just proposal, just to one country as to the other; and in this view I offer the hon. Gentleman the advice not to challenge a, Division on his Amendment. As the question is before the Committee, and as the Prime Minister has said that in his judgment Ireland ought to have a free £500,000 after the discharge of her present engagements, or engagements created by the Act, I take this opportunity of showing how unjust I think it that in the course of this discussion, and in the course of this Debate to-night, reference should be made to charity, to gifts, and to British gold. I tell the Committee that British gold is not concerned in the question. We are dealing here with Irish money. We are dealing with the disposition of Revenue raised from the people of Ireland, and raised from the people of Ireland alone, and in spite of all that has been said as to the revision of taxation and the increase of the burden of Ireland, I say no such question as the revision of taxation is raised or is raisable by the Bill. The only question is, there being a Revenue of £7,000,000 in Ireland upon which you have created charges of £5,000,000, what are you going to do with regard to the £2,000,000 that remain? There is no larger or more general question in the Bill before us at present. The £7,000,000 of Irish Revenue passes into the Imperial purse, and after you have discharged the local charges of the Government in
    710
    Ireland there remains a, sum of £2,000,000 which you have to apply in aid of Imperial charges, and the question now is, should you continue to apply the whole of that £2,000,000 to Imperial charges, or should you make the Irish Government some allowance in respect of the new charges which, as I submit, are created by the act? We have been told by hon. Members, and especially by the Members for Islington and Bordesley, that they are prepared to go to the constituencies and tell them that each constituency in this country will lose from £1,000 to £4,000 a year by the scheme. I submit that Great Britain will not lose 1d. by the scheme, but that the quota of the Government, which is intimately connected with the surplus, will give Great Britain every 1d. she receives at the present, and will, at the same time, relieve Great Britain from risks and liabilities which are incidental to the continuance of the Imperial system. I think it of importance that this should be clearly understood, and I will give the Committee in about one minute some simple figures, as to which I challenge contradiction, and which I am prepared to maintain hereafter in any constituency in the country. I take the last three years, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has taken a leading part in this financial matter, I beg to submit these figures to him for consideration and review. I refer to the official accounts, and I say that they show that the surplus of the Empire from Irish Revenue for 1890–1 was £2,254,000. The error in the Irish Revenue had not then been discovered, and it appears from that error that the Revenue of Ireland was £360,000 a year less than was supposed. I do not take off that £360,000: but as the amount of the error in 1891–2 was £370,000,1 apply that to 1890–1. I deduct that, and I find the surplus available for Imperial charges from Ireland for 1890–1 to be £1,934,000: in 1891–2 the surplus was £1,832,000; and for 1892–3, ending March 31st, the surplus was £2,102,000. I take together the surplus for the three years, and it amounts to £5,860,000, which gives an average surplus derived by the Imperial Exchequer out of the Revenue of Ireland for the last three years of £1,950,000 a

    711
    year. The Committee, and I hope the country, will bear in mind that the actual gain to the Imperial Exchequer from Ireland for the last three years was £1,750,000 a year, and all thoughtful men will agree with me that a result drawn from the average of three years is more trustworthy than if it is based on one. What is proposed to be given by this scheme? By the scheme the Government propose that the Imperial Exchequer should receive from Ireland £2,280,000 a year—that is to say, £330,000 a year more than you are able to take from Ireland under the present system, when you have every penny of the Irish Revenue in your own hands; when you have in your own hands the local charge, and when you have absolute power to determine what surplus you should take. Therefore, I submit that you will receive from Ireland by the Act £330,000 a year more than you receive at present. If the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Bartley) or the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley (Mr. J. Collings) dares to go to his constituents and tell them any such ridiculous fable as that they are going to lose £1,000 or £4,000 a year by reason of this arrangement, I have only to tell them that we can go to their constituencies as well as they; that a, very plain tale will put them down, and that they will not promote their return to this House at the General Election by attempting to mislead the public mind by laying before their constituencies on an important public question a statement which can so easily be disproved. I pass to the next point of my contention, that even after making allowance for the contribution which you make towards the cost of the Police, you still retain as much for Imperial Revenue as you receive at the present moment. Considering the nature of the Police Force of Ireland, considering how you organised it upon a scale proportionate to your Imperial wealth and not to our island poverty; considering how you used it not for the good of the people, but to prop a class, to extort unparalleled rents even to the beggary and banishment of the people—I say it would have been nothing wonderful if those who caused the enlistment of that Force had determined to bear the whole cost of the winding up and dissolution of that Force,
    712
    especially as Ireland has to bear the charge of raising her own Police Force. But you do not. You say, "We bear one-third and you bear two-thirds." Very well, what charge do you bear? £480,000 a year, and the charge will be a, diminishing charge. If we assume, as is intended, that the organisation of the new Force and the reduction of the old one shall proceed on a regular and even course throughout the transitional period of six years, that charge of £480,000 will diminish in the sixth to £240,000. The average charge for the six years will be about £320,000 a year, and taking that £320,000 from the £2,280,000 which is to be the quota, we reach this conclusion—and I challenge anyone to contradict if—that we will pay for the six years, even after allowing for the charge for Police, £196,000 a year, whilst what you received for the last three years was £1,950,000. Therefore, let no one say that the charge for Police is a gift. It is nothing of the kind, for you have taken good care in drawing up this plan that, even when you have paid the charge for the Police, you receive a little more than you have received from Ireland under your own Administration for the last three years.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The President of the Local Government Board has said it is a gift.
    MR. SEXTON: I have a great respect for the admissions of any right hon. Gentleman, no matter on whatever Bench he sits; but even respect for the admission of a Member of the Government cannot alter the force of facts. Can any right hon. Gentleman on either Bench get up and challenge these figures?
    MR. GOSCHEN: I challenge them.
    MR. SEXTON: Very well, get up and tell the reason, and I will sit down. I will stand by these figures hero, or in St. George's, or in Islington, or Bordesley, or in any other constituency where any gentleman will say that Ireland is benefitting by this arrangement. Instead of that, the United Kingdom, whilst professing to give a gift in aid of the Police, has retained every penny that with the utmost skill she is able to get out of Ireland, having the management of the Irish Revenue altogether in her own hands. Nevertheless, this arrange-

