GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL. (No. 209.) (Hansard, 1 June 1893)

§ *THE CHAIRMAN
ruled that the following Amendment, which stood in the name of General Goldsworthy, was out of Order:— In Clause 8. page 1, line 22, after the second word "or," insert "the Secretary of State for Ireland so soon as he shall be appointed.

§ GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY (Hammersmith)
intimated that he should bring forward a New Clause dealing with the question.

§ MR. HANBURY (Preston)
had the following Amendment on the Paper:— In Clause 3, page 1, line 24, after "of war," insert "Provided always that nothing in this section shall prevent the passing of any Irish Act whenever such Act may be necessary to provide for the proportionate contribution of Ireland to Imperial liabilities arising from a state of war or exceptional preparation for war.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
Before the hon. Gentleman moves this Amendment, I would, with the leave of the House, like to make a suggestion. The object of the hon. Member is a perfectly good one, and the Government are quite ready to meet him; but there are two objections to the Amendment. The hon. Member begins by assuming that Ireland is to be liable for her share of war expenditure. The Government have already stated that in their view Parliament has the fullest right to impose on Ireland her share towards that expenditure; but the Irish Legislature ought to be left perfectly free as to the mode in which that liability is to be satisfied, and Ireland ought not to be disabled from raising money. We ought not, therefore, to rule that the war liabilities of Ireland are to be satisfied by the Irish Executive, and the question ought to be reserved for consideration until we come to the Financial Clauses. The object which the Government have in view is a perfectly legitimate one, and it ought to apply to all the reserved subjects. For the hon. Member's Amendment I propose to substitute the following, which I submit to him will meet the case. On page 2, at the end of the clause, to insert— Provided always that nothing in this section shall prevent the passing of any Irish Act for discharging airy liabilities imposed by Act of Parliament. That proposal is large and general; it excludes all the heads of the reserved subjects, and prevents any question as to the incapacity of the Irish Parliament to raise funds for any purpose.

§ MR. HANBURY
should be willing to meet the right hon. Gentleman as far as he could if what had been suggested would meet the purpose he had in view in drawing up the Amendment. But he thought the Leader of the House had misapprehended the gist of the Amendment. In the first place, he was of opinion that a bird in hand was worth more than two in the bush, and the Financial Clauses could not come on until a late period—in fact, they had some doubt whether they would come on at all. Again, as he had said, the right hon. Gentleman misapprehended the purpose of his proposal. The object of the Amendment was not to say that this extraordinary expenditure must necessarily be met by an Irish Act, but that 1813 it might, if necessary, be met by an Irish Act. The Bill did not allow any portion of that extraordinary expenditure to be met by an Irish Act. He could not agree with the further objection raised by the right hon. Gentleman—that this proviso ought to apply to all the subsections in this clause; but during the adjournment for dinner he would consult with the Leader of the Opposition, and would, when the Committee resumed, state the decision at which he arrived.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, he had had an opportunity of consulting the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) and the late Solicitor General (Sir E. Clarke), and they both agreed that the proposition which had been made fully carried out the object of his Amendment. He was perfectly willing to withdraw his Amendment and insert the words suggested at the end of the clause as follows:— Provided always that nothing in this section shall prevent the passing of any Irish Act for discharging any liabilities imposed by Act of Parliament.

§ *THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,) Forfar
said, he understood that these were the exact words used by the Prime Minister.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, he had the words in the handwriting of a Member of the Government.

§ MR. SEXTON
rose, but——

§ THE CHAIRMAN
There is nothing before the Committee.

§ MR. SEXTON
The Amendment.

§ *THE CHAIRMAN
The Amendment has not yet been moved. We have only heard a conversation, and it was not properly before the Committee.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, before the Amendment was withdrawn he should like a distinct answer as to the words of the Prime Minister. Were those words accepted or not?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
then road Mr. Hanbury's original Amendment.

§ SIR J. RIGBY
The words which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister proposed——

§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.),
on a point of Order, asked whether the Amendment ought not to be put in the first instance before discussion arose?

§ THE CHAIRMAN
did not reply.

§ SIR J. RIGBY
, rising again, gave way to.

§ MR. SEXTON
, who said, as he understood it, Ireland was to contribute under two heads—an ordinary contribution and a special contribution in the case of war. He wished to have it made clear that her liabilities would not be made greater by this Amendment or the words suggested in lieu of the Amendment. He would suggest that the words to be used should be—"To prevent any liabilities imposed by this Act." That would show that there was to be no increase in the liabilities by any other Act.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, he rose to a point of Order. He did not move the words now. They were to be moved at the end of the clause, and he apprehended any discussion now was out of Order He had a distinct pledge from the Government.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
That is quite right. The hon. Member wishes, then, to withdraw his Amendment?

§ MR. HANBURY
said, yes; but it would bee taken—the words would be inserted—at the end of the clause upon the sub-section.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, he would like, before they passed from the subject, to hear the views of the Solicitor General and the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the words proposed by the hon. Member for Preston, and the statement he had just made regarding them. The words seemed to him to carry an extension of the liabilities proposed by the Bill. They were entitled to know whether Ireland was to contribute under two heads—an ordinary contribution and a special one in time of war? His object was to ensure that the liabilities would not be increased.

MR. J. MORLEY
Whatever the agreement arrived at, it took place when I was not present.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The only question now before the Committee is that the Amendment be withdrawn, and it is not proposed to move any further Amendment until the end of the clause is reached.

§ MR. SEXTON
Before we agree to the withdrawal of the Amendment it if desirable that we should ascertain what the agreement is that was come to a few moments ago.

MR., T. MORLEY
The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister told the hon. Member for Preston that he would insert at the end of the clause the words which were read out at the time—words to the effect of the Amendment of that hon. Member.

§ MR. HANBURY
said, the words he bad read out he had read from a manuscript in the handwriting of the Secretary to the Treasury taken from the lips of the Prime Minister himself.

§ MR. MACARTNEY
said, that one of the objections the Prime Minister took to the words of his hon. Friend was that they only applied to one exceptional liability, and he suggested a form of words which covered a number of exceptional liabilities.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, he was willing for words to be inserted such as would provide for all the liabilities under the Act, but be should look askance at any Amendment having reference to liabilities beyond those.

§ MR. BARTLEY
said, the Prime Minister had declared that he desired to give a larger scope to the liability than that contained in the Amendment. When the matter came up for decision he hoped there would be no hesitation in carrying out the view of the Prime Minister.

MR. PARKER SMITH
said, he rose to move an Amendment which would introduce, in effect, the Preamble of the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870. The object was to except from the powers of the Irish Legislature the power to make laws as to the regulation of the conduct of any portion of Her Majesty's subjects during the existence of hostilities between foreign States with which Her Majesty is at peace, in respect of such hostilities; or. The Foreign Enlistment Act, which was one of first-rate importance, extended to all the dominions of Her Majesty, including the adjacent territorial waters, and provided that nothing should be done to the detriment of foreign Powers who might be at war with each other whilst at peace with us. It was an Act universally applicable to the whole of the British Empire. It was an Act which no colony could alter. He presumed it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government that the Irish Legislature 1816 should not have power to alter that Act in any way. He would like, however, to ask the Solicitor General or the Secretary for Ireland whether it was the view of the Government that the case he put in his Amendment was already sufficiently covered in any sub-section of the clause, or whether they thought his Amendment was necessary?

