Commons Sitting of 2 June 1893

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
QUESTIONS.

  THE HARWELL CHARITIES, BERKSHIRE.
  MR. DODD: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner whether he is aware that, in the Draft Scheme now proposed by the Charity Commissioners for the Charities of Harwell, Berks, the majority of the Trustees are not elected by the ratepayers, as required by the Resolution of this House; whether he will, before the Scheme is approved in its present form, consider whether it could with advantage be altered so as to be similar to that recently approved for Suuningwell, Berks; whether he can inform the House upon what grounds it is by the Scheme proposed to devote of the Charity left by John Loder one-half to the purposes of the Church: and whether that appropriation has been objected to by a public meeting held in the village?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. T. E. ELLIS,): In the result of objections elicited by the publication of the Draft Scheme in this case the Commissioners have decided to assimilate the Governing Body (subject to the retention of existing Trustees) to that constituted by a recently established Scheme for the Charities of Sunningwell. It is not proposed to devote any portion of Robert Loder's Charity for education to Church purposes. Objection has been taken at a public meeting in the village to the proposed application to the maintenance of the parish church and its furniture of one-half of John Loder's Charity, which was given for the repair of the church and of the highways, the relief of the poor and such like pious uses. This objection will be carefully considered by the Commissioners.

  OUTRAGE AT CLARE ISLAND.
  MR. WILLIAM KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been drawn to the recent outrage at Clare Island, on the West Coast of Ireland; is he aware that, on Sunday the 21st May, the people of the locality destroyed the meadow land of a farmer named Grady, by turning in upon it the horses and cattle of the district, and that, on Grady and his son interfering for the protection of his property, they were roughly handled and assaulted by the crowd; that the crowd hoisted a green flag when they had completed the destruction of the meadow; whether Grady's only offence was the taking of an evicted farm; if he has information that this is only one of a series of outrages that have been perpetrated in the island within the last month; and what steps the Government propose to put an end to such practices?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (MR. J. MORLEY,): I am informed that Grady is not in occupation as tenant of an evicted farm on Clare Island, but that he is taking care of the meadow on the farm. It is true that on the 21st of May the meadow was destroyed by being eaten down and trampled upon, and that a flag was erected by the crowd. Grady was assaulted, but not seriously, when endeavouring to prevent the trespass, and for this offence a prosecution has been ordered against certain of his assailants. Disturbances previously occurred on the Island on the 3rd, 4th, and 5th of May, when a bailiff was making seizures for rent, and directions have been given to the police to institute proceedings against the ringleaders of these disturbances also.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I should like to ask whether Clare Island is not the Island visited by Miss Balfour on account of the great distress prevailing there, and also by Lady Zetland, and whether its desperate condition did not form in the last Parliament the subject of continual Debate, so much so that the evictions which were to be carried out were abandoned under the pressure that was brought to bear by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Chief Secretary?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I believe that the facts mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend are correct, except that the action referred to was not taken by the Leader of the Opposition but by his successor in the office of Chief Secretary.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman say that any pressure was brought to bear by the Chief Secretary?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I stated that, and I stick to it. In any case the evictions were abandoned.
  MR. MACARTNEY: But does the right hon. Gentleman endorse that statement?
  MR. J. MORLEY: To the best of my recollection certain legal proceedings were withdrawn in consequence of the then Chief Secretary becoming aware of the most desperate and deplorable condition of some of the people in the district.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the Executive Government interfered in any way between the owner of the land and his right to recover his rents?
  MR. J. MORLEY: If the right hon. Gentleman has any doubt as to what occurred he had better refer to the reports of what was said on the subject by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds (Mr. Jackson).

  AUCHTERMUCHTY FEVER HOSPITAL.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether arrangements are being made by the County Council to secure a house to be used as a fever hospital at Auchtermuchty, within a few yards of the railway station, of the only road between the railway station and the town, and of the only public recreation ground; will he explain why, although a protest from the inhabitants of the burgh of Auchtermuchty was sent to the Board of Supervision, more than seven weeks ago, no acknowledgment has been received, nor has any notice been taken, so far as is known, of the communication; and whether steps will now be taken to prevent this house being used as a fever hospital?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): In reply to the hon. Member,
  38
  I have consulted the Board of Supervision, and am informed that on 10th. April last the Cupar District Committee of the County Council of Fife applied to the Board for approval to the site of a proposed fever hospital near Auchtermuchty. On the 13th April an intimation was made to the Board that the application, upon further consideration, was withdrawn. On the 24th April the Town Clerk of Auchtermuchty forwarded to the Board a Petition against the proposal, and in reply was informed on the 26th April that, the Petition would receive consideration when the subject was again before the Board. No further application for the sanction of the hospital has been received: but any fresh proposal will be inquired into, and objections to it fully considered, in accordance with the Board's usual practice.

  SOLDTERS' HOSPITAL STOPPAGES.
  SIR ARTHUR HAYTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider the practicability of differentiating in the hospital stoppage the cases of men sent to hospital from unavoidable causes, or illness contracted on service, from those of men who are patients from the results of their own excesses, with a view of relieving the former of some part of the daily stoppage of 10d. now imposed on all patients alike?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN,): My hon. Friend has apparently been misinformed. The daily stoppage is 7d., not 10d., as stated in the question. Men in hospital on account of wounds received in action or illness contracted on service with an Army in the field are subject to no stoppage whatever. When men are injured on ordinary duty, the General Officer commanding has the power of remitting half the stoppage; and when the injury has been received at drill or manœuvres, the whole may be remitted. Men in hospital on account of sickness resulting from offences committed by them lose the whole of their pay, instead of undergoing the ordinary stoppage of 7d.
  MR. HANBURY: Is the power placed in Commanding Officers in these matters usually exercised?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: That I cannot say.

  MR. BERESFORD, R.M.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when was Mr. Beresford, R.M., appointed to the County Louth; how often has he attended at the Louth Petty Sessions during that time; and is he aware that a number of cases at this Petty Sessions were adjourned on the 16th of March that required a second Magistrate?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Resident Magistrate referred to was appointed to the Drogheda District in February, 1892. Since his appointment Petty Sessions have been held at Louth 30 times, at eight of which he was present. On the remaining occasions he was either in attendance at other Sessions in his district or employed in various duties at his station, on leave of absence. I understand that four cases wore adjourned at Potty Sessions on the 16th March owing to the non-attendance of a second Magistrate. No steps were taken by the Clerk of Petty Sessions to secure the attendance of a second Magistrate, as there is generally, he explains, a full attendance of Justices at the Louth Sessions.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY AND THEIR BEARDS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by what authority the County Inspector of Royal Irish Constabulary, Louth, recently transferred from Clare, refused to allow his men to wear their beards, contrary to the option hitherto allowed in the Force?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The County Inspector states that on the occasion of his recent inspection of the Constabulary he directed the men to comply with the terms of the Regulation which, in the matter of hair, whiskers, and beards, requires that where these appendages are worn they shall not be of undue length. This is the only foundation for the allegation in the question; and it is not true he has deprived the men of the privilege of wearing beards.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY FORCE FUND.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant
  40
  of Ireland what sums were drawn by Colonel Wood, Colonel Hillier, Colonel Bruce, Mr. Fanning, and Mr. Colomb, late Inspectors General, respectively from the Constabulary Force Fund, and what sums each paid into this fund; was there at one time a separate Force Fund for officers, and was it wound up at the wish of the officers, who were allowed to join the fund of the rank and file; could they draw more money from the latter; and are the officers and a few officials the principal, if not the sole, objectors to this fund being wound up?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The sums paid from the reward branch of the Constabulary Force Fund to the officers in question on their retirement were as follows:—Sir J. S. Wood, £279; Colonel Hillier, £279; Colonel Bruce £232 10s.; Sir R. Fanning, £155; Mr. Colomb, £76. The sums deducted from the pay of these officers for the benefit branch of the fund while in the Service were:—Sir J. S. Wood, £257 10s.; Colonel Hillier, £261 10s.; Colonel Bruce, £140 17s. Sir R. Fanning, £161 Is.; Mr. Colomb, £186 4s. Colonel Hillier, Colonel Bruce, and Sir R. Fanning continue to contribute; voluntarily to the fund from their pensions at the rate of £12, £9, and £10 per annum respectively. On the death of Sir John Wood, who also contributed from his pension, I am informed that a grant at the authorised rate was made from the benefit branch of the fund to Mrs. Wood amounting to £1,144 10s. 10d. Mr. Colomb, being unmarried, cannot derive any benefit from the statutable deduction from his pay. It seems necessary again to point out that the grants on retirement of officers and men are paid from the reward branch, the income of which is derived from fines and penalties; while the statutable deduction from pay is appropriated to the benefit branch, from which grants to families of deceased members are made. There has never been any separate public fund for officers. There was for a time a private widows' fund, but it did not prove a success and ceased to exist, having become bankrupt. It was a purely private matter from first to last. The silence of officers on the question of the winding-up of the benefit branch, so far as I can gather, appears to arise from the fact that they understand the expectations of the men could not be realized.

  THE SCOTCH EDUCATION GRANT.
  MR. CROMBIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the minimum grant of 17s. 6d. laid down in Article 32a of the Scotch Education Code (1893) is lower than that earned by many elementary schools; and, if so, would he consider whether the limitation might, in view of the increased cost of elementary education, be raised to 20s. or 21s.?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The provision, with regard to the minimum grant of 17s. 6d. is inserted in the Code, pursuant to the Elementary Education Act, 1876, and the Department has no power to depart from this statutory provision by an alteration in the Code.

  "KELLY V. RATTRAY."
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has observed that the scope of the Rent Redemption Act passed in 1891 has been greatly narrowed by a decision of the Court of Appeal in Ireland in the case of "Kelly v.Rattray"; and whether, in view of the fact that the reason of the decision was purely technical, the Government will either introduce an amending measure or assist a measure for that purpose introduced by private Members?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have called for a Report in this matter from the Land Commission, but not yet having received same, must ask the hon Member to be good enough to defer the question for a few days.

  CYPRUS.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the excess of Revenue over Expenditure in the Island of Cyprus last year was calculated at £92,000, which sum was paid, according to the Convention of 1878, as tribute to the Sultan of Turkey; whether, if the above calculation had been made in the paper money in general use in Cyprus, the excess would have been only £50,000; and whether in future these calculations and payments can be made in the ordinary currency of the country?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): The surplus of Revenue over Expenditure in the Island of Cyprus last year (1892–3) was £78,539. The amount, has, however, nothing to do with the sum payable annually as tribute, which was fixed many years ago, under the Anglo-Turkish Convention, at £92,799, being the equivalent of the average surplus during the last five years of Turkish administration. In determining that £92,799 was the sterling sum payable, Her Majesty's Government took due account of the fact that a part of the Turkish revenue and expenditure was for a short time received and paid in depreciated paper currency. There is now no paper currency in Cyprus, and the British sovereign is the standard of value.
  MR. JEFFREYS: But is not the ordinary currency in Cyprus paper money in the form of Turkish Exchequer Bills?
  MR. BUXTON: Yes.
  MR. PIERPOINT: And was the total depreciation in this paper currency borne in mind in calculating what the tribute should be?
  MR. BUXTON: Yes; the whole question of depreciation was taken into account.