    713
    ment might serve under two conditions: First, if the Police were to continue as at present; and, secondly, if no now changes were created. But what is the case in regard to the Police Force? I know that no man in the House is filled with greater anxiety than the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in regard to the results of this Police finance, he knows it involves an enormous, undefinable, and I may say immeasurable, burden. I have endeavoured to measure it, and what is the conclusion at which I have arrived? The full sum placed in the Irish Budget for the service of the Police is £970,000; and unless Ireland can keep all her Police charges within that sum for every year of the six she will have to encroach upon the surplus. I see the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler) present. There is no more accomplished financier in the country than the right hon. Gentleman, and I know he will confirm me in saying that unless Ireland can bear the whole of the charges for the Police out of that £970,000 he must encroach on the surplus. [Mr. H. H. FOWLER: Hear, hear!] What are the charges on this £790,000? At first there is £360,000 for pensions. Ireland under the scheme pays two-thirds, or £230,000 for present pensions. Deduct that from £970,000 and £740,000 is left for the actual charge. Out of that Ireland must raise her own Police Force. The Prime Minister fixed the cost of that at £600,000, and I believe it will not be a penny less. Making allowance for the present circumstances of Ireland, and the difference of opinion that prevails in some districts, and making allowance also for the unfortunate influence of precedent which you have created in influencing the pay of the new Force, I do not believe if will be possible for many years to come to maintain a Force of the most moderate number consistent with Irish wants for less than £600,000 a year. Deduct that from £740,000, and only £140,000 is left for Ireland to meet the whole; of the future pension charge created by the Schedule of the right hon. Gentleman. What will be the amount of that pension charge? The present charge for pay and allowance is £1,050,000; a year. The
    714
    right hon. Gentleman has proposed to carry in the Bill a, Schedule by which every member of the Police Force will be entitled—even if he joins the local force in Ireland—to 1-50th of his pay for each year of service, and to his actual years of service 10 years have to be added. I put the average service of the Irish Police at 15 years. The average, then, that each man will take will be 25-50ths of his pay, 15-50ths for his actual service, and 10 for the added years. He will be entitled, therefore, to take one-half of his pay as pension, so that the pension charge about to be created, apart from the present pension charge, is £525,000, of which Ireland must pay two-thirds, or £350,000. Put the balance left is only £140,000, and, therefore, there is a. difference of £210,000 that must come out of the surplus of £500,000. What, then, becomes of the free £500,000? It is almost half gone for the Police alone. It may be said that this charge will only accrue at. the end of six years, but observe that the reduction of the Constabulary cannot begin until Ireland has begun the organisation of her new Force, and it cannot proceed except in proportion as the new Force is created, I while the Constabulary Force cannot be dissolved until the new Force is complete. For every £100 you take off the Constabulary charge in the balance-sheet of Ireland that country will have to incur £80 for every member of the new Force and £50 for the pension of every member of the old one; and, therefore, in order to reduce the charge in the balance-sheet by £100 Ireland will have to incur £130 of a new charge. Let us assume that the reduction of the Constabulary goes on at an even rate for the whole six years, which means that £120,000 a year is taken off the charge. In order to take off £120,000 of this charge you must incur a deficit of £36,000. For the first year of the provisional period you will I have a deficiency of £36,000; for the I second year you will have one of twice £36,000; for the third year one of three times £36,000, and so on, until in the final year it will be £210,000. I ask any Liberal Member listening to me to say whether he understood when the Prime Minister told us we were to have a free £500,000 for the purposes of Ire-