§ *SIR J. RIGBY
was understood to reply that in his view the point raised by the hon. Member was already provided for in the Bill. The regulation of the conduct of any of Her Majesty's subjects during hostilities would be connected with legislation having reference to a state of war. That would not be a matter relating exclusively to Ireland. This question was covered by Section 2 of the Bill—by the fact that the only power given to the Irish Legislature was to make laws in respect of matters exclusively relating to Ireland or any part thereof.

MR. PARKER SMITH
said, he was afraid be could not accept that assurance, and he would therefore proceed with his observations in support of his Amendment. The case that might arise under the Foreign Enlistment Act would very likely deal with some individual in Ireland, and it was a startling idea that the limitation of legislative powers of the Irish Parliament to matters exclusively Irish could by any possibility be held to prevent the Irish Parliament from repealing Section 8 of the Foreign Enlistment Act, so as to allow an individual to build and equip a ship, say at the great shipbuilding yard in Belfast, with the knowledge that it would be used for purposes of war against a friendly State. It never occurred to him that anyone would argue that the fact that the powers of the Irish Legislature were limited to matters exclusively relating to Ireland would prevent the Irish Parliament from repealing that section, and allowing a ship building yard in Belfast to build a blockade-runner or a fast cruiser, in that way bringing not only Ireland but the whole British Empire into difficulties. That argument was a striking example of the legal subtlety of the Solicitor General, and might do for the Court of Chancery, but would not pass muster in the House of Commons.

§ *SIR J. RIGBY
said, that he might have called attention to the sub-sections of the clause as precluding the Irish Parliament from repealing the Foreign Enlistment Act. Those sub-sections would prevent the Irish Parliament from legislating as to Treaties and other relations with foreign States and as to matters arising out of a state of war.

MR. PARKER SMITH
said, those sub-sections had seemed to him to be the sub-sections which would bear upon the matter if any part of the Bill did. It was a startling proposition to say that the provision as to the making of peace and war should refer to war between two foreign States in which this country was not concerned. The obvious meaning of the sub-section was the question of this country being at peace or war with a foreign Power. The other sub-section to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred was that which prevented the Irish Parliament from dealing with the question of Treaties or other relations with foreign States or the relations between different parts of Her Majesty's dominions. "Other relations" must mean other relations of the same kind—Conventions or Agreements of any sort between this country and some other nation. It seemed to him impossible to conceive that offences against International Law, which might not absolutely form the subject of Treaty and offences under the Foreign Enlistment Act, could be held to be covered by the words of Sub-section 4. They had to look upon this question in the light in which it would strike an ordinary person. It was a matter which should be considered by laymen as well as by lawyers, so that the clause should be made clear and explicit. The failure to enforce the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act might involve this country in war or in an arbitration costing us many millions. The Act was passed in 1870 as a result of long deliberation and of bitter experience, after the Alabama question had been hanging for many years over our heads, and in the early days of the Franco-German War, when it was felt to be essential that further powers should be given to the Government to prevent a recurrence of the American difficulty. The main provisions of the Bill were, in the first place, to prevent illegal enlistment; that was to say, to prevent enlistment in 1818 any part of the British Empire of men to take service with either of two belligerents who were already at war. After the establishment of an Irish Parliament this question might easily become of vital practical importance. Supposing a war arose in which there might be a possibility of the temporal power of the Pope being restored. This country might be neutral, or might possibly be on the side of Italy. But there would be a very strong feeling in Ireland on the side of the Power that held out a chance of the restoration of the temporal power of the Pope. There would be an enormous temptation to the Irish Parliament to give facilities for the formation of a foreign Legion, and if such a Legion were formed, we might be involved in the most serious consequences. It seemed to him of essential importance, therefore, that there should be no doubt that the power to repeal any of the sections of that Act should remain in the hands of the Imperial Parliament, and should not be given into the hands of a subordinate Parliament in another part of the Empire. The next set of clauses of the Act dealt with illegal shipbuilding, and fitting out and aiding the cruisers of the enemy, and this was a question not merely of our own Statutes, but of the rules which we laid down in our Geneva Arbitration, which we undertook to hold for the future and to do our best to enforce, and for any breach or violation of which we should be held liable. It was because we transgressed the rules we had laid down and accepted ex post facto that we had to pay an indemnity of 15,500,000 dollars. Under the Foreign Enlistment Act the very largest powers of seizure wore given to the officers of the Executive. In Ireland the Lord Lieutenant would deal with these matters, and he wished to know whether the Lord Lieutenant would, in the exercise of his discretion, act under the control of the Irish Parliament or under the control of Parliament at Westminster? What he wished to make certain of was whether it would be possible for the Irish Parliament to repeal any of the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act? It was clear that if they ventured to do so in a time of war the Imperial Parliament would certainly interfere, and by its overmastering power stop them from doing so. But that would be a very unsatis- 1819 factory way of treating the question, and would bring about far more friction than would be created in laying down in clear and simple words the rights of the two Parliaments. This question, it seemed to him, was far too important to leave uncertain, and to subtle constructions such as those as the Solicitor General.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
My hon, and learned Friend the Solicitor General has already given the opinion of the Government as to the intention of this Bill —that there shall be no power in the Irish Parliament to interfere with the provisions to which the hon. Member has referred, and has stated that in his judgment the words of the Bill are perfectly adequate to give effect to that intention. That, I am bound to say, is our feeling. But the hon. Gentleman, looking at the Bill, I am sure not with a desire to destroy it, but in perfect good faith, has doubts as to whether the clause gives effect to the intention which the Government have expressed. Those doubts may be shared by others. The policy of the Government in a case of that kind is to pay all the respect we can to doubts we do not share, provided the mode proposed for meeting these doubts does not in our judgment import any inconvenience or danger. That is the principle on which we have acted, and that is the principle on which we mean to act. Examining the words of the Amendment from that point of view, the Government do not think there is any harm in them. They express what we believe to be already conveyed by the Bill; and as there is no harm in them, we are willing to admit them.

§ SIR H. JAMES (Bury, Lancashire)
said, this raised, for the first time, a fresh question of extreme importance to this country, though, of course, there was nothing more to be said now that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had seen his way to accept the Amendment. The effect of the Amendment 1820 was merely to insert in the Bill the title of the Act of 1870 as an assertion that the Act of 1870 could not be touched by the Irish Legislature. Of course, they could not touch the question of the Executive at this stage; but inasmuch as these words were now to be put into the Bill, of course the Prime Minister would in the same spirit see that provision was made for carrying out the obligations of the Foreign Enlistment Act.

§ MR. SEXTON
was willing that the view of the Prime Minister should be carried into effect; but he doubted whether, as a matter of drafting, the words of the Amendment were apt words for the purpose. He would put it to the Solicitor General that he should apply himself to the matter, so as to prepare words which would make it clear that there should be no infraction of the Foreign Enlistment Act by the Irish Parliament.

§ *SIR J. RIGBY
said, he could see no objection to these words as they stood. There could be no reason for supposing" that they covered anything more than the prevention of such legislation as would be against the spirit of the Act of 1870, and might involve us in difficulties with other Powers.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The next Amendment, in the name of the Member for North Islington (Mr. Hartley), which is "Clause 3, page, 1, line 24, after 'or,' insert—to change the name, title, or powers of the Legislature as established by this Act," is out of Order.