  REGIMENTAL MESS PLATE.
  MR. FABQUHAESON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to an article in the recent number of the United Service Magazine, in which the question is raised as to the claims of the State or of the officers to the mess plate, and as to who would be responsible in the event of the plate being lost or stolen; whether be can say who is the residuary owner of such plate in the case of a defunct regiment; and in the case of a claim being made for the loss of mess plate, would the Government award compensation to the officers; and, if not, whether he will take steps to provide that each regiment properly insures such regimental property?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have not seen the article referred to; but in answer to the hon. Member's questions I may say that the practice in the British Army has always been to regard the mess plate of a regiment as

  43
  the private property of the officers for the time being of that regiment. There has boon no recent case of a regiment being disbanded; and therefore the question of the ownership in the ease of a defunct regiment has not arisen. As the plate is held to be private property no claim against the Government would arise in case of its loss; and it would be interference with private rights to require officers to insure their private property.
  MR. FARQUHARSON: Then I understand that regimental mess plate is the property of the officers of the regiment, and the Government make no claim whatever to it?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I have said so.

  THE PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury why salary was paid to an officer in the Privy Council Office after the age of 70, such payment not being in accordance with the provisions of Clause 10 of the Order in Council of August 15, 1890; who is responsible for this contravention of the Order in Council, and whether payment to this gentleman has now been discontinued?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The gentleman in question was retained to meet a temporary emergency pending the appointment of a successor, which was made on January 30 last.

  THE HIGHLAND LAND COMMISSION.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I bog to ask the Secretary for Scotland, considering that the Royal Commission on Baud in the Highlands and Islands have now, after about a month's work, found it necessary to suspend operations for a throe weeks' rest at the best period of the year for prosecuting their labours, when does he expect the Commission to complete the inquiry referred to it; and whether he will call for an interim Report on the Isle of Skye, which has already been gone over by the Commission, so that Parliament may have an opportunity of considering the amount of land available there for the enlargement of holdings and for allotment to the inhabitants of the congested districts?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I am unable to say when the Commissioners will con-
  44
  clude their labours, as to the nature of which I spoke to the House in some detail on the Report of the Vote on Account. With regard to the question of an interim Report, I will communicate with the Chairman of the Commission.

  BOY LABOUR IN COAL MINES.
  Mr. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that in the Durham and Northumberland mines the so-called boys, from 16 to 21 years of age, are made to work about 10 hours per day in the mine; and whether he can state what proportion these boys are to the men employed?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Asquith,): I am informed by the Inspector of Mines for Durham that no boy between 10 and 21 is allowed to work for more than 10 hours a day. It appears that in Northumberland such boys do not usually work more than 10 hours, but occasionally by arrangement as to wages they do work 10½ hours. There is no means of ascertaining officially in what proportion the number of boys under 21 stands to the number of men employed over 21.

  BOWLING PUBLIC HALL.
  MR. HOZIER: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, and, if so, when, the School Board of Bowling asked him to reverse the decision of the Education Department as to the sale of the Bowling Public Hall by public auction; and whether he is aware that the original Trustees were prepared to offer the upset price, so as to enable them to reclaim the property and continue to carry into effect the original public, purposes of the trust?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: A public meeting was held at Bowling on 16th dune, 1891, which, in my opinion, represented the public opinion of the community, and I understand the School Board are in accord with the course that has been followed. I have explained in a previous answer the reasons which led me to think that the premises should be handed over to those who represent the community free of cost, and the small sum which was offered by certain parties, not more than £50, did not appear to me

  45
  to outweigh the advantages of such a transfer.
  In reply to a supplemental question by Mr. HOZIER,
  SIR G. TREVELYANsaid: The circumstances brought under my notice from various quarters have been seriously considered, and I am absolutely certain that the decision we have arrived at is the one desired by the great majority of the people of Bowling.

  STIRLING CASTLE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that at one of the corners of the Palace building of Stirling Castle a column has disappeared, leaving the carved capital without support; and whether steps will be taken to replace the missing column and protect the capital from destruction; and also to rebuild the fallen or destroyed towers of the Castle, and complete those which have only been partially restored?
  MR. CAMPBELL -BANNERMAN: I am not aware of the particular dilapidation referred to in the question, but I will at once inquire whether it is necessary to take steps for preventing further mischief to ornamental work on the Palace. As to rebuilding the towers at the Gateway, that would be a considerable undertaking, and I am not prepared at present to contemplate a large expenditure for the purpose.

  TRAINING SHIPS FOR BOYS.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, in the event of a training ship being established in Irish waters, due consideration will be given to the fact that Queenstown is the headquarters of the Royal Navy in Ireland?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH,): Certainly, Sir—that and all other circumstances will be duly taken into consideration.

  THE AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACTS.
  MR. MUNTZ: I beg to ask the hon. Member for the Harborough Division of Leicestershire whether he will to-morrow, for the convenience of hon. Members interested in the subject, place his Motion
  46
  on the Paper for the amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Acts?
  MR. LOGAN: I regret if any inconvenience has been caused to hon. Members. I will place the Motion on the Paper to-night.

  THE GOTHENBURG SYSTEM.
  MAJOR DARWIN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any letters or Reports have been received from Norway with reference to the Report of Consul General Michell on the Gothenburg system (Miscellaneous Series, No. 279); and, if so, whether he will lay them upon the Table of the House?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): One letter has been received which was certainly not worth publishing, and one Report. The letter has only just arrived; it will be referred to Consul General Michell; but it is not proposed to publish anything further at present.

  RUSSIAN WAR SHIPS IN THE BLACK SEA.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BART-LETT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if he will state the number of Russian men-of-war in the Black Sea, including the ships building, with the probable dates of their completion?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The information will be found in Durrasier and Valentino's Aide Memoir, Lord Brussels Annual, and the Austrian Marine Almanac.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BABTLETT: I think it is very unusual for an hon. Gentleman, in answering a question, to refer the hon. Member putting it to books with which he may not be acquainted; and I beg, therefore, to give notice that I shall repeat the question on Monday, expecting to receive from him an answer of the kind usually given in reply to such questions.
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I can assure the hon. Member that no discourtesy whatever to him was intended; but it is not thought desirable to make these specific statements as to the number of ships of any Foreign Power

  47
  in any particular part of Europe; and as the information can be obtained in other quarters I thought it better to refer the hon. Gentleman to these books.

  DANGEROUS EXHIBITIONS.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the exhibitions now going on of jumping and diving into water from a great height, and to the extreme danger of the performance; and whether he can do anything to stop such exhibitions?
  MR. ASQUITH: My attention has been called to the exhibitions referred to in the question of the hon. Member; but I have no power to stop exhibitions or performances which, though they may be dangerous to the performers, are not necessarily dangerous to the spectators. On this, as on similar previous occasions, warnings have been given through the police to the persons responsible for the exhibition that they should take all proper precautions, and I am afraid I can do nothing more.
  MR. BARTLEY: May I ask whether, in the event of serious accident, the persons who give the entertainment cannot be made liable in someway? Many of those exhibitions are only attractive simply by reason of their danger.
  MR. ASQUITH: If the person controlling, the performance were guilty of gross negligence he would be liable under the Criminal Law.

  ARMY TENTS.
  MR. SCOTT-MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that many of the tents supplied to the Yorkshire Artillery Militia at Plymouth are rotten and not in the least rain-proof; whether he is aware that many of the tents supplied to the 4th Battalion Hampshire Regiment at Winchester were equally bad; and whether he will take steps to see that serviceable tents are supplied to Volunteer and Militia Battalions, considering the fact that the use of bad tents has a most discouraging effect on officers and men serving in those forces, and is a great cause of bad health?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No Report has been received from the regiments specified, nor from the Southern District; but the General Officer Commanding the Western District has complained that the tents supplied for his district are thin. A similar Report was received from the same district last year, and, after careful investigation by the Quartermaster General and Director of Artillery personally, it was decided that the tents, though not new, were perfectly serviceable and must be taken into use. It is obvious that if new tents only are to be issued to the large number of men now placed under canvas every year the cost of camp equipment will be enormously increased. A proposal to use a heavier description of material is now under consideration.
  MAJOR RASCH: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us the date of the issue of these tents?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I cannot. I should think the dates varied according to the tents.

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA AT HENDON.
  MR. WILLIAM FIELD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the recent outbreak of pleuropueumonia at Hendon, it is the intention of the Government to institute a series of scientific experiments to test the efficacy of inoculation as a preventative of pleuro-pneumonia, as the system is generally practised in Australia and other Colonies with good results?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): I am afraid I can only refer my hon. Friend to the replies which have been given to the previous questions which he has addressed to my predecessor and myself on this subject. A very careful examination of the system of inoculation as practised in the Colonies was instituted by the Departmental Committee of 1888, and I see no reason to think that the result of any further experiments would be commensurate with the labour and expense involved.

  THE IRISH POLICE AND THE UNION JACK.
  SIR THOMAS LEA: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will cause Circulars to be sent to the Irish Constabulary instructing them that the Union Jack is in no sense a Party emblem, and its use does not come under the Act (6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 38) with reference to the mistake made in the City of Londonderry?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I should, at the same time, like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has obtained the written opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on the subject; and whether it is their opinion that the display of flags on public-houses is not illegal, unless in connection with the existence of some secret society or illegal association?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I shall be in a position on Monday to give the exact opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. The subject of the construction of the sections of the Act of William IV. is under consideration. I have no intention of sending a Circular at present to the police.

  CANADIAN CATTLE.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if he can state what have been the results up till now of the systematic examination of the lungs of Canadian cattle, which is now being made under the direction of the Board; and whether they appear to show at present that Canada is free from the disease; or whether the examination has disclosed any case or cases of pleuropneumonia, or of suspected pleuropneumonia, for which cattle would be slaughtered by the Board in England?
  MR. H. GARDNER: Up to the end of last week 10 cargoes, comprising 5,119 head of cattle, had arrived in this country from Canada. The results of the special examination to which the lungs were subjected has proved satisfactory except in the case of an animal landed from the ss. Lake Winnipeg, in regard to which I am awaiting certain further information from my professional advisers which will not be available for some few days to
  50
  come. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would then renew his inquiry.
  SIR J. LENG: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the invariable experience of Scottish farmers is that the lungs of Canadian cattle are far healthier than those of a corresponding number of either English or Scotch?
  MR. H. GARDNER: I can only refer the hon. Member to the reply I have just given.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Do I understand that only one suspected case has been reported to the Board by its Inspectors?
  MR. H. GARDNER: Various lungs were sent up, but in only one case has the examination proved unsatisfactory.
  MR. CHAPLIN: But the Inspectors sent up the lungs of other animals which were suspected?
  MR. H. GARDNER: Orders were given to send up lungs when there were any suspicious circumstances. Several were sent up, but, as I have said, in only one case is there any reason to believe that pleuro-pneumonia existed, and as to that I am awaiting a further Report.

  PRISON (OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION) BILL.
  MR. W. WHITELAW: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will add a clause to the Prison (Officers' Superannuation) Bill, dealing with the cases of certain Scotch officers which have been brought to his notice?
  MR. ASQUITH: No; the cases are in no sense analogous. The object of the Bill is to place officers who did not retire from the Service when the Prison Act, 1877, came into operation in no worse a position as regards pension than if they had so retired. The Scotch officers referred to would, as I am informed, have had no such right to pension as they now claim if the Act of 1877 had not passed. They are, therefore, asking for the creation of a new right, not for the preservation of an existing right. But the matter is one not for the Home Office, but for the Scotch Department.
  MR. W. WHITELAW: Will the Secretary for Scotland introduce a Bill dealing with the Scotch cases?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: If the hon. Member will give me the facts of any individual cases I will consider them.
  MR. W. WHITELAW: I beg to give notice I shall object to any further progress being made with the Superannuation Bill until I have obtained a satisfactory answer from the Scotch Office.