    715
    land, that a Police scheme, of which we then knew nothing, would be brought in, the effects of which would bean increased deficiency, ranging from £36,000 in the first year to £210,000 in the sixth, every penny of which would come out of the free £500,000? I have said there was one other condition on which the plan might be possible, and that is that there should be no new charges. But have Members realised for a moment that there are new charges not included in this balance-sheet which are imposed on Ireland by the Bill? It is upon this balance-sheet that the surplus of Ireland depends, and the balance-sheet is full of chances. The Revenue may go down. It went down last year, and is going down still further this year. Civil government charges may go up. All this may decrease the surplus even upon the balance-sheet: but I go outside the balance-sheet, and I say, without reference to it, that there are six charges placed upon Ireland any one of which may seriously invade the surplus. May I recite them? First, there is the Post Office. I know there is a deficiency of £50,000 placed in the balance-sheet; but the Post Office Estimate is increased by £30,000 for the present year, and that will be charged to Ireland in addition to the deficiency charged in the balance-sheet. In the second place, Ireland is to be responsible for all the charges on the Church Fund, and last year the rental income of the Church Fund was less than the expenditure by £50,000. If that should happen in coming years the Irish surplus would have to make it good. In the third place, Ireland is to be responsible for any deficiency in connection with land purchase, and in the event of the occurrence of one bad season, and still more in tin; event of two, that might be a serious liability. In the fourth place, Ireland is made liable for an annuity of 4 per cent, on the whole amount of Treasury loans outstanding. They amount to £8,000,000 upon a total of £40,000,000. You have had to remit £10,000,000 out of the total of £40,000,000. With regard to the £8,000,000, Ireland will have to pay £820,000 a year. In one branch alone there was a, deficit of £40,000 from railways in the last three years; and if the Irish Government is unable to collect the full amount, it will be obliged to pay the
    716
    amount of the deficit from the surplus. In the fifth place, you propose to lend no more money to Ireland. Again, should there be a loss on Irish Revenue, you will only have to bear one-third instead of the whole. You will receive from Ireland an annuity of 4 per cent, on all outstanding loans instead of being obliged to remit them as uncollected. You will avoid all special grants to Ireland, which amounted on an average to £250,000 a I year for the last 40 years. The refusal to lend any more money involves a very serious consideration for every Irishman, and I think it is also a very serious consideration for Englishmen in regard to the stability of the Government that you mean to create. If you cease to lend money in Ireland for public purposes, for the purposes of landlords and tenants, or for the various public institutions of the country, the Irish Government in the first year of its existence will be face to face with the necessity, out of their own limited credit, without any assistance from Great Britain, of by some means or another establishing a, credit out of which they can lend £500,000 a year. In order to borrow money you must have credit, and in order to have credit you must have a surplus of Income over Expenditure. I point out in no captious or querulous spirit, but in a spirit of reasonable suggestion, that these various charges laid on Ireland by the Act may so encroach on the surplus as to deprive us of that reasonable hope of financial stability which every thoughtful Irishman must consider to be of the first necessity in contemplating the future of his country. I submit to the Prime I Minister that the free £500,000 which he; desires Ireland should have for her purposes for the cost of Government and for the passing of ameliorative measures respecting the condition of the people will not be available if there be a, deficiency caused by the cost of the Police to the extent, as I have shown, of £36,000 in the first year and £210,000 in the sixth. It will be endangered by the several charges I have recited, and the result left in my mind after the most serious contemplation is that I am unable to determine whether this surplus will be available to the Irish Government. I do not wish to press the matter further at the present stage. If I bad an opportunity

    717
    of moving my Amendment I should have ventured to press it, but I do not think the Amendment of the lion. Gentleman raises the question in a form which I can support. It is open to two objections; First, it does not define the surplus; and, secondly, it is open to the objection that if there was no surplus in any year there would be no contribution to the Imperial Revenue at all. I could not support any Amendment of that kind, for I am determined to take a high ground of equity in the matter. I could not support any Amendment which I could not recommend as just, not only to the electors of Ireland, but also to the electors of Great Britain, upon whose judgment the final decision of this question must rest. I think those who have heard me will agree that I have endeavoured to address myself to this question in a reasonable spirit. [Ministerial cheers.] I am glad of that expression of sympathy from hon. Members opposite, and I rely on the Liberal Party, and especially on the Prime Minister, even at this late stage, in view of the fact that, even after the Police allowance you will receive from Ireland as much as you do at present—to consider whether by some modifications of the Police arrangements, by some limited guarantee of a surplus for purposes connected with the passage of the Act, he could not afford some reasonable prospect of that stability in the Irish Government which is the first condition of government, and which I am sure, whatever may be thought on this side of the House, every friend of the Home Rule policy would desire.
    MR. DARLINGsaid, lie hoped no one would accuse him of being the Devil's Advocate. He had not intended to take part in the Debate except to defend the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government against himself. In that respect he was quite willing to assume for the moment the part of the Devil's Advocate. The right hon. Gentleman had been charged with being a robber—which he (Mr. Darling) should not have thought strictly Parliamentary—and with having been engaged in robbery from his entrance into public life down to 1886, and to have been assisted in that by persons who
    718
    were characterised by their smug hypocrisy. The Prime Minister was accused of being a robber because he extended the Income Tax to Ireland, and also because he increased the Spirit Duties payable on Irish spirits when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer in the year 1853. Now it appeared, according to the hon. Member for North Dublin, that this was robbery. When the Prime Minister made his proposal in 1853 he was attacked by the Irish Members. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman had always been attacked by the Irish Members down to 1886, and probably he would be again after the present Bill had been rejected. In the course of the Debate in 1853 the right hon. Gentleman was attacked by the Irish Members on account of the increase of the Spirit Duty, and in his defence he protested against the reckoning the imposition of an additional duty upon spirits as if it were something to be brought to account between Ireland and England. But it was brought to account that very day. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say he denied that it was to be set down as a burden inflicted upon Ireland; for if Ireland with a population of 5,000,000 or 7,000,000 felt aggrieved by paying £190,000 on spirits, he did not know what they would say to poor Scotland which was relieved from no consolidated annuities at all, although they were going to ask from Scotland, with a population of only 3,000,000, the sum of £270,000. He also denied that it was amongst the rights of man that an Irishman should be allowed to intoxicate himself for 2s. 4d. a gallon, whereas the Englishman could not do it under 7s. 10d. It was, he further added, an utterly unreasonable thing to take any such view as that the additional Spirit Duty was a wrong inflicted upon Ireland. Yes, but that was the view taken now by the right hon. Gentleman's own supporters—by a dozen of them, if not by 80. In the same Debate the right hon. Gentleman said very much to the same effect in dealing with the question of the Income Tax. The whole of the present Debate had turned upon these two questions of the Spirit Duty and the Income Tax. England was the robber because it extended the Income Tax to Ireland and increased the Spirit Duty payable by