§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT
rose to move the following Amendment:— In Clause 3, page 2, line 1, leave out "naval or military forces," and insert "army, navy, militia, volunteers, and any other military forces."

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
We propose to accept this Amendment, with the exception that we would alter the precedence as between the Army and Navy. We would suggest that the words should read "navy, army, militia, volunteers," and so on.

§ SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT
I have no objection to the slight alteration proposed by the right hon. Gentleman.

§ THE CHAIRMAN
The next three Amendments are out of Order.

§ MR. BARTLEY
said, that on behalf of the hon. Member for Dover he would move the next Amendment.

§ MR. SEXTON
said, the whole question of police was dealt with in Clause 30 of the Bill and the Schedule dependent on it, and it would be extremely inconvenient to Lave anything bearing upon that subject elsewhere than in that clause.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
I agree with the hon. Member for North Kerry that it would be more convenient to discuss this question, if it has to be discussed, on the later clause. I hope it will not be insisted upon.

SIR E. CLAKE
did not think Section 30 would be a convenient point for considering this Amendment. The question was whether a Legislative Body in Ire-land was or was not prohibited from dealing with police which were of an Imperial or central character or other than a local force. If they looked at the 30th clause they would find that it referred only to the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the way in which those forces could be dealt with. If any prohibition was to be inserted in the Bill this would be the appropriate place.

§ MR. SEXTON
pointed out that under the 6th schedule, read in connection with the 30th clause, local forces might be established by Irish Act. That would, therefore, be the place in which the Amendment should be dealt with.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
(who was indistinctly heard) was understood to speak as follows:—I must admit that 1822 there is some argument in favour of dealing with the Amendment at the present moment. My contention is that, from a theoretical point of view, the control of the police ought not to be taken out of the discretion of the Irish Legislature, on the broad ground that it is a matter which relates absolutely and exclusively to Irish affairs. I have always held the very strongest opinion that the duties of the police are duties which constitute the very first letter in the alphabet of local government. Historically, the basis of all local government is the local protection of life and property. Now, let us look at the case from a practical point of view. It appears to mo that if we attempted to interfere with the discretion of the Irish Legislature we should place them in a very false position. You must in a good police force have the power of transmission of a body of men from one district to another. The wants of particular districts and neighbourhoods are not a constant quantity. A town may require a certain number of police for its own purposes; but special circumstances may arise which, as in the case of Hull the other week, without the smallest imputation on the intention of any of those connected with the recent strike, constitute a state of things in which prudence requires that there should be a larger number of police on the spot. Will you lay down as your policy in the matter of police that the police force of each locality should be according to its maximum wants or according to its aggregate, which are also its minimum wants. Take the case of Belfast, which furnishes the best example that. I think the whole case of Ireland, as far as recent experience goes, presents. Should we force the Irish Legislature to fix the police force at Belfast at its maximum wants? No, certainly not. Surely it would be much better that, instead of having in every police district arrangements adequate to meet exigencies, which occur once in 15, or 20, or 50 years, you should have a central force, which would be adequate to meet the whole of such exigencies. Otherwise, it is evident that you must bring about enormous waste. You ought to have in each district a police force strictly adequate to its ordinary aggregate wants, which are also its minimum wants, 1823 and you ought to have the means somewhere in the country of meeting whatever special exigencies are likely to arise. It appears to me that these are propositions which do not belong to the contested parts of this subject. Very well then, what is to be done? I am for localising to the utmost degree. Even if the Irish Legislature chose to avoid having any central police force, which I rather hope it would, they would be obliged to make provision for having somewhere an available and disposable extra police force over and above the wants of some special locality—say Dublin—which extra force might upon occasion be made use of for the different, parts of the country, just, as in England now detachments of police are sent from one district to another to meet local wants. I cannot conceive how this can be disputed. Supposing there were disturbances in Belfast, would it be right that it should depend absolutely and finally upon the Municipality of Dublin to determine whether order should be restored in Belfast or not? It surely is obvious, not that you should necessarily introduce a Central Authority—God forbid; no one wants to avoid that more than I do—but that it would be absurd to say that the power of provision for the special wants of any particular district should depend on the will of the Local Authority of some other district. I think the hon. Member who is responsible for the Amendment means to make the Committee understand that there is a certain jealousy of a political force. The Royal Irish Constabulary is an expiring Force, and will be replaced by an Irish Force. Is the Viceroy to have no control over the movement of police forces from one part of the country to another as far as regards the meeting of exigencies which might occasionally arise? I cannot think the hon. Member really means to prevent the intervention of the Authority responsible for the peace of the country in determining those questions which may arise, and which always must arise from time to time. I think, without going further into the question, there are adequate reasons why we should not attempt to interfere by prohibition in a matter so purely Irish and so entirely beyond the possible occurrence of anything in the nature of risk.

§ MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)
said, he had never contemplated that there should be no Central Authority in Ireland having power to move a central force or local contingents of police from one place to another. His difficulty was that the Bill, as it stood, contemplated the gradual substitution of purely local forces for the Royal Irish Constabulary as it now existed. But there was nothing in the Bill or in the facts of Irish history which would lead to the supposition that an Irish Government would abolish the Royal Irish Constabulary out of hand. The Royal Irish Constabulary had been the good servants of all those who had employed them. The present Chief Secretary (Mr. J. Morley), the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour), and everyone else who had had any dealings with the Force had been proud to speak of them as they deserved, and had paid them many well deserved tributes in the House of Commons. In calm moments the Nationalist Members bad added their tributes, and he did not think it beyond the bounds of possibility that there would be no undue hurry on the part, of an Irish Government to abolish altogether one of the factors of Irish life of which Irishmen might be most proud. That being so, the Committee must consider that the Royal Irish Constabulary might continue to exist in many places, and his object was to make this perfectly clear. If the Lord Lieutenant in his relations with the Royal Irish Constabulary was an Imperial officer the Amendment ought to be accepted, because only yesterday the Prime Minister stated that the Lord Lieutenant, except within those spheres of action specifically withdrawn by this clause, was an Irish officer responsible to the Irish Executive. As long, however, as the Royal Irish Constabulary existed he would act, according to the Bill, as the representative of Her Majesty the Queen. If so, it was clear that the Constabulary ought to be excepted under the 3rd clause, just as the Army and Navy were excepted. But, supposing that the Irish Legislature din get rid of the Royal Irish Constabulary, what was to be placed in the field of action so cleared? The Prime Minister said he was in favour of localising the police as far as possible. In making 1825 that statement the right hon. Gentleman had merely repeated the tenor of thousands of speeches throughout the country. Would not the Government, then, prohibit in this Hill the recrudescence of an evil they had deplored during the six years of the late Government's tenure of Office. The Prime Minister had implied that in asking the Committee to accept this Amendment he was casting some reflection upon the Irish nation and upon the Irish Legislature which he hoped to see created. In fact, the right hon. Gentleman had again employed the old argument about attributing to the Irish nothing human but the form.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
I said nothing of the kind.

§ MR. WYNDHAM
I understood the right hon. Gentleman to imply that the Amendment was inspired by mistrust.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
I said nothing about mistrust.