  FRANCE AND THE CYPRUS TRIBUTE.
  MR. PIERPOINT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies what was the date of the first payment to the French Government of part of the Cyprus Tribute on account of the Turkish Loan of 1855; whether there is any agreement or implied agreement with Franco to continue such payment; and what is the amount of such payment?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The first and only payment made to France was in repayment of the amount paid by France as a joint guarantor. There is no agreement with France such as that mentioned in the question, and no payment has been, or is being, made.

  HOME RULE AND IRISH SHIPS.
  MR. WOLFF: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill becoming law, the construction and equipment of Irish ships, the examination of their officers, and the rules of their navigation generally, will remain under the control of the British Board of Trade, as at present?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): My answer to the question of the hon. Member is, Yes.

  UGANDA.
  MR. CHARLES DARLING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government have any information to the effect that Sir Gerald Portal has proclaimed a Protectorate over Uganda in the name of Her Majesty?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No such information as is referred to in the question has been received at the Foreign Office. In point of fact, no information has been received since the arrival of Sir Gerald Portal in Uganda. Perhaps I may say, concerning reports of that kind coming from a district so distant and so inaccessible, unless they are absolutely certified, that I would recommend hon. Members to be cautious in putting their interpretation on statements so derived.
  MR. DARLING: I desire to say, by way of personal explanation, that it is precisely because I am so very cautious that I have asked the question.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I gave no special advice to the hon. and learned Member. I only said that I thought it would be convenient to receive with due caution statements of this kind, which are necessarily subject to considerable uncertainty.

  THE SHOOTING OF WELDON MOLONEY.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can give the House any further information with regard to the case of Weldon Moloney, who was shot at from both sides of the road near Ennis and severely wounded; is there any truth in the report that seven men have been arrested?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The only information I have received on the subject is that seven men have been arrested in connection with the outrage, and taken to a place with a view to possible identification. The driver of the car says he saw nobody.
  Later,
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have just received information which is somewhat later. The telegram is to the effect that about 12.15 yesterday, as Mr. Moloney, of Dublin, the agent for the Kiltanan property, was driving on an outside ear on his way to Tulla, he was fired at. Four shots were fired almost simultaneously from behind a high hedge on either side of the road. One struck him on the left knee, the entire leg being riddled with shot. Another struck the horse on the left shoulder. None of the shots from the right side of the road took any effect. If the horse had fallen, most probably they (the assailants) would have shot him on the road. This was a holiday, and at the time most of the people were at Mass. Being Petty Sessions day at Tulla, most of the police were engaged at the Sessions. The car was a private car; and as it left the place to fetch Mr. Moloney in the morning, it was known that he was to travel that day, and also that he was collecting the rents. Six men—not seven—have been arrested, and proceedings are being taken to ascertain whether any of them can be identified.

  IRISH MAGISTRATES AND LAND GRABBING.
  MR. THEOBALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if it is true that a meeting, at which a so-called land grabber was denounced and a boycotting resolution was passed, was presided over by Mr. J. Hughes, whom the right hon. Gentleman has recently appointed a Magistrate for Limerick?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It is certainly not true that any Magistrate was appointed by me. I saw the statement which the hon. Member referred to, and yesterday directed inquiries to be made into it. I must ask the hon. Member to repeat the question on Monday.

  QUESTIONS AS TO CRIME.
  MR. SEXTON: With respect to two questions on the Paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for West Belfast, but which have not been put, and also with reference to innumerable questions of the same class which have recently appeared on the Paper, I wish to ask whether it is in accordance with usage for hon. Members to put down questions reciting from day to day the details of various crimes committed in Ireland, and to simply ask if any arrests have been made; and whether it would be in accordance with usage for Irish Members to take out of the morning papers the details of crimes committed every day in any part of Great Britain for the purpose of asking a similar question?
  MR. SPEAKER: It is not unusual to ask such questions, but it is generally understood that hon. Members who put them on the Paper should not merely pick up something they happen to see in the newspapers, but that, before putting the questions down, they should institute some inquiry, and should thus make themselves in some degree responsible for the statements they contain.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to give notice that if the practice is continued I shall arrange with my Colleagues to put down on the Paper every day the details of crimes committed in Great Britain.

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

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 1st June.]
    [TWELFTH.NIGHT]
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Legislative Authority.
    Clause 3 (Exceptions from powers of Irish Legislature.)
    MR. BYRNEsaid, that in proposing his Amendment to insert, in Sub-section 3, the words—
    "Carrying and using arms, armed associations, and associations for drill and practice in the use of arms, or,"
    he had on the preceding evening pointed out that the necessity for putting down Amendments to Clauses 3 and 4 had been thrust upon the Members of the Opposition by reason of the mode in which the Bill had been framed; for whereas the enumeration of Imperial subjects was most difficult, it would have been perfectly easy for the Government to have put down, one by one, in the Bill, the particular powers which they desired to delegate to the Irish Parliament. It would then have been the duty of the Opposition merely to move to strike out such of those delegated powers as they thought improper to be included. But the Bill being framed as it was, it became necessary for the Committee to consider, line by line, whether there had not been essential omissions. As the Prime Minister himself said the other night, no doubt many important things might have been omitted, and he thought it would be generally admitted that a very large number of exceedingly important Imperial questions had, in fact, been omitted from the list of exceptions named in the Bill. He did not pretend to have done more than to select from the many subjects which had presented themselves to his mind a few of the more essential ones; and in asking the Committee to discuss them, he desired to say, that though the Government might think that some of the propositions made by the opponents of the Bill were frivolous, he and other hon. Members of the Opposition had too

    55
    much at heart the vital importance of the Bill before them to indulge in frivolity of any kind. He trusted that they would accept his assurance that he neither meant to be frivolous nor to obstruct the Business of the Committee. This was the first time he had spoken in the House on this Bill, and he had only done so on this occasion because he felt that he might usefully intervene in the Debate. There were two branches of the question dealt with by his Amendment—first, the carrying of arms; and, secondly, what he might call illegitimate armed associations. With reference to both of these branches they had, first of all, the general law applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom; and, secondly, special law, owing to the general law having been unfortunately found insufficient in one portion of Her Majesty's dominions. He would, as briefly as he could, describe what he conceived to be the state of the law generally applicable to the United Kingdom, and of the special law as applied to Ireland. With reference to the carrying of arms, an Act of Parliament applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom had been in force ever since the reign of Edward III. It was known as the Statute of Northampton, and the Committee would, perhaps, pardon him for quoting from it, because in that and another Statute with which he had to deal were contained a large portion of his arguments. What was it that the Statute of Northampton provided? He would read what was contained in 2 Edward III., cap. 3—
    "III Item, it is enacted that no man, great nor small, of what condition soever he be, except the King's servants in his presence, and his Ministers in executing the King's precepts, or of their office, and such as he in their company assisting them, and also upon a cry made for arms to keep the peace, and the same in such places where such acts happen he so hardy to come before the King's Justices or other of the King's Ministers doing their office with force and arms, nor bring no force in affray of the peace nor to go nor ride armed by night nor by day in fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the Justices or other Ministers, nor in no part elsewhere, upon pain to forfeit their armour to the King, and their bodies to prison at the King's pleasure."
    Thus had stood the law from the time of the passing of the Statute of Northampton down to the present day. On the previous evening he quoted from Black-stone, his view of what the general law was upon this matter, and the view was con-
    56
    tained in the following words taken from Blackstone's Commentaries:—
    "The offence of riding or going armed with dangerous or unusual weapons is a crime against the public peace, by terrifying the good people of the land, and is particularly prohibited by the Statute of Northampton, 2 Ed. III., cap. 3."
    With regard to the second part of his Amendment, he wished to cite 60 Geo. III., and 1 Geo. IV., cap. 1, which was intituled—
    "An Act to prevent the training of persons to the use of arms, and to the practice of military evolutions and exercise."
    The words were—
    "Whereas in some parts of the United Kingdom men clandestinely and unlawfully assembled have practised military training and exercise, to the great terror and alarm of His Majesty's peaceable and loyal subjects, and the imminent danger of the public peace. Be it therefore enacted …that all meetings and assemblies of persons for the purpose of training or drilling themselves, or of being trained or drilled to the use of arms, or for the purpose of practising military exercise, movements, or evolutions without any lawful authority from His Majesty, or the Lieutenant, or two Justices of the Peace of any county, or Riding, or of any stewartry by commission or otherwise, for so doing shall be, and the same are hereby prohibited as dangerous to the peace and security of His Majesty's liege subjects, and of his Government, and every person who shall be present at or attend any such meeting or assembly for the purpose of drilling any other person or person to the use of arms, or the practice of military exercise, movements, or evolutions, or who shall train or drill any other person or persons to the use of arms, or the practice of military exercise, movements, or evolutions, or who shall aid or assist therein being legally convicted thereof, shall be liable to be transported for any term not exceeding seven years, or to be punished by imprisonment not exceeding two years at the discretion of the court in which such conviction shall be had; and every person who shall attend or be present at any such meeting or assembly, as aforesaid, for the purpose of being, or who shall at any such meeting or assembly be trained or drilled to the use of arms, or the practice of military exercise, movements, or evolutions, being legally convicted thereof, shall be liable to be punished by fine and imprisonment not exceeding two years, at the discretion of the court in which such conviction shall be had."
    He did not think he need apologise for the length of his quotations, for they practically embodied the arguments he wished to lay before the Committee. The general law which had been applicable to the whole of the United Kingdom had not been found sufficient to meet the case of Ireland, and it had in late years been found necessary to pass

    57
    the Peace Preservation Act and the Crimes Act, with the provisions of which most hon. Members were, no doubt, familiar. It was essential, then, they should consider what powers were to be conferred on the new Legislature. He protested against the argument put forward in some quarters that they must trust that Legislature not to repeal any of these Acts. They were trying diligently to find out the real and true meaning and effect of the Bill before them. He saw nothing to prevent the Irish Legislature, the very day after it came into existence, passing an Act to this effect—
    "From and after the passing of this Act all the laws hitherto prevailing in Ireland, whether statutory or unwritten, shall be, and the same are hereby, repealed."
    He contended that such an Act would be valid, except to the extent that the powers were expressly reserved in the present Bill. He put it to the Solicitor General whether the Bill as it now stood would not confer the full power that be had indicated? Then bow essential it was that they should ascertain exactly what powers were being reserved. If he understood what was meant by Imperial powers in the minds of the framers of the Bill, it was that there were some subjects which were so bound up with the welfare of the whole State that no law could be passed as to those subjects in regard to one portion of the State, without interfering with the whole well-being of the United Kingdom. If that was not their meaning, he did not know what was. Now, he put it to the Government, did not his Amendment embody a subject which was essentially Imperial? The subject of "armed forces" was, undoubtedly, an Imperial matter, and ought to be excepted in the Bill. That subject was dealt with last night. Then what about illegitimately-drilled and armed forces? Had the Government never heard of "athletic clubs" or of illegitimate drilling, and if the laws he had alluded to were abolished, would there be anything to prevent illegitimate associations meeting throughout the whole of Ireland, drilled, possibly, by skilled men from America, and requiring only arms to make them a permanent hostile force in the country? He hoped that the Government would accept his Amend-
    58
    ment, and, in moving it, he would only say, in conclusion, that if the Committee did not accept it, then much of what passed yesterday with reference to armed forces did not bear the full meaning that he thought it was meant to bear.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, after the word "or," in line 1, to insert the words "carrying and using arms, armed associations, and associations for drill or practice in the use of arms, or."—(Mr. Byrne.)
    Question proposed," That those words be there inserted."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY, Forfar)said, he had listened to the speech of his hon. and learned Friend with great attention, and he had noticed that the arguments adduced in support of the Amendment had failed to show the relevancy of the words which the Amendment proposed. The first words, which related to the carrying and using of arms, must cover a vast field, and those matters must necessarily be left to any Local Government. If they were limited to carrying and using arms for military purposes, that would be a very different matter. Similarly, with regard to armed associations, it would not be a very difficult matter to make a limitation. But associations for drilling and use of arms did not necessarily point to military forces at all. That was far too wide a matter, and it was useless to put on the Paper an Amendment couched in such vague and general language. The hon. and learned Member had referred to the Statute of Northampton, to 60 Geo. III., and 1 Geo. IV. But let them take the last Statute. Could anyone doubt from its title that it dealt specifically with cases of drilling for purely military purposes? But he was authorised to tell his hon. and learned Friend that the Government would consider carefully, certainly not these words, but words which would remove the doubt the hon. Member and others might entertain as to whether there was a gap, which, however, the Government did not consider there was. It would be impossible to take away from the Local Government the right or duty to control the use of arms, as, for instance, under as porting licence; but even that would be covered by the vague and general words of the Amendment. It would obviously be mischievous to