    719
    Ireland when the right hon. Gentleman was Chancellor of the Exchequer. That was the head and front of the offence of England. Now, if he (Mr. Darling) belonged to a thin-skinned people—to a people who did not like to be commended for their eloquence if they did not exactly like the term in which it was expressed—he should object to the nation to which he belonged being called a nation of robbers. Although he was nearly as pure a Scotchman as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) opposite, the one drop of English blood which everyone had in himself, except the right hon. Gentleman, would revolt at being told he belonged to a nation of robbers, and being told that upon the strength of what the right hon. Gentleman did in 1853. It would be remembered that the Act of Union was stated in the Debate that day to have been one of the injustices to Ireland, and the arrangements under that Act were put forward as a continuance of financial injustices. On the occasion of the Debate in 1853 the present Prime Minister said, in defending the extension of the Income Tax to Ireland—
    "It was rather remarkable that the proceedings relating to the Act of Union, which had occurred in the interval, should have been allowed to drop entirely out of sight. They had been told it was a very haul case that Ireland should pay £4,000,000, or, as one hon. Gentleman said, £5,000,000, towards the general Revenue of the Empire. That was said to be a very hard case, and Ireland, it was added, would have been much better off if her financial concerns had been kept entirely separate from those of the United Kingdom."
    That was exactly what was said by the Member for North Dublin—that Ireland would have been better off if she had been allowed to keep her financial concerns entirely to herself, and yet the right hon. Gentleman did not feel inclined to get up to-day to contradict what was said against his own finance, on the pretext that he had not time. He would not say by whose fault it was he had not time. He (Mr. Darling) had been brought up in a school where hon. Gentlemen opposite had not studied, where it was taught that a man might not take advantage of his own wrongs. But that was what the right hon. Gentleman now sought to do. The right hon. Gentleman had not had time to make a defence to-
    720
    day, but in 1853 he made a defence in which he emphatically denied that Ireland was unjustly taxed for the sake of England, but quite the contrary, and he showed there was no hardship whatever in her ease. That was what the right hon. Gentleman said in 1853 when he dared to say anything; would he dare to say anything different now?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: We have spent an interesting evening in the discussion of this financial question, initiated, I think, almost entirely by the Irish Members. Sir, no doubt the Irish Members have a full right to be heard upon a matter which is to them of interest and considerable importance. I do not think they will be prepared to say that even now, after the opportunity which has been afforded them, they have nearly exhausted what they have to say on the subject, and yet in a few minutes the guillotine will descend upon friend and foe alike—upon Irish eloquence as well as upon that which proceeds from Unionist sources. As to the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, I think he himself must have become convinced that it is an impossible one. Its object we all understand. It is to secure to Ireland a free surplus of £500,000, whether Ireland is extravagant and spends more than she ought to spend; whether the Revenue of the United Kingdom—and, of course, he Revenue of Ireland with it—diminishes, and thereby lessens the balance: in cither of these cases it is to the British pocket that the hon. Gentleman looks to make up the amount. And, Sir, as has been pointed out even by his Friend the hon. Member for North Kerry, he will not adequately secure his object by the Amendment upon the Paper. The hon. Member for North Kerry—who, I observe, invariably puts down a competitive Amendment whenever any Member of the other section of the Irish Party intervenes in the discussion—the hon. Member from North Kerry has an Amendment of his own which, curiously enough, he defers—
    MR. CLANCY: The Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry was put down before mine.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I quite understand that the competition proceeded from the hon. Member.
    MR. CLANCY: We announced this Amendment through the mouth of I he hon. and learned Member for Waterford on the very first night that the new financial plan was stated to the House.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is certainly a humorous politician. He interrupts me, in the first place, to say that the hon. Member for North Kerry had precedence of him; and he interrupts me, in the second place, to say that he was first in the field. I do not think that it matters much, but it all goes to support my opinion that whenever any Member of either section of the Nationalist Party puts down an Amendment a, Member of the other section hastens to put down another. The Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry, which is directed to the same object, would undoubtedly achieve it more satisfactorily; but we have not, thanks to the Government, time for its discussion. If we had, I would venture to propose an Amendment to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry, and whereas he proposes that whenever the surplus—over which the Irish Government will have large, if not entire, control—sinks below—500,000 the deficiency shall be made up by the British Exchequer, I would propose that whenever the surplus exceeds £500,000 the balance should go to the British taxpayer. But, as I have said, we have not time to discuss this most interesting subject. Neither have I time to answer the hon. Member for North Kerry's bold challenge that his statements could not be disputed. He made a general statement concerning the finance which would have been more in place if it had been delivered on the Second Reading of the clause. Although his challenge was apparently addressed to us, it was really addressed to the Government Benches. His speech was a criticism of the finance of the Government, and went to show that the Government, like every preceding Government, was prepared to rob the Irish people. This was his statement, that the financial proposals of the Government were intolerable except under conditions
    722
    which the hon. Member showed were absent from this scheme. It is this statement that the financial scheme of the Government is robbery and intolerable that the hon. Member gallantly proposes to repeat before the constituents of the hon. Member for Islington and of the right hon. Member for Bordesley. Perhaps be will be kind enough, at the same time, to visit West Birmingham. I am sure he will have a reception worthy of his merit, and I will only ask, if he does accept my invitation, that when he makes this tremendous charge against the Government, whom 1 certainly shall not be there to defend, he will tell my constituents, at the same time, what he thinks of the finality of the Government's proposal. But, in answer to the whole contention of the hon. Member for North Kerry, I will say, without entering into figures, that be has entirely omitted to consider our arguments and views. We accept the statement of the Government that by this Bill they are giving, for a time at all events, a clear benefit of £500,000 a year to the Irish people. We are not satisfied with that statement, and we say that if there is to be a separation of interests—if there is to be a conclusion of the partnership which has been going on for more than 90 years—the sum which Ireland ought to pay is not the sum which she docs pay, hut a sum reckoned according to her taxable capacity. We say that the charge which will be put upon her by the Government scheme is £1,800,000 'less than she ought to pay, and upon that issue we intend to go to our constituents. [Interruption.] We are approaching the end of all things, and I notice that hon. Members are even impatient in regard to the few minutes which still remain before 10 o'clock is reached. [Cries of "No!" and, cheers.] I am thankful for hon. Members' courtesy, and I will endeavour to occupy these few minutes to their profit and to my pleasure. We have come, at all events, to the last scene in what I think I may call the discreditable farce to which the Government have reduced the proceedings of the mother of Parliaments, and it is to us not the least matter of regret that this position should have been reached by the action of one whom we are all ready to recognise as one of the greatest of Parliamentary