§ MR. WYNDHAM
held that the Prime Minister had intimated that the Mover of the Amendment was actuated by mistrust of the Irish nation in suggesting that the Irish Legislature might go beyond the tenour of the Bill by creating a clandestine force to coerce Ulster. He held that view, and denied that it constituted any reproach to the Irish people, or to the Irish Legislature that was to be. They were invited by the Bill to divest themselves of the responsibility of keeping the peace as between Ulster and the rest of Ireland, and to shift that responsibility on to the shoulders of the Irish Legislature. But if he were a responsible Minister in that Legislature he should utterly refuse to undertake the task unless he was allowed to embody a force analogous to the Royal Irish Constabulary as it now existed. Did not that, dispose of the insinuation that he was distrustful of the Irish nation, and that he suspected the Irish Legislature would act contrary to the spirit of the Bill? Indeed, he contended that it would be no crime if the Irish Legislature sought to create such a force, unless they were directly prohibited by Act of Parliament from doing so. A central force—a force removable from place to place, as the necessity arose—would be necessary in 1826 Ireland to preserve peace and order, whether the country was under Nationalist or Imperial Government. Then came the question, Who should have the control of that central force? There could be but one answer to that question. They had in the 2nd clause of the Bill the declaration that the Imperial Parliament must be supreme. It had been said that that declaration would remain a mere idle form of words unless they had some machinery in Ireland, such as an adequate police force, which the Imperial Parliament could direct to make good its supremacy throughout Ireland. If the Government intended to adhere to their declarations that they would effectively maintain the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, they would insert provisions in the Bill either to retain the Royal Irish Constabulary as at present, or to create another central force. On the other hand, if they broke faith with respect to those declarations, and refused to allow the insertion of Amendments for creating adequate machinery to maintain that supremacy, they would aggravate the consequences of their lâches and not only deprive the loyal people of Ireland of armed protectors but impose upon them armed oppressors. The necessity for a centralised force had been admitted by the Prime Minister. The question, then, to be decided was whether the Imperial Parliament, which must be more impartial than the Parliament sitting in Dublin, was to control that force? It must be remembered that the Royal Irish Constabulary had been described at one time as "Morley's Murderers," and at another time as "Balfour's Bloodhounds." What name, he asked, would a similar force controlled by the Irish Parliament be called; but, above all, what would be the essence and character of such a force?

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
The Prime Minister, in his observations upon this Amendment, was, through the accident of the progress of business in Committee, placed somewhat under the disadvantage of speaking before he had heard the arguments which the Mover of the Amendment proposed to advance in its defence. There are, therefore, aspects of the question which appear to have escaped the attention of the Government, The Prime Minister, in his speech. 1827 appears to contemplate the necessity for Ireland of some kind of central police force, and he seems to think that some such central police force exists at the present time in this country. That is a mistake.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
There is a large force in the Metropolis, under the control of the Executive Government, which supplies all the needful purposes of a central force.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
The one observation I have to make on that statement is that, as I understand, the Government propose to hand over the central police force to the control of the County Council, with the exception of a small fragment in central London, which is to remain under the Executive power. That force will not be of the slightest use for provincial work. It could not be of service, for example, in the case of disturbances at Hull or elsewhere. Then, again, I do not believe it is legal, and certainly it is not practicable to use the London Police Force in Scotland.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
They go to Balmoral.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Well, when I was Secretary for Scotland it was at one; time difficult to provide an adequate police force to deal with disturbances in one or two of the Highland Counties, and the Executive had to rely entirely upon the charity of the police authorities of other districts of Scotland—a charity which was withheld in some cases, and very grudgingly granted in others. The contention of the Prime Minister that there is an adequate central police force in this country which can be used in cases of disturbances in outlying portions of the island is, I think, absurd. I am one of those prejudiced persons who hold that the proper form of police service is a central service. We should never have had a localised police force in this country were it not for the lawabiding instincts of the British community, which prevented evil arising from that state of things. I might remind the Government that the first idea of an Army was a local force, which gradually developed into our present central Army. However, to the local police service which is found adequate to our needs in 1828 England the people are accustomed, but it is not the best form of police service. In Ireland, however, different conditions prevail, and to manage affairs in that country without a central police force will he extremely difficult. The difference between Ulster and the rest of Ireland alone constitutes a reason why a local police force depending upon Local Authorities will always be difficult to use in certain cases of emergency. That being admitted, the question is whether the control of a central police force, which is the right form of force for Ireland, can be safely entrusted to an Irish Assembly? I think not, for the following reasons. A central police force paid by an Irish Parliament and under the control of an Irish Executive could be used, and would be used, for oppressive purposes in dealing with a Province like Ulster, differing from the rest of Ireland in its aims, intentions, religion, history, and in all things which make up the life of a community. It would be intolerable that the Executive in Ireland should have such powers to coerce Ulster. This, I think, is the view of the Government itself, for in the 30th clause of the Bill it is proposed that the police force which is to be gradually substituted for the existing centralised force shall be a local force. The Government, therefore, agree that the Irish Executive ought not to be given the power of ordering about a central police force. The proper force to give to Ireland under this Bill is a local force under the County Authorities, and over which the Irish Executive would have no more power than the Home Secretary has at this moment over the county police of Aberdeenshire or Ross-shire. If we are to allow the Irish Government to become the paymasters and commanders of a force of 12,000 drilled men, what value can be attached to the provision in the Bill which says that the now Legislature is to have nothing to do with the Naval or Military Forces of the Kingdom? At this moment a month's drill, or less, would make the Irish Constabulary the most formidable Military Force in the world. From the quality of the men, from their education, their training, they are not merely the raw material but the manufactured material of an admirable Army, and to allow this new Parliament to be the masters of such a Force would be little less than 1829 lunacy. I know that the Prime Minister resents as it' it wore a personal insult any suggestion that in any conceivable circumstances the now Irish Legislature and Executive could ever he engaged in hostile action against British interests and the British Army. But such things have occurred in the past, and may happen in the future; and we must remember that we are not legislating merely for next year or the year after that, but for an indefinite time. Are we, then, to shut our eyes to the possibility that in setting up a separate Legislative Assembly and Government in Ireland, and giving that Assembly the power of having a separate Army, we are creating in our own despite a danger and a, menace? I do not say that the possibility which I am contemplating would be fatal to our interests: but there can be no doubt that in times of difficulty it may put an additional and most severe strain even upon the resources of this Empire. These are reasons which should induce the Committee to think not once nor twice, but to deliberately pause before they refused an Amendment which will, in the first place, have the effect of preventing, not only the abuses which undoubtedly may follow in internal administration from the intrusting to the Irish Legislature a central police force which may be used as a great instrument of oppression, but also which will have the effect of preventing external complication that may result from endowing the Irish Government with an army formidable in discipline and training which may prove at a time when we are pressed by the sorest necessity and have to meet the greatest difficulties to be a new danger and a new difficulty with which it will be almost impossible for us to deal.

MR. J. MORLEY
I must point out that the right hon. Gentleman has entirely overlooked a couple of facts. The first is that the Government do not contemplate the placing of this police force under the central authority. The Bill expressly says that that is not to be done.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
Where?