    59
    impose such a function upon the Imperial Parliament when it was the proper duty of the Local Government, and ought, therefore, to be entrusted to the Irish Legislature. One of the main objects of the Bill was to prevent the constant and unnecessary interference of the Imperial Parliament in purely Irish affairs, and to put an end to the perpetual complaints from Ireland that such-and-such legislation was necessary, and surely this question of the carrying of arms was one which might properly be entrusted to an Irish Legislature. The hon. Member's object would be, to a great extent, nullified if the words of his Amendment were accepted. It might be necessary, in an emergency, to make laws at once prohibiting the use of arms, and yet the powers of the Irish Legislature in this matter would be entirely cut off, and they would have to come to the Imperial Parliament. All that could be reasonably asked for would be the insertion of appropriate words for the purpose of preventing the establishment of armed associations, and associations for drill or practice in the use of arms for military purposes.
    COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was Tory reluctant to interfere in this Debate, because, in common with other Irish Members, he was aware that if they abstained from talking the Opposition would take three months to deal with the Bill, while if they did talk the period might be extended to six months. The Government had already made large concessions with regard to the Militia and to the Volunteers, and they were now asked to make concessions in relation to the Royal Irish Constabulary. Indeed, there was a danger that if some of these concessions were made every county in Ireland would be placed at the mercy of half-a-dozen armed burglars. And what had been the result of the concessions made? Had they been thanked for them? No; the Leader of the Opposition had said that they had been extorted. He wished that a stop could be put to the everlasting flood of wishy-washy talk from hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches and from hon. Members on Benches below the Gangway opposite. He did not make this a general charge; he knew that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen could speak very well when they liked; but it was impossible that right
    60
    hon. and hon. Gentlemen could speak 10 times on the same subject without coming under this criticism. The Solicitor General had spoken very sensibly, as he always did on legal subjects, but he had not gone far enough. Did the Government wish altogether to forbid the use of rifles and the existence of rifle clubs in Ireland? Were they going to draft such an Amendment as would emasculate the Irish people and make them an absolutely unwarlike people? What the Amendment proposed was not done in France, in Spain, in the United States, in Germany, or in any country in the world where the population was practised in the use of arms, and why was Ireland to be picked out in this way? It did not make people rowdy, troublesome, or dangerous if they learned the use of the rifle; on the contrary, it made them peaceable, and in the Middle Ages people were punished if they did not practise with arms. They were obliged to have the appliances of archery in their houses, and to practise on so many days in the year. That was what had built up England. The Amendment, if carried, would put the Irish people in a very unfair position; it was absolutely and totally unnecessary, as the Lord Lieutenant under the Bill, as it stood, would be able to veto any Arms Act. Let them not, in giving Home Rule, accompany it with an insult to the Irish people.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman commenced his speech by referring to what he was pleased to call "wishy-washy speeches" made on the opposite side and from this Bench. With all respect to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I think the Committee will feel that wishy-washy speeches are not exclusively confined to the Benches which we occupy. Although I do not attach very much importance to the actual words of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I do attach a great deal of importance to his attitude on the present occasion, which I think the House would do well to note, because it will be recollected that on the previous night, for the first time in the history of the Bill, the Government made some concessions to the Opposition. They were not very important concessions, but I, for one, highly appreciated the spirit in which they were made, and I am convinced that if the same spirit

    61
    continues it will materially assist the quicker progress of the Bill. But thereupon, although these concessions were very slight in themselves, and were the very least that might be expected by an Opposition so numerous, the very moment the Government showed the slightest sign of meeting the arguments of the Opposition up gets one of the Irish Representatives, and his speech contains a distinct menace. For what does the hon. and gallant Gentleman say to the Government? In effect this—"If you will continue to discuss this Bill, and make no concession to the Opposition, you will got your Bill in three months; but if you are going to make any concession, however slight, we Irish Members, who have hitherto remained silent, will have to take up your time for six months."
    COLONEL NOLAN: I said nothing of the kind. I held out no threat of any kind. What, I did say was that the Bill would take throe months if the Irish Members did not talk, and that it might take six months if they did talk.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I will admit that what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said was not a menace, but merely an indication of the possibility that, if it becomes necessary for the Irish Members to talk, the Debate, which may otherwise take throe months, will occupy six months. In any case the fact remains that the Irish Members, who have remained consistently silent during 12 or more nights of this Debate, are now beginning to talk at the very first sign of the slightest concession on the part of the Government to the arguments advanced by the Opposition. I will, however, leave the speech of the hon. and gallant Member, and come to the Amendment. The Solicitor General does not approve of the Amendment, and I think myself that possibly the wording of the Amendment goes a little further than would be necessary for the purpose. I am justified in inferring from the speech of the Solicitor General that the Government do not mean to allow the Irish Parliament to legislate on the subject of associations for drill or practice in the use of arms. If they did, it is as much as to give them a free opportunity to form a force which may not be in name a Volunteer force, but it would be to all intents and purposes an armed force which might be improperly used. I
    62
    understand the Solicitor General is inclined to admit there is a gap in the Bill; the Government do not think there is. But if there is, what is necessary in order that the discussion may be brought to close would be an assurance from some Member of the Government that they would at a future date introduce words to fill up the gap which we believe exists, and which would enable the Irish Legislature to pass laws which would permit and authorise associations for the purpose of drilling or practice in the use of arms.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman has put upon the words of the Solicitor General is a perfectly correct interpretation. It is quite clear that as the Amendment is drawn it is impracticably wide. There is not a gentleman on either side of the House, whatever his views may be, who will, for a moment, think that it would be possible to prohibit the Irish Legislature from making provisions such as are incorporated in the Arms Acts. These are provisions which are really police regulations, and it would be absolutely impracticable to debar the Irish Government from making regulations and laws in relation to matters of that kind. But the limitation to which the right hon. Gentleman pointed was that indicated by the Solicitor General where he said the Government were prepared—though we think that object is already gained by the words of the Bill—to debar the Irish Legislature from making laws with reference to the carrying or using of arms for military purposes, or for forming or authorising or legalising the formation of associations for drill or practice, in the use of arms, not in the way indicated by my hon. and gallant Friend, but for military purposes. That, I believe, is what is contended for, and that is what we intended in the use of the words "military force" in this clause as it, stands, and we offer either to bring up words of our own for attaining that object, or to accept the limitation upon the words in the hon. Member for Essex's Amendment limiting their prohibition exclusively to armed associations and to the using of arms for military purposes.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sure we are grateful for the concessions which the Government make to us. I may say,

    63
    however, for the consolation of hon. Members below the Gangway representing Nationalist constituencies, that the Government have themselves carefully explained, both last night and to-night, that every concession they made was merely in the matter of drafting, and that, in their view, the Bill, as originally framed, carried out all the Amendments which they had since accepted. But there is more to be said with regard to the present Amendment than perhaps the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down recognises. He is anxious to limit the Amendment on the words he is going to bring up in substitution of the Amendment to purely military matters. It has never been thought possible to regard the carrying of arms in Ireland as a purely local matter. In 1881 an Act was passed under the Government of the Prime Minister amending the law relating to the carrying or possession of arms in Ireland. That Act provided that in proclaimed districts persons should not carry or own arms or ammunition save as authorised in the conditions set forth in the Proclamation. That Act expired in 1886, and was renewed without protest.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: It was not renewed without protest.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, the protest was of the very mildest character. It was again renewed in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act of last year. Therefore, I may take it that ever since 1881 it has been recognised on both sides of the House—by an Anti-Coercionist Government, as Ministers call themselves, as well as by a Coercionist Government, as they call us—that there should be a special Arms Act, by which the Irish Administration should be empowered to say that in certain districts arms should not be carried. It has been recognised by all Parties in the State that such an Act was necessary.
    MR. J. MORLEYremarked that the Irish Members divided against the Arms Bill of 1886.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes; but when hon. Members below the Gangway object to anything in the nature of coercion they do something more than take Divisions. It is, therefore, evident that their protest was of the very mildest character. I ask whether, under these circumstances, that being the view of Her Majesty's Government and
    64
    of those who support them, it is not evident that the question of the carrying of arms in Ireland is not one that may safely be left in the hands of the Imperial Parliament, especially as in the Imperial Parliament the Irish Members will be represented? This question affects some of the great controversies which divides the population of Ireland. One of the reasons why the Arms Act—in effect a Coercion Act, so far as it went—was permitted to pass in 1886 was that Nationalist Members conceived it to be directed against Ulster, and I believe the Chief Secretary will not deny that in the legislative course which he then pursued he was as much influenced by considerations connected with Ulster as by considerations connected with the South and West of Ireland. If I am right in saying that the question of carrying arms is much more than a mere police regulation, if it affects the great divisions in the religion and politics of the population in Ireland, is it not legitimate, and politic, and fair that it should be decided by the Imperial Parliament, where Ireland will be adequately represented, rather than that it should be handed over to the decision of the Irish Legislature where the minority, whether in the South or in Ulster, might feel themselves oppressed by the action of a purely partisan Nationalist majority? For these reasons I would earnestly urge the Government to add to the concession they have alrealy previously made another retaining for the Imperial Parliament powers which the Imperial Parliament by their own practical avowal has used, and used wisely, during the last 11 years under both Governments and both Parties.
    MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) has taunted us with consistent silence. For sufficient reasons we desire to be silent unless when it is necessary to speak. We are aware of the unconstitutional nature of the enterprise in which the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and his confederates are engaged in reference to this Bill. They have avowed that their object is to destroy the Bill. [Opposition cheers. That avowal is cheered. They endeavour to destroy the Bill under the hypocritical cover of moving Amendments to improve it. They are not ashamed to declare that their object