    723
    figures. What is the situation? We have been discussing the financial relations between the two countries. There could not be a matter of greater importance and interest to the people—to the taxpayers of this country. It interests the British people to know how much they are expected to pay for creating a system of Home Rule for Ireland, and here is a curious fact. Throughout these proceedings upon the financial scheme not one single Amendment has been put upon the Paper in the name of any supporters of the Government. There are Amendments down, and many of them in the names of Irish Members who are considering—and rightly considering—the interests of their constituents and country, but not one of the British supporters of the Government has found in his heart to put down an Amendment to protect his constituents or to protect his country. What is the reason for that? The reason, of course, is that hon. Members behind the Government think that these proposals are absolutely satisfactory; they think that they are perfect and cannot be improved. [Mr. ROBY: Under the circumstances.] Under the circumstances, says the hon. Member! It would be difficult to improve them in five minutes. They think that, under the circumstances, the proposals of the Government cannot lie improved. Yes; but they thought that the last scheme was perfect and could not be improved. They think every scheme, as it successively proceeds from the fertile brain of the Prime Minister, is perfect and cannot be improved under the circumstances. That has been their attitude with regard to the whole of this Bill, which has been changed again and again in the course of the last few weeks. It is not the same as it was when they agreed with enthusiasm—under the circumstances—to the Second Beading. Since then the most important, the most, vital question of all—the question of the retention of the Irish Members—has been changed and changed in a way directly opposite to the pledge—the promise—which was given to the constituencies of this country by the Prime Minister himself. ["No, no!" and cheers.] What is the use of hon. Members saying "No"? I have quoted the words of the
    724
    Prime Minister, uttered in the course of a speech at Manchester, when he said—
    "I will never"—that was, under the circumstances—"I will never be a party to giving a domestic Legislature to Ireland and to allowing the Irish Members to come here to interfere with English and Scotch affairs."
    I say that this Bill has been changed in its most vital features, and yet it has always been found perfect by hon. Members behind the Treasury Bench. The Prime Minister calls "black," and they say, "it is good": the Prime Minister calls "white," and they say "it is better." It is always the voice of a god. Never since the time of Herod has there been such slavish adulation. [Cheers, cries of"Progress!" and "Judas!"]
    It being Ten of the clock, the Chairman, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 30th June, interrupted the Debate and put the Question on the Amendment forthwith:—
    Amendment proposed, in line 21, before the words "One-third," to insert the words "Whenever the surplus available for the Irish Government amounts to not less than five hundred thousand pounds."—(Mr. Clancy.)
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee proceeded to a Division, and the Tellers were named; for the Ayes Mr. Clancy and Mr. William Redmond; for the Noes Mr. Marjoribanks and Mr. Thomas Ellis.
    MR. VICARY GIBBS(seated with his hat on)said: Mr. Mellor, I draw your attention to a point of Order. An hon. Member called out "Judas!" [Interruption.] It was the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool. [Interruption.] Mr. Mellor—["Order!"]—Mr. Mellor, he cried out "Judas!" [Cries of "Order!" and great confusion.]
    THE CHAIRMAN (rising): Order, order!
    MR. VICARY GIBBS: Mr. Mellor, the hon. Member for the Scotland Division called out "Judas! Judas!" ["Order!" and interruption.] I move that his words be taken down.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The expression did not reach my ears. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"]
    MR. VICARY GIBBS: It reached mine, and I move that it he taken down. [Cries of "Name!"]
    Mr. HANBURY: It does not matter, Mr. Mellor, whether you hoard it or not.
    THE CHAIRMANagain put the Question, and Members rose to leave the House, there being meanwhile considerable excitement, noise, and disorder.
    An hon. Member on the Opposition side of the House, addressing hon. Members seated near him, said, "Don't move."
    MR. HANBURY (seated, and with his hat on): I beg to ask yon, Mr. Mellor, whether you distinctly refuse to put that Question on the ground that you did not hear the expression? [Interruption, and cries of "Name!"]
    MR. VICARY GIBBS: I ask you, Mr. Mellor, with all respect, that you put the Motion which I have made.
    [The hon. Member for St. Albans then approached the Table, and held a conversation with the Chairman.]
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Mr. Mellor, I call your attention to Rule 289.
    MR. HANBURY: Mr. Mellor, are the words taken down?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR (seated, with his hat on)said: Mr. Mellor—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The doors must be opened.
    The Chairman directed the words to be taken down, and left the Chair to report them to the House.
    The House resumed.
    Whereupon,
    THE CHAIRMAN, addressing the Speaker, said: Certain words were alleged to have been uttered by an hon. Member, but I did not hear them. I understand that a Motion was made by the hon. Member for St. Albans that
    726
    the words be taken down at the Table. Owing to the noise, I could not hear what he said. Afterwards he came to the Table and repeated his Motion and the words, and I ordered the words to lie taken down, as he stated they were used. I cannot report, of my own knowledge, by whom the words were uttered.
    MR. SPEAKER (addressing Mr. Vicary Gibbs): Does the hon. Member complain of any words having been used?
    MR. VICARY GIBBS: Yes, Sir. I complain that again and again, in a loud and an insulting voice, the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool cried "Judas! Judas! Judas!" addressing the words to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who was then addressing the Committee. I may also say that I hoard the hon. Member for Louth call upon the hon. Member for the Scotland Division not to continue in that disorderly way, so that there can be no mistake on my part as to what occurred.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to corroborate the hon. Member. I heard the hon. Member for the Scotland Division make use of the words mentioned, and I rose to call the attention of the Chairman to the language.
    MR. HANBURY: Mr. Speaker, I also heard distinctly the hon. Member for the Scotland Division repeat these words four times.
    Mr. DALZIEL: Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask you whether, the Chairman having stated that the words in question did not reach his ears, it is now possible to take action?
    MR. SPEAKER: We have got past any technicalities. Three hon. Members have stated that they heard the words I would, therefore, ask the hon. Member for the Scotland Division whether he used those words or not, and I am sure I can rely upon his honour to say whether he did or not?
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask whether the immediate cause of your having' been brought into the Chair was that after the House had been cleared for a Division, hon. Gentlemen refused to participate in the Division—[Cries of "No!" and "Yes!"]—I bog to ask whether, until the question of a Division has first been cleared away, we can enter into the original cause of the disorder; and whether the Chairman, having given a ruling that the House was to be cleared, and hon. Gentlemen having refused to clear the House, that is not the immediate matter before the House?
    MR. SPEAKER: As to the immediate matter of my being sent for, I knew nothing until I was sent, for. The Chairman has made a statement that a complaint was made of words having been used which I understand were the cause of some disturbance. [Cries of "No, no!" and "Yes, yes!"] Then there is no reason why I should have been sent for unless a disturbance arose. I understand the disturbing cause was that some opprobrious word had been used by some hon. Member in the House. [Cries of "No, no!"] Then I must appeal to the Leaders of the House to tell me what did happen.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Mr. Speaker, an appeal from you cannot possibly be disregarded by me, but I am sorry to say I can contribute little information, neither my ears nor my eyes having enabled me to give a distinct and clear account of what did occur. Unquestionably the proceedings usual before a Division on the part of the Chairman of Committees did take place. When the Question was first put a cry of the "Noes have it" proceeded from an hon. Member below the Gangway. After an interval—I imagine a proper interval—the Question was again put finally, and orders were given by the Chairman, as it appeared to mo in a regular manner, that the respective Parties should withdraw, a cry having been again raised that the "Noes have it" by the same hon. Member. The Chairman of Committees ap-
    728
    peared to me to go through these proceedings with perfect regularity; but, undoubtedly, they were constantly accompanied by an amount of uproar such as rendered it, I think, quite impossible for him and myself, and, I imagine, for most of us, to give any account of what was going on. A bye incident had been raised on the Bench opposite to me, to which I need not, perhaps, refer, as it appears to have been entirely separate from the main proceedings. [Cries of "No!"] By the apparent eagerness and anxiety of a gentleman opposite—the Member for the St. Albans Division of Hertfordshire (Mr. Vicary Gibbs)—it was evident that he wished to convey some communication to the Chairman of Committees; but it was impossible for him to do so, although he was backed by an hon. Gentleman sitting near him—the Member for Preston. Then, Sir, I am bound to say I am no witness—I am a more reporter—in adding that it was convoyed to me by one or more gentlemen that the original cause of the disturbance was the word to which you have referred and which the Chairman has reported to you—that while my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham was addressing the House, or towards the close of his speech, I do not exactly know which, the words "Judas, Judas!" were repeatedly and audibly used in reference to him, in a manner not mistaken, from which I presume in my own mind that a difficulty had arisen in the minds of some Members not upon the principle, but as to what ought to be done. I suppose the difficulty to be that some hon. Members thought that the question connected with the words used ought to be disposed of without reference to the Division, while others supposed that the Division ought to go forward in the regular manner, and that afterwards would be the time for dealing with the words alleged to have been used. This is but a lame and imperfect account, but it is the best I am able to give. I do not venture to speak as to the merits of the case, and the simple question is the question of Rule and Order, whether the Division should be concluded in compliance with the order of the Chairman, or whether the proceedings of a Division, having commenced, can be interrupted