MR. J. MORLEY
In Clause 30 of the Bill, to which the right hon. Gentleman has himself referred. Then the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked 1830 another thing. He has rightly said that the Royal Irish Constabulary is a splendidly-organised, armed, drilled, and disciplined force, that for a time all might be well, but that under certain contingencies that force might be used by the new Irish Government as a military force, for military or naval purposes, against this country. But the right hon. Gentleman entirely overlooks in his argument one line in Clause 30 which indicates that no officer or man shall be appointed to either of those forces.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
In Section 30, as the right hon. Gentleman says, the Government have undoubtedly indicated their own private and personal view in the drafting of the Bill that the force to be substituted for the Royal Irish Constabulary is to be a local force. That is true enough, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the new Irish Government from starting an Irish Constabulary of their own, paid, armed, and drilled precisely as the Irish Constabulary is now. If the Chief Secretary thinks that that is not the intention or desire of the Government, I would earnestly press upon him that all he has to do is to accept the Amendment, and the contingency will be absolutely obviated.

MR J. MORLEY
The right hon. Gentleman was not present earlier in the evening when an Amendment, moved by an hon. Gentleman opposite, was accepted by the Government, prohibiting the Irish Legislature from having an Army, Navy, Militia, Volunteers, or any other military force. The right hon. Gentleman says there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the new Irish Government from creating, constituting, drilling, and arming a new force; but if they attempted to create such a force under the pseudo-name of police, that would be contravening the Amendment that has been accepted by the Government.

§ MR. WYNDHAM
said, he could point out circumstances in which the Irish Legislature might create a force equally dangerous without contravening the section to which the Chief Secretary referred. Supposing a local police force were created under the Bill in Ulster and the Royal Irish Constabulary were withdrawn from that part, but were 1831 to continue in existence elsewhere. If difficulties arose in Ulster after five years, and the local force proved inadequate to cope with them, did the Chief Secretary contend that it would not be in the power of the Irish Legislature to raise 1,000 men and put them into Ulster, calling them policemen? So far as he could see, there was not a line in the Bill to prevent the Irish Parliament from raising a police force to deal with difficulties in Ulster.

MR, JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)
said, it was quite impossible for anybody who had had an official connection with the Royal Irish Constabulary to accept the assertions made by the Chief Secretary. He understood that the force of the future was to be a civil force. Allusions had been made to a military force, but he hoped the Committee would keep totally distinct the questions whether the force was to be central or local, or whether it was to be civil or military. At present the Royal Irish Constabulary was a force central and military in its organisation; but a force might be local and military, or central and civil. The contention of his hon. Friend was that if any central authority were to have the control of the police it should be laid down that that authority should be subject to the Imperial Parliament. The Prime Minister stated that that was already provided for.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
It is in the Amendment.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
said, it was not in the Amendment or in the Bill.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
The police are given to the Viceroy.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
said, that if he were to discuss the powers of the Viceroy he would be told that he was out of Order in anticipating a later clause; and he declined to accept, even from so high an authority as the right hon. Gentleman, a suggestion to contravene the regularity of the discussions. He would not only endorse what the Loader of the Opposition had said about the Royal Irish Constabulary, but would add that no British regiment could be produced which could hold a candle to an equal number of men in the Constabulary. They were seasoned troops, and 1832 not short service men. The Bill provided no adequate safeguard against the raising of an unlimited and highly-disciplined force by the Irish Government. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would insist on the insertion of words in the Bill which would prevent the Irish Government of the future—if he could contemplate such a monstrosity—having under its command a highly-disciplined force which would enable it to perpetrate injustice in all parts of Ireland.

§ THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,) Wolverhampton, E.
The right hon. Gentleman appears to contemplate the continued existence of the present highly-trained Constabulary Force.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
I bog pardon. I have done nothing of the sort. I entirely recognise that under Clause 30 the existing Constabulary and Dublin Police Force will be gradually dissolved. But I contend that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent an equivalent force from being created the very next day after those forces have disappeared.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
The right hon. Gentleman confirms me in the opinion I have formed that he has not read the subsequent clauses of the Bill. So long as the Dublin Metropolitan Police and the Irish Constabulary continue in existence they are to be under the control of the Lord Lieutenant. These highly-trained forces can never be under the control of the new Legislature. The right hon. Gentleman says there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the creation by the Executive of a new Royal Irish Constabulary.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
I did not say Royal.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
Well, a new Constabulary. [Opposition cheers.] I am glad hon. Gentlemen cheer, because that is how the right hon. Gentleman gives himself away. If it is not to be a force like the Royal Irish Constabulary the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's argument falls to the ground. The new force will be either a Constabulary or a Police Force. Is it to be an armed force? By using the words "local police force" it is made impossible to create an armed force. Can anyone 1833 mention a County or Borough Police Force that is armed?

MR. JAMES LOWTHER
The very city in which the right hon. Gentleman stands. The London Police Force carry revolvers.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
No London policeman can carry a revolver without special permission and under special circumstances. But, assuming that a police force can be armed and made a military force, then it at once passes beyond the purview of the powers of the Irish Legislature. [Opposition cries of "No!"] The right hon. Member for West Birmingham should not cry out "No," because he was not in the House in the earlier part of the evening.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
I beg pardon. I am listening to my right hon. Friend with the greatest interest. I did not utter a word.

§ MR. H. H FOWLER
I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon; I thought he contradicted my statement. An hour and a half ago the Government accepted an Amendment to extend the prohibitory clause of the Bill to every kind of military force. Whatever description of force comes within the category of military force is excluded from the purview of the Irish Parliament. I consider the Irish Constabulary to be a military force.

MR. A. J. BALFODR
Not at all.

§ MR. H. FOWLER
It is an armed force, and that is the essential difference in England and Scotland between the military and police forces. In Ireland we were dealing with a military force under the guise of a Constabulary Force.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
It is not a military force.

§ MR. H. H. FOWLER
Well, anyhow, it is under the control of the Executive. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to the 6th schedule of the Bill he will find the various regulations as to the establishment of the Irish police forces and as to the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police ceasing to exist. It is there provided— That such local police forces shall be established under such local authorities, and for such counties, municipal boroughs, or other larger areas as may be provided by an Irish Act. 1834 The argument of the hon. Member for Dover is that the police forces will be local police forces, which will be under the control of the Local Authorities, and that it ought not to be in the power of the Irish Legislature to create a central police force. In that case we might just as well not give Home Rule at all. That is the meaning of the Opposition then, but it is not ours. You create a Local Legislature in Ireland, and to refuse to that Local Authority control of a civil force for the purposes of civil administration is a contradiction of terms, which the Committee will not stand for one moment. I entirely sympathise with the view that the Irish Legislature should not have power to create a military or in armed force, which should not be under the control of the Imperial Executive. That was already provided by the provisions of the Bill, but it has been emphasized by the Amendment, which has been accepted. Every military force in Ireland—everything that comes under the definition of a military force—is reserved to the control of the Imperial Parliament; but the local police force will be placed in the hands of the Irish Government.

§ *MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square)
The Prime Minister has suggested that there should be not only local police forces subject to the Local Authorities, but a central force which should be subject to the control of the Irish Executive.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
I said that there must be some disposable force, whether central or not.