    65
    is, under cover of the Forms of Parliament devised for the progress of Business, to defeat the solemn judgment of the electors of this Kingdom, and to reduce this House itself to helplessness, impotence, and contempt. Sir, for this reason we do not speak upon the Bill, because we do not desire to abet a Revolutionary Party. Certainly the Unionist Party, so far as my reading goes, is the first Party in the Parliamentary history of England which endeavours to use the Forms of Parliament for revolutionary purposes, and it is in the most unmistakable sense a revolutionary purpose to use the Forms of this House for the purpose of preventing the House from carrying out the will of the electors of the country. These are our reasons for economising speeches. We do not desire to abet unconstitutional obstruction. I must say for myself that our consistent silence; does not appear to give us any advantage in regard to facility for speech when we desire to speak. I rose three times last night on the Police Amendment, and I should have thought that when an Amendment of that importance was being considered a Member rising to speak on behalf of the Representatives of Ireland would have been heard before the Government delivered a reply in which they bound themselves by pledges. I was not allowed to intervene in the Debate, and the Police Amendment was agreed to without any Irish Member being heard. To-day I have risen twice on this Amendment, and I had to sit down, and I did think that an Irish Member speaking on behalf of the country concerned in the Bill would have been heard before the Minister replied. I rose; again after the Minister, and I was not called upon, and I venture to submit to the Committee that it is inconvenient, and perhaps useless, for me now to speak after the case for the Amendment has been heard and after the reply of the Minister has been delivered, a reply which I take to be in the nature of a pledge. I ask the Committee and all reasonable men whether it is a convenient or useful method of debate to allow the Representatives of Ireland the liberty to intervene only after the Debate has been brought to a conclusion? Although, perhaps, it is rather late, it may not be quite useless for me to say that, in my judgment, this is one of the numerous Amendments
    66
    designed to destroy the Bill. I should not have thought, Mr. Mellor, that after the Committee had determined in Clause 2 the general groundwork of the Irish Legislature and to give it the power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland, and thereby vesting the Government of Ireland under this scheme with responsibility for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland, that it would have been proposed to withdraw from the Government so responsible all power with regard to legislation with respect to the carrying of arms. I leave out of view altogether the carrying of arms for necessary purposes—for instance, the carrying of arms by farmers. The Amendment proposes to take away the power of dealing with armed associations or associations for drill or practice in the use of arms, and yet the Irish. Government will be responsible for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland; and now, under the clause by which you purpose to deliver to them that power, you are considering an Amendment by which that Parliament and Government will have no power to deal with the carrying of arms. Surely, power to deal with the carrying of arms is a primary power, and necessarily a primary and fundamental power, with regard to the conservation of the peace, order, and good government of the country. I say the Amendment is incompatible with the main and fundamental principle of the Bill, and no rational person would let us accept responsibility for the peace, order, or good government of Ireland and yet have no control over the carrying of arms in Ulster or elsewhere. But this Amendment has a sinister aspect. This Amendment is the complement of the cowardly Ulster Plan of Campaign. The Leaders of the Unionist Party busied themselves, and are busying themselves at this present moment, in inciting the population of Ulster to disaffection and armed revolt in the event of the passing of this Bill. The late Prime Minister before he went to Ulster spoke of beating down the police, and since he went to Ulster he has witnessed military marches. Every day, in Unionist speeches and in the Unionist Press, we have boastings of the fact that the Orange and Unionist clubs in Ulster are armed and are engaged in arming themselves. These are the only

    67
    bodies, so far as I know in Ireland, which answer to the description of armed associations contained in the Amendment. Armed associations and associations for drill or practice in the use of arms are only to be found in the pet Province of the Party above the Gangway, in the Province which would be peaceful enough if let alone; a Province which, if let alone, would be willing enough to throw in its lot with the rest of Ireland, but which, by the interested and reckless incitements of active politicians, has been driven into a state of disaffection against the law. ["No, no!" and "What law?"] In regard to the spirit of loyalty to the Constitution, the question is just the same whether the incitement to resist the law which now exists, or one which Parliament is engaged in passing. In Ulster there are armed associations, in Ulster there are associations for drill or practice in the use of arms, and the Leaders of the Unionist Party go to Ulster to make speeches there, inciting men to arm, and stating in no cryptic language that these associations and arms are to be employed for revolt against the laws of the Queen in Ireland. The followers of the Unionist Party hero complete the Plan of Campaign, and rise in the House and propose Amendments by which, when the Bill is passed and the Government of Ireland comes into existence, there shall be no power in the bauds of the Government of Ireland to deal with the armed associations. The plan is half bluster and half cowardice—bluster in public places in Ulster, and cowardice in the House of Commons. I shall only express the hope, which I think is not a too sanguine one, addressed at least to the Government and the friends of this Pill in the House of Commons and outside, whether or not Members of the Unionist Party, from the ex-Prime Minister down, are within their right in inciting the population of Ulster to armed revolt, that, at any rate, it is not too sanguine to hope to expect that a majority of this House will not be found to give any countenance to any Amendment which, when the Government of Ireland comes into existence, and when those armed associations endeavour to revolt, shall render that Government impotent to reduce them to submission.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, he wished to explain to the hon. Member for North Kerry that he did not see him rise. Had he done so, he certainly should have called upon him. He hoped the hon. Member would understand that.
    MR. BARTLEY: On a point of Order, Sir, is it in Order for an hon. Member to complain that he has not been called on by the Chairman?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend the Member for North Kerry has just heard the explanation given by the Chairman of Committees; and on the part of the Government I desire certainly to say that, on all occasions when the Irish Members wish to comment on an Amendment to this Bill, it is right we should hear anything they have to state before any statement is made on behalf of the Government, and the intervention of the Solicitor General was not intended in any way to restrict the Debate. Now, Sir, it is clearly understood that as regards the question before us—namely, the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman, we cannot accept that Amendment as it stands; and the only useful purpose the prolongation of the discussion can have is that the Committee may consider whether there is anything further that can or ought to be done to give effect to the words adopted with regard to military forces, and whether it would be desirable to remove from the cognisance of the Irish Parliament all powers of dealing in any manner with the use of arms by associations of the kind contemplated, which would be dangerous to the public peace. I understand the substance of the point raised on the opposite side of the House to be this—You are prohibiting the Irish Government from dealing with military forces of whatsoever kind; but there are associations which are not ex professo military, but which at the same time might have in view military purposes, and it would not be right that the Irish Legislature should have power to set up under another name what would be virtually a military force. That I understand to be the contention of the Opposition. But the Leader of the Opposition has gone even further than that, and contended that not only the establishment and regulation and development of these quasi-military institutions, so-called, but also the whole

    69
    regulation of the subjects connected with the use of arms, should be left to the Imperial Parliament. Against that my hon. Friend the Member for North Kerry made an argument in which there appears to me to be great force—namely, that, having authorised the Irish Legislature to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland, we have imposed upon it a great responsibility. Elements of disturbance will crop up from time to time in almost any society, locally or accidentally, and there ought to be the means of dealing with them. The right hon. Gentleman opposite said, "Leave that entirely to the Imperial Parliament." I am not able to adopt that view. First of all, I have no answer to make to the hon. Member for North Kerry. If Parliament imposed on the Irish Legislature the responsibility of making laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland, it is unreasonable to absolutely disable and cripple it in its powers of dealing with this source of disorder. That seems to me a reasonable and strong argument. These dangers sometimes arise at very short notice. If I remember rightly, we had in a former Government with which I was connected a rather sudden emergency of an extremely dangerous movement of this kind in the county of Westmeath. There appeared a certain tendency, difficult to account for, a pestilential movement threatening human life and producing a crop of murders suddenly in Westmeath. That was met by an enactment of the Imperial Parliament. Suppose a similar occasion should arise in some county of Ireland not connected with a party association, but connected with the general interests of public order. It might arise very suddenly; it might arise when the Imperial Parliament would not be sitting, and it might arise when the Irish Legislature would not be sitting. The Viceroy could call together the Irish Legislature at a moment's notice to deal with the occasion that might have arisen. He would have no power to bring the Imperial Parliament into action. I do not think it safe to refer the whole of these repressive means with reference to movements dangerous to public order to the exclusive responsibility of the Imperial Parliament. I do not believe that this House will, after Home Rule has been established, have
    70
    any great desire, except upon very strong necessity, to intermeddle in the internal affairs of Ireland. The Government are perfectly willing to join in restricting the Irish Legislature from creating and authorising action with respect to these semi-military or quasi-military institutions—that; is, institutions of that kind formed for military purposes. But, with regard to these repressive enactments which the immediate necessities of public order may suddenly require, we cannot impose the duty of making laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland upon the Irish Legislature, and at the same time deprive it entirely of all repressive powers. What the Government are willing to do is this—they cannot accept this Amendment at a moment's notice. It will be necessary, as has been suggested by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, to consider some form of words which will consistently apply the principle of reserving the creation and the regulation of the military forces and of these quasi-military institutions to the Imperial Parliament. That might be met, I think, by the insertion of words in the Bill declaring that what the Government have in view is not any question connected with the use of arms for sporting, and, perhaps, not even for exercise—for it would be a very serious thing to stop proceedings of that kind—but for cases in which they might be addressed to military purposes. The general contention of the Government is that, while we think this is an appropriate matter for us to contemplate and deal with by some Amendment, that Amendment ought to be limited by showing, first of all, that we are dealing with these institutions when they are quasi military, or when they are contemplated or used for military purposes; and, further, that it should be so framed as in no way to interfere with the legitimate powers of the Irish Legislature for maintaining public order, and putting down the action of disturbing powers which may appear under exceptional circumstances in any quarter of the country.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, that the slight difference that appeared to have arisen between the Prime Minister and the majority which retained him in Office below the Gangway was entirely owing to the fact that

    71
    hon. Members below the Gangway had refused to sit behind the right hon. Gentleman. If they had been nearer to the right hon. Gentleman they might have taken sweet counsel together. The right hon. Gentleman's main objection to this Amendment was that it would place the Government of Ireland at a disadvantage if a sudden emergency should arise by reason of the time it would take to summon the Irish Parliament.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No; the British or Imperial Parliament.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, that up to the present time at any rate, the British Parliament had had considerable success in dealing with Ireland, as was proved by the peaceful condition in which the Unionist Government left that country; and if any sudden necessity should arise he did not see that there would be any difficulty in the future in summoning the British Parliament in the same way as had been done on former occasions. So far as he could make out, the right hon. Gentleman had pledged the Government to introduce certain words at some future stage of the Bill dealing with the power of the Irish Parliament to create an armed police force; and he apparently considered that if some clause, or some addition to a clause, were inserted which would prevent the future Irish Government from creating a force of a similar character to the Irish Parliament, that would be sufficient to prevent them from creating in Ireland a military force.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I did not say so. I said we were willing to insert words to prevent them from creating quasi-military associations such as are enumerated in this Amendment.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, he did not quite understand what the right hon. Gentleman intended to do; but if the right hon. Gentleman consented to accept the Amendment he had no more to say. The principal point of this Amendment was that it proposed to prevent the Irish Parliament from creating armed associations. Armed associations and associations of a quasi-military character appeared to him to be exactly the same thing; and, therefore, he did not think that the arrangement entered into by the right hon. Gentleman with the right hon. Member for West Birmingham would be of very much value. The hon. Member
    72
    for North Kerry had accused the Ulstermen of being cowards. He did not know why they should be regarded as cowards in Ulster. Ulster differed from those Provinces with which the hon. Member was closely connected, for there they did not shoot people from behind hedges, or carry out the laws of the League by houghing cattle, firing into dwellings, or burning hayricks. Therefore, it was probable that the ideas of courage entertained by the hon. Member for Kerry and by the men of Ulster were diametrically opposed to one another. They in Ulster had not the courage to perform the acts to which he had alluded.
    MR. SEXTON: The Queen's Island?
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, the hon. Member has also said that the Ulster Party were a Revolutionary Party. The usual idea of a revolutionist was that he was a man who proposed, by violence if necessary, to pull down the institutions of the country.
    MR. SEXTON: The House of Commons.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, they (the Ulster Party), on the contrary, desired, and intended, to maintain intact the institutions of this country under which they had thriven. The hon. Member also said that they were rebelling against Parliament; but he was going a little too quick, for this Bill had not passed yet. The hon. Member also said that they were standing opposed to the will of the people. What people? The Prime Minister himself appeared to forget that the British people were on the side of the Irish Unionists, and that be was maintained in Office and had only the opportunity of bringing forward this Bill by the support of the Irish Party. [Cries of "Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. and gallant Member, having replied to the hon. Member for Kerry, will confine himself to the Amendment.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid he had quite finished with the hon. Member for Kerry. Turning to the Amendment, and looking to what the character of the future Irish Government would be, and to the Acts that it would be likely to pass—for it would be a Land League Government, and they knew how the Land League had dealt with arms in past time—the Irish Unionists considered this Amendment would be a fair one, and