    729
    for the purpose of dealing with the words addressed to my right hon. Friend?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. Speaker, in deference to the appeal which you have, I understand, made to the right hon. Gentleman and to myself, I have to say that my own personal cognisance of the incident which led to your being recalled to the Chair is confined to the fact that at the close of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham he was assailed by cries of "Judas! Judas!" proceeding from some gentlemen sitting in that quarter of the House [indicating the Nationalist Benches]. I have no cognisance or knowledge from whom those cries proceeded: but I was myself witness of the fact that the hon. Member for the St. Albans Division of Hertfordshire thereupon called the attention of the Chairman of Committees to the person, the Member of this House, from whom, as he believes, those cries proceeded. He called attention to them on a point of Order under the usual procedure. I, not intending to take part in the Division, was not present at the end of those proceedings, and my own personal knowledge does not extend beyond the incident to which I have just referred. I am informed—but of this I am only a, reporter of incidents which have come to mo by testimony and not by ocular evidence—that, after I had left the House for the purpose of letting the Division take its course without myself taking part in it, regrettable incidents occurred in this House, consequent, no doubt, upon the point raised by the hon. Member for the St. Albans Division. It was the opinion—as I understand, according to the Rules, the correct opinion—of those who raised this point of Order that it could not he decided after the Division was taken; and therefore those who desired to see it decided were under the necessity of waiting until yon, Sir, had been recalled to the Chair before the Division was taken, an 1 until you could give your ruling upon the point. That, I am given to understand, is the reason why there was some delay in clearing the House; but these matters, Mr. Speaker, for the reason I have stated, I do not speak of as an eye-witness, but only as one who
    730
    has endeavoured, to the best of his ability to collect from those who have seen a true account of what occurred.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I ask you, Sir, to request the Chairman of Committees to report to you what occurred.
    MR. SPEAKER: Anything which the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees may be willing to state I am sure the whole House will be pleased to hear.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. MELLOR,): Perhaps some hon. Gentlemen may not have heard what I did report. I will, therefore, report again—namely, first of all, that there was so much noise that I did not hear the expressions which have been referred to. In the next place, I saw the hon. Member for Hertfordshire endeavouring to attract my attention. I endeavoured to hear what he said, but could not on account of the noise. I asked if the hon. Member wished to make any Motion. Then another hon. Member, the Member for Preston, endeavoured to call my attention; but I could not hoar what he said, the noise was so great. Presently the hon. Member for Hertfordshire came to a place where I could hear, and moved that certain words be taken down. I informed him that I had not hoard the words, and could not tell from what quarter they proceeded; but, in accordance with the Rules, I ordered them to be taken down, and the Motion having been made, I sent for you, Sir, in order that I might make my report to the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: I am obliged to the two right hon. Gentlemen, the First Lord of the Treasury and the Leader of the Opposition, for the statements they have made, which have been supplemented by the Chairman of Committees. It appears that a point of Order did arise before the House was cleared for a, Division. It was the duty of the hon. Member to call at once the attention of the Chairman of Committees to what occurred, and it seems to me that what I stated at firs I was the right impression—