§ *MR. GOSCHEN
The right hon. Gentleman says that there must be an available and disposable force, under the control of some Central Authority, which might be sent to assist the Local Authorities when necessity arises. At all events, for the purposes of argument, may I be allowed to call that force a central force, because it would be impossible to call it a local force. We had it from the Chief Secretary that there is nothing in the Bill which would authorise the existence of a military force in Ireland under the control of the Irish Government. Then the question is, can the central police force be converted into an armed force; and, if so, is there any words in the Bill which will prevent it from being so converted into 1835 an armed force? It is clear that there has been a casus omissus in the Bill in reference to the creation of a military force, and that is the reason why the Prime Minister has assented to the amendment of the Bill in that respect. The Bill, however, contains no words which will prevent the creation of such a military force, except those which are in the Amendment to which the Prime Minister has assented, and the question is, whether the language of that Amendment is sufficient for its purpose? The right hon. Gentleman who spoke last quoted words of the Bill to the effect that "the local police forces are to be established under such Local Authorities and for such counties, municipal boroughs, or other large areas as may be provided" by what—by "an Irish Act." The right hon. Gentleman did not put a distinct emphasis upon the words "by an Irish Act." It is by Irish Act that the constitution of the future police force is to be determined, and that is claimed as belonging to the prerogatives of the Irish Legislature. Then the question is—How near can a central police force be made to a military force without coming actually within the term of a military force? It can be trained up to a degree that only a fortnight's more drill will constitute it a military force. It is not the actual training in the use of the musket that would constitute the danger of such a force. Thus, among many of the points that may arise between the British and the Irish Legislatures there may be one as to the definition of a military and of a police force. There is a violent controversy just now as to whether the present Constabulary is a military force or a civil force. The Bill, I am reminded, contains a proviso that the whole of the Royal Irish Constabulary is to cease to exist as a police force, and, possibly, the Irish Judges would argue from that phrase in the Bill that a force precisely constituted as the Royal Irish Constabulary is intended by the Government to be defined as a military force and not as a police force. If we put together the utterances of the three Cabinet Ministers who have addressed the Committee on the subject, it will appear that they agree that it is necessary to have "a central something." I call it that, so 1836 that the Prime Minister shall not say I am misrepresenting what was said. There is to be a central body. It may be drilled and it may be organised by "an Irish Act." Whether arms could be placed in their hands is the only point on which controversy would remain. But under the Bill you may have a force of 12,000 men organised with everything short of arms. I venture to think that neither the Prime Minister nor any of his Colleagues will venture to say that that is not authorised under the Bill.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
Totally unauthorised by the Bill.

§ *MR. GOSCHEN
I will proceed by stages. The future force might be drilled like the Royal Irish Constabulary. Might it not be so drilled? The right hon. Gentleman does not deny that it might be drilled like the present force.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
In my opinion it cannot be so officered and drilled.

§ MR. GOSCHEN
I do not wish for the right hon. Gentleman's opinion. I wish for the words in the Bill.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
Why did the right hon. Gentleman ask for my opinion if he did not wish for it?

§ *MR. GOSCHEN
I make a present to the right hon. Gentleman of his rhetorical point. I wish for the right hon. Gentleman's opinion supported by words in the Bill. I can find no such words in the Bill. Having brought the argument to that point, I will leave it there, and will not insist that the, Irish Government can put arms into the hands of the new force. I am, however, reminded that the Royal Irish Constabulary are drilled with ball cartridge. I must, therefore, again ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the Royal Irish Constabulary is or is not to be the model for the future police force of Ireland? I maintain that unless the Amendment is accepted there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it. I admit that the Prime Minister did not intend that the future police force of Ireland to be like the present Royal Irish Constabulary. We have suggested a method by which that can be prevented, and we ask him to accept it.

§ SIR H. JAMES
Unless we have misinterpreted the meaning of the Prime Minister, there is nothing between him 1837 and us but a matter of construction. I understood the Prime Minister to say that in his view there should not be a central armed force in Ireland, and the right hon. Gentleman, took the view that this had been carried into effect by the Amendment which prevented military forces being employed by the Irish Executive, and that they cannot have a central sinned force because they cannot have a military force. But a military force must be under the provisions of the Mutiny Act. The present Constabulary, however, are not under Military Law. They arc, however, armed with muskets, and undergo target practice and the same drilling as military forces. What is to prevent the new force which is to come into existence being armed up to the point of the present Constabulary? Nobody thinks that such a force would come under the Mutiny Act; and, therefore, though armed, they will not be a military force. Such a force will not be forbidden by this Amendment. If the Amendment covers the police armed force, this Amendment is out of Order; but the Chairman has said that the military force will not cover the police armed force. On the construction of this Act, after those two forces have ceased to exist, the Executive Government in Ireland, not the Lord Lieutenant representing the British Ministry, but the new Executive, with the Lord Lieutenant under their power, will be able to bring armed men into existence, to keep them in barracks, to send them to Ulster or to any portion of the country, and as long as they are kept out of the Mutiny Act they will be a powerful armed force, to be used by the Irish Executive for any purpose they may think proper.

§ MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)
asked the Prime Minister whether, if Clause 30 were not in the Bill, the words "military forces" would, in his opinion, include the Royal Irish Constabulary? He also wished to know whether the future Government in Ireland was to be unable to establish for purely local purposes a force similar to that which the Canadian Government had established in Canada, and to that which had been established in Cape Colony. If a central police force was to come into existence, he could not understand what good it would be if it was not to be an effective police force; and no one who knew any- 1838 thing of Irish social life, altogether apart from the controversy raging round this Bill, could for a moment imagine that a central force, without effective arms to aid it, would be of any assistance to the Executive in Ireland.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
I do not think that the hon. Member has made it quite clear what it, was he wished a reply to; but I will give an answer as clearly as I can to what I conceive to be the main question now at issue as far it admits of a perfectly definite reply. I differ from the doctrine laid down by the hon. Member that the central force in Ireland made available for meeting the special police exigencies of particular districts must necessarily be a force with military organisation or anything approaching to it. In England we know nothing of this. I am not aware that the police force of the Metropolis has more of a military organisation than the rest of the country; and my wish is that, no strong distinction should be drawn between any central force in Ireland, if it is found to he necessary, and the local police force. The question is, What is really a military and what is really a police force? With respect to a clearly police force, my desire is that the discretion of the Irish Legislature should remain quite unfettered. With regard to an armed force, I should have been ashamed of myself if I had assented either to the original words as to the prohibition of a military force, or to the extension of the words which have been accepted this evening, if I had had in my mind the belief that some not properly police force, but a semi-military force, was to be within the competency of the Irish Executive. It is very difficult to be precise. Some hon. Members have said that the Constabulary is virtually a military force; others say that it is not. But I put aside the illustrations of the last speaker taken from Canada, and the Cape. I know the case of the Cape pretty well. The force there is not, intended for ordinary police purposes; I apprehend that the police at the Cape—the Cape Mounted Rifles, as they are called—are intended for dealing with disturbances on the frontier. In Canada there are the aborigines, and at the Cape there are the frontier tribes. There is nothing analogous to this state of things in Ireland; and the intention is 1839 that there should be at the disposal of the Irish Legislature nothing but a properly constituted police force. Next, with respect to arms. So far as arms are by usage and understanding within the true, genuine meaning of the ordinary police force, they are not entirely excluded. They may be used with certain limitations of which I cannot give a technical account. I am not aware that there is any legal definition on which I can fall back and and draw a line between police and military forces; but I think that the Committee understand it. I should think, however, that within the bosom of a civilised community the case of the Irish Constabulary comes within the category of the most doubtful of any that have ever fallen under my notice. The question might then be asked—"Do you conceive that it ought to be within the attributes of the Irish Legislature, which you have disabled from establishing any description of military forces, to establish a force like the Irish Constabulary?" I admit that I am not well-informed as to the facts, but my recollection is pretty distinct that the Irish Constabulary as it is has been greatly altered since its first foundation. At that early stage in its history it was almost absolutely a civil force; but in 1859 and 1860 measures were proposed and taken for the purpose of giving a more military character to the Irish Constabulary, in view of the possibility of invasion. The right, hon. Gentleman said the Irish Constabulary was not a military force; and, for myself, I frankly own I do not think the Irish Legislature ought to be in a position to re-create the Irish Constabulary. Such as it is, whether it is to be described as a civil or a military force, it appears to me to be beyond the attributes of a Local Legislature, working for local purposes, having, of course, the resource of the military, and at the discretion of the Executive, in case of need, to create such a force. I regard it as an admirable force, but abnormal in many of its conditions, and, as such, not lying within the proper attributes of a Local Legislature. In these circumstances, I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
The speech to which we have just listened shows the extreme importance of the discussion and its bearings. I do not 1840 think anything could be more explicit or satisfactory than the declarations of the Prime Minister, and now we can see very clearly the point at issue, if, indeed, there remains any point in issue at all. The right hon. Gentleman desires that the Irish Legislature should be able to establish, in its discretion, if it finds it to be necessary, a small civil force to aid in the preservation of order. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that it would be very difficult to foresee the circumstances under which the constitution of such a force will be necessary. Of course, British troops will be in Ireland to assist in maintaining order. In this country the only force which the British Government have at their disposal is the Metropolitan Police; and I have always understood that my right hon. Friend would desire that the Metropolitan Police should be transferred to the Local Authority. If it is unnecessary for the Imperial Parliament to have an Executive force of this kind, I cannot think it is important to preserve to the Irish Legislature the right of creating such a force. In any case, supposing it is desirable to leave to the Irish Legislature this power of creating a civil force, let the Committee consider what kind of force, according to the right hon. Gentleman's declaration, it is that they will be entitled to constitute. It is not to be a military organisation; it is not to be an armed force; it is to be, properly speaking, a police force, but it is not to be a re-creation of the Irish Constabulary.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
Further than an ordinary police force.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
Yes; but perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is not familiar with the constitution of police forces, which are armed in some cases with bayonets, and in some with revolvers, and in all cases with truncheons. What the right hon. Gentleman means probably is that it is to be a force whose arms are to be such as not to enable it to become a military force in the ordinary acceptation of the word. I doubt very much whether it is necessary to give the Irish Legislature such a power; but if it is limited and restricted in the manner proposed, I, for one, should not think that it could, in any circumstances, be seriously mischievous. Can the right hon. Gen- 1841 tletman point to any clause or proposed Amendment which will prevent the Irish Parliament from creating under the name of a central civil force a force which will have a military organisation, and be an armed force according to his own definition? This is really the whole point at issue. As the Bill is drawn, even with the addition of this Amendment, there is nothing to prevent the formation of a force which might hold its own against a regiment, or, if it were sufficiently extended, against any number of British regiments. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not intend it should be possible for the Irish Legislature to re-create the Irish Constabulary, because it wan to all intents a thoroughly military organisation. How does this Bill prevent the Irish Legislature from re-creating the Irish Constabulary? I am obliged to ask my right hon. Friend that question. What power is there in the Bill to prevent it?

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
I understand that we are to lake the case of the Irish Legislature creating a central force, which is virtually to be a military force. My answer is this—that there is ample and sufficient provision in the clause to render that illegal. But that is not my full answer. The Irish Constabulary, I apprehend, is created by an Act, and any force which is to take its place must be created by an Act. It will not be possible to do that except by an Act. It will be the duty of the Viceroy to examine every Act and see that it does not establish any force of the kind. I have noticed that this is one of a set of suspicions injurious to Ireland and her Representatives here. [Laughter.] So much as this is due to our Colleagues in this House, and I am not ashamed to confess—I will not say that I am angry, because I am not angry—but I confess I am grieved to the heart by ridicule of this kind. I entirely disclaim, because I never entertained, the suspicious to which I refer.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
My right hon. Friend has a little misunderstood the interruption to which he has referred. It did not proceed from this quarter, but I think my right hon. Friend misunderstood the intention. There was no intention to cast disparaging suspicions on the Irish people or their Representatives. No, not at all; in no sense more dis- 1842 paraging than those cast by the provisions of this Bill. My right hon. Friend originally of his own motion prohibited the Irish Legislature from creating military or naval forces. He has now most willingly accepted an Amendment extending that provision to Volunteers and to all other military forces. In refusing to the Irish Legislature the power of creating a military force there is no intention of throwing disparaging suspicions on the Irish people and their Representatives.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
T take not the slightest exception to what be is saying; from his point of view it must necessarily be said, but it was to provide for the necessities of our position that made me appear to adopt these suggestions.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
I think we are substantially agreed; at all events, whatever our motives may be, we are agreed as to the propriety of prohibiting the Irish Parliament from establishing any kind of military force. Now, the answer my right hon. Friend made just now was that first, in his opinion, the Amendment he has just accepted would prevent the re-creation of the Irish Constabulary. That is, to a large extent, a legal question that I am not competent to deal with; but my right hon. Friend by my side (Sir Henry James) assures me that provision about a military force would not be sufficient to prevent it. being perfectly legal for the Irish Legislature to establish a force precisely similar to the Royal Irish Constabulary. My right hon. Friend then says—"Your second security is that such a force might require an Act of Parliament."

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
"Would."

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
I do not know that it is positively so; the only way it would require an Irish Act is that it. would ultimately require an Irish Appropriation Act to pay the expenses of the force; but I doubt if it would require an Act to provide for the constitution. That might be an Executive act which would not necessarily require an Act of the Legislature until the payment came to be made. But surely in a matter of this importance—and again I thank my right hon. Friend for appreciating my point of view—in a matter of this importance, from my point of view, we 1843 ought not to rest on that veto of the Viceroy, especially if we do not put the restrictions into the Bill. This will be purely an Irish affair, in which the Irish Viceroy will be advised by the Irish Government. I know that, although he will be advised by them, he will be subject to the instructions of Her Majesty; so that advised in the first instance by the Irish Government in one sense, it may happen, if the British Ministers advise Her Majesty, he may be instructed in an opposite sense by Her Majesty. Surely the plainest and simplest way to avoid subsequent irritation and difficulty would be to put it into the Bill. I am obliged now to put the question from my point of view, which my right hon. Friend does not share. My point of view is this: that when you create a separate Legislature in Ireland you are creating a subordinate Parliament that will always desire to become co-ordinate, and would seek to exercise pressure for that purpose. You have the experience of Grattan's Parliament and the Irish Parliament preceding Grattan's Parliament. You would have Volunteers or some other nominally civil force, but which is virtually a military force, and they would put on you pressure to exact fresh concessions. That is my fear. The difficulty will arise when you yourselves are in a condition least able to meet it. I say, therefore, you ought from the first to make clear in this Bill that the establishment by the Irish Legislature of any force which can by any possibility be used hereafter as a, military engine against this country is to be prohibited; but it is not prohibited in this Bill. My right hon. Friend says he thinks it is, but I do not think any lawyer will say so. At any rate, I will put it this way—that if any lawyer can be found who will say it is prohibited it will be easy to find another who would say it was not.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
I have already stated we are quite willing to reconsider the framing of the sub-section we have just passed—of course, it can only be done at a future stage of the Bill—so that any doubt shall be removed.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
I will say at once, if I understand my right hon. Friend's last statement, that will be satisfactory to me. I understood him before 1844 to say that, in his opinion, there wag no necessity for any further words.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
I am consenting to put them in, but my opinion holds just the same.