    73
    would curb the action of the Irish Parliament, to which they objected. The first Act that the Irish Parliament would pass would be a disarmament Act. Most eloquent speeches would be made in the Irish Parliament declaring that the union of hearts had dispelled all old antagonisms, and that it would be a blessing for Ireland if all arms were taken away, and the people were left with their spades and shovels—and possibly their blackthorns. The Prime Minister would point to this as a proof of the success of his legislation; but what would be the result in Ireland? They had a taste of a disarmament Act 200 years ago in the time of Tyrconnel, when the arms where all taken from the Loyalists and left to the other side. What would inevitably happen, from the constitution of this Irish Parliament, in which the Loyalists would have no voice, and of this Government in which they would take no part, would be that in Ulster there would be no arms—if Ulster allowed it. The Parliament would take a dispensing power to deal with the various parts of Ireland; and the inspection for aims in Ulster would be most microscopic. The law-abiding population, which had all along opposed this infamous Land League conspiracy, would be at the mercy of their enemies. Knowing, as the Prime Minister did, the history of the Party opposite, and of the Land League which he so long confronted, he asked him whether it would be safe to hand over the law-abiding population in Ireland to men who had declared over and over again on public platforms that in the days of their power they would remember those who bad opposed them. If anything like fair play was intended by the Government—and he did not believe it was—they would reserve this question of arms to the Imperial Parliament, where the question could be fairly debated by British and Irish Members. The Amendment would allow every opportunity to the Irish Government, if they acted rightly, of carrying on the good government of the country, without placing in their hands a weapon which they would inevitably use for the destruction of their political opponents.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid, it might be inconvenient to Members below the Gangway that the Government should
    74
    make a series of concessions without embodying one under any definite promise. It was difficult to estimate what the concessions of the Government really meant. The Prime Minister was perfectly lucid in explaining his intentions; but his explanations wore quite distinct from those made by the hon. Member for Kerry. Did the Government, like the hon. Member for Kerry, contemplate the possibility of a Legislature, composed of men of only one of the two opposite races and creeds in Ireland, being not only allowed, but called upon to make an armed interposition in the event of a grave social difficulty, such as the occurrences in West Meath, to which reference had been made? The hon. Member for Kerry said there were armed associations at present in the North of Ireland, and that men were now drilling there—
    MR. SEXTON: I said the boast has been made. I do not know whether there are or not.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid, the hon. Member had told the House that there were men armed and drilling in Ulster. These men belonged to one race and one religion. In the West of Ireland they had another race and another religion, which would be allowed by this Legislature to deal with arms. Were they to understand that they would be able to interpose with arms in Ulster?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he would like to see how the decision of last night bore upon the present discussion. The discussion last night ran in the direction of preventing any resurrection of the Constabulary as an armed force. The Government plainly said that there should be only a local police force in Ireland, and that no quasi-military force should be called into existence under the control of the Irish Parliament. What, then, was their position? Unless the present Amendment were accepted, it was admitted that the Irish Government would be able to arm certain associations and drill them. Everyone knew that the Gaelic Athletic Clubs in Ireland were political associations in everything but in name; and in it month they could be armed and would become an effective force.
    An hon. Member: Bosh!
    Another hon. Member: They are football clubs.
    MR. T.W. RUSSELLsaid, nominally football clubs, these associations were the successors of the Fenians. What was intended by the Irish Party? It was plain that what was intended was the coercion of Ulster. The Government feared the odium of moving British troops against Ulster; and therefore they wished to give the Irish Parliament power to have an armed force of their own. The hon. Member for Kerry had charged the Opposition with acting un-Constitutionally in obstructing a Pill which had been decided upon by the House and the will of the people. The hon. Member's own Leader, the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), in his Life of Sir Robert Peel, published last year in the "Prime Minister" series, absolutely defended the obstruction of that time, on the ground that no Government ought to be able to rush a Pill through the House of Commons about which the country was not certain. There had been no obstruction of the Home Rule Bill, and the best proof of it was that the Government had accepted four or five Amendments only yesterday. If the Prime Minister's argument was good for anything, it was good for the Irish Parliament having an Army under its control.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I distinctly stated that I wished to prevent any such thing.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the right hon. Gentleman drew a distinction between an armed and a military force. That was a distinction he (Mr. T. W. Russell) declined to draw.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: All that I have said has been directly contrary to the Irish Legislature being allowed to establish any armed forces. Not a word of the hon. Member's speech which has referred to me has had the smallest approach to correctness.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, if that were so, how was it that the Prime Minister did not consent to accept the Amendment?
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he desired to take up the discussion at the point at which it was left by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman went a long way towards meeting the principle of the Amendment. If he went a step further he would put an end to the discussion. Of course, there was great ground for hesitating to accept any
    76
    proposition made on the spur of the moment; but both the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General had expressed in very clear language what they were ready to assent to. He would submit to them a very short form of words which would be found not to go beyond their declarations, and which they might accept. By accepting these words they would—at all events, for the present—settle the question in principle, and leave to a later stage any necessary revision or modification of phraseology. What he proposed instead of the Amendment, which he admitted went too far, was that the Government should accept these words—
    "The forming, organising, or authorising of any armed associations or associations for drill or practice in the use of arms."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he emphatically objected to the introduction into the Bill on a subject of such importance of any words hurriedly framed, and he respectfully submitted to the Prime Minister that all words proposed to be put into the Bill should be placed on the Paper.
    MR. TOMLINSONpointed out that the Amendment had been weeks on the Paper, and said the Committee had a right to complain that the amending words of the Government had not been put down some time ago.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think there is a great deal in what my hon. and learned Friend has just said, but I do not propose to go into that. I understand the position to be this: The Amendment deals with two entirely different questions, that of raising a military force and that dealt with under the Whiteboy Acts and the Act of 1881. The Government are prepared to put words down on the Paper dealing with the first of these subjects, but they are not prepared to make any concession on the second. As far as we are concerned, while we are grateful to the Government for the concession they have made, we attach the greatest importance to the second portion of the Amendment. But I think we have, perhaps, threshed out the question adequately; the division of opinion is now quite clear, and I would suggest to my hon. and learned Friend that he should go to a Division on his Amendment on the ground that the first part of it ought to be inserted in the Bill.
    MR. MACFARLANEsuggested that it might be possible to meet the difficulty by fixing a very small number of men and allowing them to be drilled for dealing with local disturbances.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 245; Noes 283.—(Division List, No. 108.)
    COLONEL LOCKWOODmoved the addition of the words, "The manufacture or sale or purchase of arms and munitions of war, or of explosive substances." He said he confessed he was suspicious of the intentions of the Nationalist Members, and be thought his suspicions had been fully brought out by the Debate which took place on the previous day. If his suspicious were ill-founded no one would more gladly recognise than he would that he bad been wrong. He made no pretence that he was not bringing forward the Amendment in a Party sense. He introduced it as a Party man; and because he feared that if no such Amendment were adopted there would be danger in the future to the Loyalists of Ireland. There would, he thought, be an equal danger to the followers of the Nationalist Members. Unfortunately, for some time past, the Irish nation had been addicted to the illegal use of firearms, and, for the purpose of preventing this, the Act of 1881, which did not expire until December next, contained strong provisions for preventing the purchase of arms. He thought that if crimes were committed whilst the present prohibition was in force they would be much more numerous if the prohibition were withdrawn. If no such Amendment as he proposed were adopted, the Irish Parliament would be able to prohibit altogether the importation into the North of Ireland of arms manufactured in the South. There would be nothing to prevent them from manufacturing arms in the South and prohibiting their importation into the North. And if words like these were not inserted there would be nothing to prevent arms manufactured in the South of Ireland being exported to countries on the brink of war with England, and animated by hostile feelings to her. It was not too wild a statement to say that
    78
    the feelings that existed between the North and the South of Ireland were not very friendly, and if rifles could be distributed from manufactories situated in Ireland there would be not only a danger, but almost the certainty that what were now street brawls would become scenes of bloodshed. The riots which frequently attended Irish elections would become much more serious in their character. The principal object for which arms were required was that of repelling an enemy. The Imperial Government undertook to repel with its own Army any foreign enemy who might land in Ireland. Her Majesty's Government had said that they did not contemplate the establishment of a Volunteer Force in Ireland, so that the manufacture of arms for a force of that kind would be out of the question. But arms were also manufactured for export purposes. He did not think Her Majesty's Government would view with complacency the establishment of a factory in Ireland for that purpose. Then, again, arms might be required for illegal purposes, and it was principally to prevent that requirement being met that he had drafted this Amendment. As regarded the manufacture of explosive substances, they knew with what dire effect such power of manufacture might be used. They bad seen crimes committed in Ireland with these substances, and it was to prevent the easy sale and purchase of explosives in that country that he wished to press the Amendment. It might be said that explosives were necessary for mining purposes. That was true, and to cover the use of explosives for that purpose he should be ready to accept Amendments requiring licences to be issued by the Home Secretary. But he believed that an unrestricted power of manufacturing or selling explosive substances in Ireland under the rule of the contemplated Irish Parliament would be disastrous in the extreme. If the Amendment were negatived, if the Irish Parliament were allowed to have this unrestricted power over arms, he did not think it would be difficult to answer the question as to where the manufacture of arms in Ireland would be situated. He thought that the manufactures, sale, or purchase of arms and munitions of war, or of explosive substances, might fairly be prohibited, at all events for some time after