    731
    namely, that the originating cause of the disturbance was some opprobrious expression alleged to have been used, coming from a particular quarter of the House. I asked the lion. Member if those words had been used, and he says they were used, and his statement has been corroborated by several hon. Gentlemen. I am quite sure that if any hon. Member who did use those words in the heat of the moment, and in the irritation, perhaps, of circumstances, will simply state to the House that he regrets having used them—I am certain the House will think that it will be my duty to take no further notice of the incident, and to ask the House to proceed in an orderly course with the business before the House.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Mr. Speaker, I have not risen hitherto, because I did not wish to add by one moment to the scene of violence which I think we all regret. Two of my hon. Friends, one an English Member and the other an Irish Member, have been physically assaulted in the course of the discussion. Mr. Speaker, if in any way whatsoever any observation of mine may have contributed to bring about that most regrettable state of affairs, I most humbly apologise. [Cheers, and Opposition cries of "Withdraw!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: I hope I may appeal to the good sense and calmness of the House to regard what has been stated by the hon. Member as a sufficient indication of his feelings. If he has caused in any way any subsequent disturbance he regrets it, and he also regrets and apologises for, as I understand, the expression which he used. [Mr. T. P. O'Connor signified assent.] In my view that is an ample apology, such as I should have expected of the hon. Gentleman; and I hope the House, after what has passed, will, as I ventured to say a few minutes ago, in the interest of Debate, and in the higher interests of the character of this House, allow the regrettable incident to pass into oblivion, and will proceed with the rest of the business of this evening in a manner which will do honour to the traditions of
    732
    this House, and will not allow any enemies of our institutions to rejoice.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I regret, Sir, to feel it my duty to call attention to a circumstance which occurred after the event which we have just been considering. A disturbance was going on in front here, and a sudden charge was made by a number of hon. Members below the Gangway on to the seat on which I was sitting. I rose in my place, not desiring to be run over by the charge, and the hon. Member for the Ossory Division, without provocation at all, struck me a violent blow on the side of the head. [Nationalist cries of "No!" and Opposition cheers.] I feel it my duty to call your attention to that fact. I can only say that, so far as the hon. Member is concerned, I gave him no provocation. I never even saw the blow that was struck. When I turned round he was about to repeat it, and he struck mo from behind on the side of the head.
    MR. T. HARRINGTON, who rose amid loud cries of "Order!" said: I had left the House, in accordance with the Chairman's ruling, to take part in the Division. I had passed through the Division Lobby and recorded my vote, and was about to leave the House, when I heard the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill) appeal to some of his followers to leave the House and take part in the Division. On my return after recording my vote I saw the disturbance that took place. I heard the Serjeant appealing to hon. Members to leave the House. When I came here to assist the Serjeant in his endeavours—[laughter]—I think, Sir, notwithstanding the laugh, the Serjeant-at-Arms will bear me out—I distinctly saw the hon. Member who has just now complained, before he was struck, strike several hon. Members.
    MR. CONDON: After the apology of my hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Yard Division—[laughter]—I may say that when I heard the hon. Member for North Armagh stand up in his place and state that without the