§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN
I hope my interpretation is right, but I do not want any misunderstanding at a subsequent stage. It appears to me that on this matter we are agreed as to what we want. My right hon. Friend thinks it is provided for—I think it is not, and, as I understand him, he says—"Very well, in order to meet your scruples I will be induced at another stage to add words that will make our meaning perfectly clear." If that is so, I withdraw any further opposition.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)
As I understand the right hon. Gentleman—I did not hear the whole of the conversation that took place between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) and the Prime Minister—but, as I understand, the Government pledge themselves to bring in words that shall absolutely exclude from the new Irish Legislature the right to create any force at all analogous to the Royal Irish Constabulary. The Government are not prepared to bring those words up at present, as they require, consideration, and they therefore ask for time, but make a pledge that they will, at a subsequent stage, frame the requisite Amendment. That being the view of the Government, I would recommend my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, and we might then proceed with the Bill.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
With regard to the engagement, what I said was that we pledged ourselves to bring up words; but they must be subject to communication with the view of a friendly understanding being arrived at. That is what we desire, but as it would be unusual that after several hours' discussion no progress should be made, I would suggest that the Amendment be negatived.

§ MR. A. J. BALFOUR
I think the course the right hon. Gentleman suggests rather unusual; but I dare say my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the substantial victory he has gained. I should recommend him not to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, as he has 1845 practically extorted from the Government all he desires.

§ *THE CHAIRMAN
The next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Major Darwin) is out of Order; the one after that is in Order.

§ MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanark, Partick)
begged to move the Amendment standing in his name. The force of the Amendment would be recognised by the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Bryce), as it was derived from the Constitution of the United States, being part of Section 8 of the First Article of that Constitution.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
There is no necessity for the Amendment, as all matters connected with the defence of the realm are already reserved under the Bill. I think the hon. Member should have given us notice of these words.

§ MR. PARKER SMITH
said, the words of the Amendment had been standing on the Paper a great many days.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
I made no charge against the hon. Member: I merely said these words are in reference to the American Constitution, and we have not the Article before us.

§ MR. DUNBAR BARTON (Armagh, Mid)
earnestly hoped his hon. Friend would not withdraw these words, and he would very soon show the Prime Minister that these words were not covered by the words "defence of the realm," because it was a recognised fact now that these forces of the Crown were to be used in Ireland, not for the defence of the realm, but for the coercion of Ulster. The Prime Minister rested his whole argument on the plea that it would be necessary to have a centralised police for dealing with Belfast; he said it might be necessary to have a Central Body, perhaps in the County of Dublin, which, under exceptional circumstances, should deal with the Province of Ulster.

§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONE
No; I did not say that.

§ MR. DUNBAR BARTON
said, the right hon. Gentleman used the words "for Belfast;" he would not deny that. [Cries of "Divide!"] Hon. Members seemed to think that the Representatives of the loyal minority in Ireland must not say anything, and he ventured to say they had been singularly scrupulous not to speak too often.

MR. J. MORLEY
I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to interrupt him for a moment. We are quite prepared to accept the words of the hon. Member. He has added words of his own—namely, "permanent military camps," and two words at the end; but they do not materially alter the effect of what we desire to have. Though we do not think the words necessary, we are perfectly willing to accept them.

MR. T. M. HEALY
would like to know whether the words "other needful buildings" occurred in the Article of the American Constitution? At the present moment the Corporation of Dublin, for purposes of a main drainage scheme, were in communication with the Military Authority. He did not know the meaning exactly of "other needful buildings;" but he sincerely trusted the American Constitution was not going to be set up to prevent them from draining Dublin.

§ MR. PARKER SMITH
said, the words "other needful buildings" were in the Article of the American Constitution. He had forgotten that he had introduced three words into the Amendment that were not in the Article, and they were the words "permanent military camps." The words of the Constitution were— To exercise direct authority over all places purchased with the consent of the Legislature and the State for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings.

MR. T. M. HEALY
suggested that on the Report stage these words should precede the words "defence of the realm."

§ MR. SEXTON
thought it was perfectly clear that while there might be some context to the general language of the constitution, as they stood here the words were nonsense. The words must either come out or be brought in 1847 in connection with something to show the nature of the need.

§ *THE CHAIRMAN
The next Amendment, in the name of the noble Lord the Member for Brixton (Lord Carmarthen), is no longer in Order; but the first in order is in the name of the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Byrne).

§ *MR. BYRNE (Essex, Walthamstow)
said, his only object in putting down the Amendment standing in his name and certain other Amendments upon the Paper was to endeavour to improve the Bill in case it should ever, which be sincerely hoped it would not, become an Act of Parliament. In point of fact, these Amendments were really forced upon them by reason of the framing of the Bill. The Bill as it now stood, and had been accepted so far, was framed on the lines of conferring all powers except such as were expressly mentioned, instead of being framed on the footing of enumerating those powers which wore intended to be delegated. The consequence of that was, as the Prime Minister himself said the other night, it was possible that something might have been left out that ought to have been inserted, and, for his (Mr. Byrne's) part, he ventured to say that a very large number of subjects had been omitted. He had selected certain of them that he considered very important, and he had selected some because he thought they served to illustrate the necessity for a general exception at the end of the clause. With regard to the particular Amendment which he had put first on the Paper, after the discussion which had taken place to-night, he really hoped it would be accepted, as soon as he had explained it, without much discussion. The Amendment proposed to withdraw from the Irish Legislature the power of making laws, regulating the carrying and using arms, armed associations, and associations for drill or practice in the use of arms. If he was right in the view he took of these matters they could not have a more Imperial subject than this one. By using the word "Imperial," he used it in this sense; that he regarded these exceptions as being meant to be exceptions of Imperial questions, Imperial questions 1848 being those which were so intimately bound up with the welfare of the whole State, that they could not pass a law applicable to Ireland in respect to it which should not strike at the interests of this country. The Amendment as it stood—first with reference to the carriage of arms; and, secondly, as it stood with reference to armed associations and associations for drill—differed, to some extent, in the two categories. They knew there was special legislation in Ireland, particularly with reference to dangerous associations; and as he understood the feeling of some hon. Members of the Party opposite, their notion was that after the passing of this Act the Irish Legislature should not have power to do away with special laws, which had been found necessary in Ireland from time to time. An entirely different question was the question whether they would allow the law which had been considered necessary for the well-being of the country, so far as Ireland was concerned, to be abolished if the Irish Legislature so thought fit immediately after the passing of this Bill into law. With regard to the carrying and using arms, he proposed to ask the attention of the Committee to the law as it stood with reference to Great Britain as distinguished from special law. The law relating to carrying arms now stood in England upon the old Statute, commonly known as the Statute of Northampton, passed in the reign of Edward II. The 3rd section of the Statute was worth consideration.
It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.