    79
    the passing of the Act. They were frequently told by Her Majesty's Government that in the new Parliament matters would be very different to what they were now, and that a better spirit would animate the Irish nation. That might be the ease in time to come; but he believed that for some years, at all events, it was very unlikely that the Irish character would go through such an extraordinary transformation as to allow the Imperial Parliament to safely entrust Ireland with the manufacture of such munitions of war as he had indicated in the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, after the word "or, "in line 1, to insert the words "the manufacture or sale or purchase of arms and munitions of war, or of explosive substances."—(Colonel Lockwood.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR J. RIGBY: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has proposed the Amendment has been a little misled through the form in which Clause 3 of the Bill appears. He proposes that the Irish Legislature should have no authority to pass a law with regard to the class of subjects mentioned in the Amendment. What would be the result of adopting that? Not that the sale and manufacture would be impossible, but that it would be absolutely free from all restrictions—unless, indeed, the Imperial Parliament were called on to pass restrictions; and, if it did so, it would be a piece of meddlesome interference which must, of necessity, give rise to difficulties whore difficulties need not exist at all. The class of subjects dealt with—I mean, first of all, the arms and munitions of war—will come under the general designation of contraband of war. I do not know that there are any countries on the face of the earth in which the manufacture of contraband of war in time of peace—meaning, thereby, the peace of the nation where the manufacture takes place—is or ever has been prohibited. It is practically an insulting suggestion—
    MR. T. M. HEALY: That is why it is made.
    SIR J. RIGBY: It is an insulting suggestion to say that there should be an interference with the commerce and trade of Ireland which could only be
    80
    prompted by some of the old feelings of jealousy with regard to Irish trade which unfortunately prevailed in the past for so long. I venture to think that the Irish Government should be allowed to control and restrict its business. It ought to control the trade in arms and munitions of war, because it is a sort of trade that may require control. But to say that it should be prevented from making any regulations or passing any laws with reference to it would be equivalent to saying that on an important branch of their own exclusive trade the Irish Parliament, if they wished for legislation, must apply to the Imperial Parliament to pass an Act at a time, probably, when the Imperial Parliament would have its own work to do, and would pay no attention to the appeal made to it. I venture to think that the Amendment is not well conceived, and I am authorised to say that Her Majesty's Government must oppose it. As to explosives, we have had legislation with reference to them—legislation which, I believe, was extended to Ireland. What is the nature of that legislation? I have had some experience of these Acts, and I think I. may say, without danger of being far wrong, that the sole object has been the prevention of accidents, and the passing of regulations, whether in regard to gunpowder manufacture, nitroglycerine manufacture, or the manufacture of similarexplosives—the legislation has been to regulate these manufactures for the benefit of the workpeople and the benefit of the neighbourhood in which the work is carried on. Why should not this matter be within the purview of the Irish Parliament? Why should that Parliament not, if it thinks it necessary, pass measures for the security of life and property in connection with the manufacture of explosives? This proposal seems a reductio ad absurdum, and a desire to breakthrough the rule on which the Bill is founded, which rule is that Ireland should have control of matters affecting Ireland exclusively, and that the Imperial Parliament should interfere only in Imperial matters. That power of the Imperial Parliament cannot be given or taken away; but, at any rate, we should close the gate as far as possible to its interference by making a rational

    81
    distribution of the powers of the two Legislatures. I venture to think that the Amendment is radically wrong, and cannot be accepted.
    MR. CARSONsaid, he could not help thinking that the Solicitor General was under a misapprehension as regarded the meaning of the Amendment. He had spoken as if he had never heard of the Peace Preservation Act of 1881. Probably, being an Irish Act, he had not thought it worth his while to read it.
    SIR J. RIGBY: I had it in mind. I have read it and considered it carefully.
    Mr. CARSON: Then the hon. and learned Gentleman bad made an extraordinary use of it, for he had said that if this Amendment were accepted and the Home Rule Bill became law, the manufacture, sale, or purchase of arms and munitions of war and explosive substances would be free and unrestricted in Ireland. The Act of 1881 prevented such manufacture, sale, or purchase.
    SIR J. RIGBY: Until the end of this Session of Parliament, and no longer.
    MR. CARSONsaid, he was talking of the law as it existed at present. Was the Solicitor General prepared to announce that the Government were not going to re-enact the Peace Preservation Act? All he (Mr. Carson) knew was that in 1886, when they apprehended troubles in Ulster, they re-enacted it, and that last year they allowed it to be continued without a single word of debate.[Cries of "Question!"] This was in Order. The matter was important as regarded the particular question before the Committee, because if the Act was not to remain law they must place on the Paper Amendments to the Bill in order that effect might be given to it. As to the existing law, he could not accept the Solicitor General's observations as showing that he had authority to declare that the Act of 1881 was not to be re-enacted. In his (Mr. Carson's) opinion, so far from the matter being free, a Home Rule Government, if the Amendments were accepted, would be absolutely prevented, save under the terms of the Act of 1881, from manufacturing, importing, selling, or purchasing arms or munitions of war. Therefore, the first argument of the Solicitor
    82
    General fell to the ground. The hon and learned Gentleman spoke of the proposal as putting a restriction on the ordinary trade and commerce of Ireland. But they had always had that restriction. They had it before the Act of 1881 was passed, and the question was now whether the House, with its eyes open, was going to allow the Irish Legislature to repeal what had always been the law. The hon. and learned Gentleman thought this Amendment would militate against the manufacture and sale of arms if carried on properly and injure the trade of Ireland; but the Amendment merely sought to continue existing restrictions. There was no interference with legitimate trade at the present moment, and the object of the Amendment was only to prevent the improper manufacture, sale, and purchase of arms and explosives. The hon. and learned Gentleman had, therefore, argued against the first part of the Amendment under an entire mistake as to the Peace Preservation Act. In relation to the question of explosive substances the Solicitor General had made a still more extraordinary proposition. One of the most amusing contentions he had ever beard put forward was that the Act passed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby when Home Secretary in reference to explosive substances was an Act to prevent accidents.
    SIR J. RIGBY: That Act did not deal with the manufacture of these things; but it made it criminal, under certain circumstances, to be in possession of them, and it involved additional penalties for their criminal user.
    MR. CARSON: Just so, and such possession and such "criminal user" were not accidents. He remembered once being engaged in a criminal trial in Ireland which had reference to the shooting of a lady, and the prisoner always spoke of "the day when Mrs. So-and-so met with an accident." This very Act was passed by the right hon. Gentleman the present Chancellor of the Exchequer at a time when he, no doubt, was very much afraid of "accidents" as the result of the manufacture of explosive substances. The object of the hon. and gallant Member who moved the Amendment was to provide that the provisions of the Explosives Act should remain on the Statute Book, and to prevent the Irish Legislature from

    83
    repealing them. It seemed to him that this was a matter of considerable importance. The Explosives Act dealt with both England and Ireland, differing in that respect from the Peace Preservation Act, which only dealt with Ireland. Was that House going to give the Irish Parliament power to make a state of law in Ireland under which people could make dynamite in that country, and have it in possession? In the Debates on the release of the so-called political prisoners the Irish Members had shown that they took a different view of the dynamite offences to that taken by the public of this country. Were the Government, then, going to enable these gentlemen to grant permission for the manufacture of dynamite? If so, let them declare it. The Opposition did not want in any way to restrict the powers of the Irish Government as they at present existed, either as to the manufacture or sale of arms or explosives; but they wanted, at any rate, as regarded these things for the people of Ireland, the same protection as that which had been given to the English people, and which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so anxious formerly to obtain for himself.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I cannot refrain from the observation that, to my mind, the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down seem more titled for the atmosphere of a Central Criminal Court than that of the House of Commons. No doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman finds indulgence in personalities very useful; but I will endeavour to find out something in the nature of argument in what he said. But I am afraid there is really nothing in what he has said. Of course, any Imperial Statute which the Imperial Government thinks fit to make after the Home Rule Bill is passed will apply Ireland, and the Irish Parliament will have no power to set it aside. Everybody knows this, and I wonder that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have so small an opinion of the intelligence of the audience he was addressing as to make use of the arguments he put before us. What the hon. Member wants is that we should incorporate into the Home Rule Bill everything that is found in a Coercion Act. But the two things are not the same. The substance of his argument is
    84
    that this measure should take the form of a Coercion Bill. But it is not a Coercion Bill; it is not an Arms Bill, or a Crimes Bill, or an Explosives Bill. It is a Home Rule Bill. That all the provisions of the Home Rule Bill are not identical with the provisions of a Coercion Act is a thing which should surprise nobody. If there is any danger with reference to the dealing with arms or explosives in Ireland or elsewhere, the Imperial Parliament will always apply the legislation it considers expedient.
    MR. DUNBAR BARTONthought that no one who heard the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin could admit that the observations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were justified. The right hon. Gentleman held that this Amendment should not be accepted because this was not an Explosives Bill. But were the words "treason felony" not to be inserted because this was not a Treason Felony Bill? Were they not to include anything about naval and military forces because this was not a Naval or Military Bill? When the right hon. Gentleman imputed to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin the use of arguments which were answerable on the face of them, he should have been careful of his own arguments. The right hon. Gentleman, when he said that explosives were not to be inserted in the Bill because the measure was not an Explosives Bill, forgot that there were many special provisions in the measure, none of which were a whit more necessary than the provision contained in this Amendment. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that this was not a Coercion Bill. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to have been present a few hours since, when he would have heard it stated directly and candidly by the hon. Member for North Kerry that there must b a central force in Ireland of some sort for the purpose of coercing Ulster.
    MR. SEXTON: I did not say that. I never touched the question of an armed force. I said that the Government, being established for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland, must have power to suppress illegal and armed organisations.
    MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, that was his point. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been present he would have learnt that the hon. Member only wanted to substitute coercion on a largo scale for coercion on a small scale. He was surprised that the Chancellor of the Exchequer sat still when he heard the Act he himself passed so, he would not say misrepresented, but misdeseribed by the Solicitor General.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: This Amendment deals with the manufacture of explosive substances. The Bill I introduced had to do with the improper use of explosives, not with their manufacture.
    MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, that, unfortunately, he held that Act in his hand. He would read a portion of it, and from this quotation hon. Members would see the necessity there was for carefully watching the exposition of laws they received from the Treasury Bench. They had heard supremacy described in such vague language that the feeble intellects of hon. Members of the Opposition were unable to grasp its meaning. But at last they had a statement they could grapple with—namely, that the Explosives Act did not deal with the manufacture of explosives. Well, Clause 3 of that Act spoke
    "of any person who within Her Majesty's Dominions unlawfully makes or has in his possession any explosive substance with intent by means thereof to endanger life or property."
    These words disposed of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement that the Explosives Act did not deal with the manufacture of explosives. It also disposed of the Solicitor General's suggestion that the Act aimed at preventing accidents.
    SIR J. RIGBY: I did not refer to that Act as dealing with accidents at all. I said plainly enough for those who would understand that in England, which I understood to include Ireland, with regard to the manufacture of explosives, the solo object was to preserve life and prevent risk to property. I did not refer to this Act at all, because I knew it was a Criminal Act and had nothing to do with the main subject of the Amendment—the sale and manufacture of explosive substances.
    MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, he wished to speak with the greatest respect
    86
    of the Solicitor General, who was one of the first British jurists, and therefore one of the first jurists, probably, in the world; but he could not accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement. He (Mr. Barton) was in the recollection of the House. His (the Solicitor General's) attention was called to the Act passed by the hon. and learned Gentleman's Colleague in 1883. The hon. and learned Gentleman first referred to the Irish Acts and then to the English Explosives Act, which he rightly thought extended to Ireland. What Act did the hon. and learned Gentleman refer to if not to that Act? The hon. and learned Gentleman defended the rejection of the Amendment on the ground that that Act dealt with accidents, and then he said it dealt with having possession only and not with manufacture. Clause 4 declared that
    "any person who makes or knowingly has in his possession or under his control any explosive substance,"
    and so on. Both the Solicitor General and the Chancellor of the Exchequer were wrong when they opposed the Amendment on the ground that the law, which the Opposition held the Irish Parliament should not have power to repeal, did not deal with the manufacture of explosives. The Irish Legislature, if this Amendment were not accepted, would have power to repeal the Explosives Act so far as it affected Ireland. He asked the Committee to remember that the Explosives Act was passed with special reference to Irish politics; and would it not, therefore, be most unwise and most unsafe to enable that one part of the Kingdom for which the Act was specially designed to repeal the Act? for it was certain that the Irish Parliament would repeal it, on the first opportunity. It was an enactment which, above all others, the Nationalist Party abhorred. The Committee knew that the Nationalist Members had in that very Session of Parliament voted for the release of the dynamitards; and he asked, was it safe for the Kingdom? Was it safe for the people of London that the Irish Parliament should be given power to set up the manufacture of dynamite and explosives in Ireland if they wished to do so?
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, the Committee welcomed back the Chancellor of the Exchequer from Epsom