    733
    slightest provocation the hon. Member for the Ossory Division of the Queen's County attacked and struck him, I am compelled, in the interests of fair play and truth, to stand up in my place and corroborate what was said by the hon. Member for the Harbour Division. When I came into the House after recording my vote, the first thing I saw was the hon. Member for North Armagh striking my hon. Friend (Mr. Crean) a blow in the face and attempting to strike him a second time, when two or three of his friends above the Gangway prevented him from doing so. He was struck without the slightest provocation.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONand other hon. Members rose.
    MR. SPEAKER: I do not desire to interrupt hon. Members, but I wish to say that any future inquiry as to what took place will apparently only reveal the fact that in the confused mélée criminations and recriminations took place between Members. I really think that in the interests of the dignity and honour of the House it would be well to let the matter rest where I left it. I have only to add that any breach of Order should be at once, then and there, brought to the notice of the Chairman of Committees, or, if I am in the Chair, to myself, and I am sure it will be dealt with. We cannot go back now, after some little time has elapsed, and inquire into all that took place. I do not attach blame to any Member. I only ask the House to allow the matter to drop in the interests of the dignity of the House.
    The Committee resumed.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Whereupon, in pursuance of the said Order of the 30th June, the Chairman proceeded to put successively the Questions on the new Clause under consideration, and on the remaining new Government Clauses, postponed Clauses, Schedules, and Preamble, as followeth:—
    Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 312; Noes 291.—(Division List, No. 243.)
    The Clerk at the Table read out: New Clause (As to Irish Consolidated Fund and special revenue).
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is "That the Clause be added to the Bill." [Cries of "Read it!"]
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No; do not read it.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to call your attention, Sir, to the fact that, as this clause has no number, no name, and no description, we do not at all know what it is, as it has not been read.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The clause has not been read a second time.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The clause is on the Notice Paper—it is set out on the Notice Paper, and, according to Rule, the Clerk at the Table read the title of the clause.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 321; Noes 288.—(Division list, No. 244.)
    Another Clause (Supplemental as to Local Taxation Accounts and other matters.—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)
    Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Another Clause (As to Irish Post Office revenue and expenditure.)—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)
    Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Another Clause (Definitions.)—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Postponed Clause 14.
    Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Postponed Clause 15.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 316; Noes 283.—(Division List, No. 245.)
    Postponed Clause 16.
    Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 313; Noes 280.—(Division List, No. 246.)
    Schedule 1.
    Question put, "That, this be the First Schedule of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 310; Noes 277.—(Division List, No. 247.)
    Schedule 2.
    Question put, "That this be the Second Schedule of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 290; Noes 273.—(Division List, No. 248.)
    Schedule 3.
    Question, "That this be the Third Schedule of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Schedule 4.
    Question, "That this be the Fourth Schedule of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Schedule 6.
    Question, "That this Schedule be a Schedule of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Schedule 7.
    Question put, "That this Schedule be a Schedule of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 299; Noes 268.—(Division List, No. 249.)
    New Schedule (Provisions as to Pensions and Gratuities to Persons in the Public Service.)—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    Question, "That this Schedule be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    New Schedule.

    PART I.
    Regulations as to establishment of Police Forces and as to the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police ceasing to exist.—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    Question put, "That this Schedule be added to the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 293; Noes 263.—(Division List, No. 250.)
    Preamble.
    Question put, "That this be the Preamble of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 291; Noes 261.—(Division List, No. 251.)
    Whereupon, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 30th June, the Chairman left the Chair and forthwith reported the Bill, as amended, to the House.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday 7th August, and to he printed. [Bill 428.]

PLUMBERS' REGISTRATION BILL.
Reported from the Standing Committee on Trade, &c.
Leave to the Committee to make a Special Report,
Special Report brought up, and read.
Reports to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 347.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed [No. 347.]

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILLS (JOINT COMMITTEE).
Statute Law Revision (No. 2) Bill [Lords]—reported from the Joint Committee.
Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 348.]
Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 348.]

GARVE AND ULLAPOOL RAILWAY BILL.
Ordered, That, in the case of the Garve and Ullapool Railway Bill, Standing Orders 84, 214, 215, and 239 be suspended, and that the Bill be now taken into consideration provided amended prints shall have been previously deposited.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
Bill considered.
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
Bill read the third time, and passed. [New Title.]

STANDING COMMITTEES (CHAIRMEN'S PANEL) (TRADE, &c).
Sir HENRY JAMESreported from the Chairmen's Panel; That they had appointed Sir John Gorst to act as Chairman of the Standing Committee for the consideration of Bills relating to Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, in the place of Mr. Stansfeld.
Report to lie upon the Table.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) (SWINE FEVER) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. H. Gardner, Bill to confer further powers under the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Acts, 1878 to 1892, with respect to Swine Fever, ordered to be brought in by Mr. H. Gardner, Mr. J. Morley, and the Lord Advocate.
Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 427.]

BARGE OWNERS, &c., LIABILITY (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 239.)
Order for resuming Adjourned Debate on Second Reading [29th April] read, and discharged.
Bill withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after One o'clock.