    87
    now that the Oaks was run. He was bound to say that two of the arguments of the Solicitor General in opposing the Amendment were very extravagant. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman objected to the Amendment as an instance of trade jealousy. Was the right hon. Gentleman prepared to say that the Explosives Act of 1881 was passed by the House from motives of trade jealousy? It was absurd to suppose such a thing. The Act was passed to protect the lives of Her Majesty's subjects; it was passed for the purpose which the Prime Minister had said the Bill before the Committee was being passed—for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland. The Solicitor General also said that he could not accept the Amendment, because it was undue interference with the liberty of the Irish Parliament, and he referred to the objects covered by the Amendment as contraband of war. But that question was one of Imperial interest, which ought most undoubtedly to come under the cognisance of the Imperial Parliament. He could not conceive anything over which the Imperial Parliament should exercise supreme authority in Ireland than articles contraband of war. The argument of the Solicitor General showed how indistinct and confused the views of the Government were upon the limitations that were to be placed upon the prerogative of the Imperial Parliament in its relation to the future Irish Government. The Explosives Act could only come into operation in the case of an unlawful use of explosives and munitions of war, and it was because they apprehended that there would be such an unlawful use of them in Ireland that they desired to see this question reserved for the authority of the Imperial Parliament, and they could not accept the view of the Solicitor General that it was a question for the local administration in Ireland.
    Mr. T. M. Healyrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put; "but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's,): I am not going to detain the Committee for any length of time. I should like to be clear as to the views of the Government on this matter. I hold that
    88
    if this Amendment be not accepted, it will be within the power of the Irish Parliament, under the 33rd clause, to repeal, so far as Ireland is concerned, the Explosives Act which has been passed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself. The 33rd clause is clear, I think, on that point. It says—
    "The Irish Legislature may repeal or alter any provision of this Act which is by this Act expressly made alterable by the Legislature."
    If we do not intend that the Irish Parliament should legislate with regard to explosives, why should not the subject be treated as being in the same category as the other subjects which are not to be dealt with by the Irish Government? The Amendment refers to the manufacture or sale of explosive substances. I think the Government may have recognised that it is especially directed against the criminal use of dynamite, and I maintain that, unless this matter is included in the excepted subjects, the Irish Parliament may set free the manufactures of dynamite in Ireland.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: What about the veto?
    MR. GOSCHEN: As to the power of the veto, I remember the subject of the Solicitor General. Here again is an instance of the troublesome interference of the Imperial Parliament. What objection, I ask, can the Government have to include the Explosives Act in the exceptions? With regard to the importation of arms and ammunition, which is not only a question of legislation, but also of administration, the Executive Government in Ireland will, under the Peace Preservation Act, retain the powers to make internal regulations as to the use and sale of these materials which at present are vested in the Lord Lieutenant under that Act. The Amendment will only prevent new legislation with regard to those matters. Why should the Government object to put this general Explosives Act—considering that it is an Imperial matter, and bearing in mind the extent to which this country is interested in the manufacture of dynamite in any part of Her Majesty's dominions—among the matters excluded from the purview of the Irish Parliament by the Bill? I hope we will get an answer to that question.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The Amendment goes to a totally different point to that which the right hon. Gentleman alluded. If you look at the Amendment you will see that if the Irish Parliament were of opinion that the provisions with reference to the use of dynamite in the arts or manufactures were not sufficiently extensive or satisfactory, this Amendment would absolutely prohibit them from passing any law to remedy those defects. It is quite plain, too, that if the Irish Parliament introduced a Hill for providing greater precautions in the use of dynamite, it would be at variance with this Amendment. That is absurd. If the Amendment were moved by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, I could understand it, because it would secure Birmingham from competition in Ireland, and from that point of view it would be a very reasonable Amendment. I will answer directly the question that has been put to me by the right hon. Gentleman. I say that if the Irish Parliament were to endeavour to deal with such an Act as the Explosives Act, which I myself introduced, or with any other Act dealing with the use of arms and ammunition in Ireland in a manner which, in the opinion of the Imperial Government was dangerous, the Imperial Government would have absolute control over any such Bill endeavouring to repeal any such Act. We would say—"We will not allow the repeal of that Act or of that clause of that Act which in our opinion is dangerous to the present condition of things in Ireland." That would be a real use of the veto. Further, the Imperial Parliament would have; power to make new legislation in the matter, which would be supreme in cases of this kind. But this Amendment would deprive the Irish Parliament of the legitimate use of a particular kind of manufacture in that country of which it ought to have the control in the same way as any other country, and I cannot, therefore, accept it.
    Mr. T. M. Healyrose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put;" but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. BUTCHERsaid, that amongst the many statements of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which he took exception was the statement that the Bill before the Committee was not an Explosives Bill. Considering the angry discussions to which the Bill had given rise, there was no adjective more appropriate than "explosive" to apply to this Bill, for it was really an Explosives Bill. With regard to the question of arms, he understood that the present law was that the Lord Lieutenant could make an order to restrict the sale of arms. He asked the Committee to consider whether the Act was necessary at the time it was passed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said it was a necessary Act, because it was his own Act, and, if it was necessary in the past, were not cases likely to arise when such provisions would be necessary in the future? He also thought that the exercise of the provisions which now exist should be vested in some responsible officer of the Imperial Government. They were told by the Solicitor General that to put such an Amendment in the Bill preventing the Irish Parliament from dealing with the subject of explosives would be useless and insulting. It would be no more useless or insulting than to prevent the Irish Parliament from dealing with the matter of an armed central police, which the Committee last evening had properly excluded from their province. When they brought forward matters of grave importance their arguments were not answered by being told by the Solicitor General that they proposed meddlesome interference with the powers of the Irish Parliament. There was another matter which, as he saw the Prime Minister present, he would like to have cleared up. That was whether it was the intention of the Government to revise the provisions of the Peace Preservation Act of 1881?
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That question does not arise out of the Amendment before the Committee.
    MR. BUTCHERsaid, he would not pursue the matter further; but before he sat down he should tell the Committee, as this question of explosives was under discussion, that a telegram had just been placed in his hands which had been received in Dublin, and which ran—

    91
    "An infernal machine has been found in the corridor of the Exchequer Court this afternoon."
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Who placed it there?
    MR. J. MORLEY: Before there is any further controversy on that point, it is well to say that my information, at all events, is that it is believed to be a hoax.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 254; Noes 294.—(Division List, No. 109.)
    THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, which stands in the name of the hon. Baronet the Member for the Hands worth Division, is out of Order.
    MR. BRODRICKmoved to amend the clause by adding at the end of line 1, page 2, the words—
    "The privileges and liberties of such portions of Her Majesty's armed forces as may, for the time being, be stationed in Ireland, or."
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise to Order. I wish to submit that the Amendment is not in Order, as the 3rd section of the clause prohibits the Irish Legislature from making laws in respect of the naval and military forces or the defence of the realm. Is not this Amendment merely an expansion of that section?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I thought so at first; but, on further consideration, I find that the object of the Amendment is a totally different one. The object of the Amendment is to provide for the personal privileges and liberties of the soldier himself, and I think, therefore, it is in Order.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, that it was quite obvious that the words already in the clause dealt with the establishment and maintenance of military forces in Ireland by the Imperial Government; but undoubtedly questions might arise seriously affecting the liberties and privileges of the military forces in Ireland, and it was to these his Amendment referred. He did not anticipate that there would be a serious difference of opinion between the Government and himself in this matter. He could not conceive that Her Majesty's Government desired that there should be any doubt as to the position of Her Majesty's forces in Ireland. He had understood, from a reply which had been given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary
    92
    for War to a question that had been put to him, that the possibility was content plated that Her Majesty's forces in Ireland might be used in opposition to the Legislature and the Executive of Ireland. The Lord Lieutenant, in the exercise of his executive function, might use the forces, in the first place, at the instance of the Irish Legislature; in the second place, he might use them at his own instance; and, in the third place, he might use them at the instance of this House. In the last two cases the use of the forces by the Lord Lieutenant would be in direct conflict with the views and wishes of the Irish Parliament. The question then arose, would the Irish Legislature support the Viceroy in using the forces against themselves by upholding those liberties and privileges which the forces now enjoy.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise to Order. Is the hon. Gentleman saying one word relevant to any new matter not already covered by the Bill?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I agree that if the object of the Amendment was to provide for the use of the military forces it would be out of Order. But I understand the hon. Member is going to explain that it is the personal privileges and liberties of the soldier he means to protect.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: On a point of Order. I desire to point out on this question of the personal privilege of the soldier, that the soldier in Ireland is under the Army Act, and consequently the Irish Legislature would have no power to interfere with him. Surely his rights, as a man, are not affected by the Amendment?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member must allow the hon. Gentleman to proceed.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had endeavoured to do on that occasion what he had frequently done before—namely, to make a speech in anticipation of that of the Mover of an Amendment. But he would make his own without any regard to the hon. and learned Member. The hon. and learned Member said the Army Act was the only Act in which the soldier was concerned. Had he forgotten the position of the British soldier under the Riot Act? The Riot Act provided an indemnity for the

    93
    soldier when he was called upon to assist the Sheriff, or any legal officer, in the dispersal of a riotous assembly. That was the sole indemnity the forces would have when they were employed by order of the Viceroy. What would be the position of the British soldier in Ireland in case it pleased the Irish Legislature to declare—as they had power to declare by the Bill—that the Riot Act should only come into operation when it was put into force by the Irish Executive? The Viceroy might have to use the forces without regard to the wishes of the Executive. It was quite possible that under such circumstances the soldier would be deprived of the protection of the Riot Act in Ireland. What, then, would be the position of the soldier? He was protected in England by the British Act. Would he be protected in Ireland by the British Act? He would urge on the Government that that was a point on which they could not afford to have any doubt of the decision. There were many other matters with regard to which the Irish Legislature might interfere with the privileges and liberties of the British soldier in Ireland. For instance, they might forbid any man in uniform to enter public-houses in that country. He could conceive circumstances when the British Forces would have to be used against the Irish Government, and the Irish Government would take action against the forces. Boycotting of the British Forces was not altogether unknown in Ireland. During the last Parliament he had to reply to 100 or 200 questions relating to the discipline of the forces, the wearing of emblems, the employment of or obtaining stores from persons who were not in good odour with hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. Yet the Committee were asked to believe that this feeling in Ireland would be altogether wanting hereafter. The words which he proposed would have the effect of preserving the privileges and liberties of the soldier exactly in the same way that they were safeguarded in this country, and would put it out of the power of the Irish Parliament to place the Army in a different position to that which it at present occupied. They had left it in the power of the Irish Legislature to indict the forces by resolution. It was most important that the Irish Legislature
    94
    should not interfere with the forces in any sense while they were engaged in Ireland.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise again to Order. I beg to submit that Clause 4, Sub-section 5, which precludes the Irish Legislature from making any law, whereby any person might be denied the equal protection of the laws, covers the point raised. I ask, is the hon. Member now in Order in supposing an enormous number of peculiarities on the part of the Irish people?
    THE CHAIRMAN: That does not make it out of Order. I have excluded "powers" from the Amendment.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, he would not detain the Committee further. His observations had been extended by the interruptions of the hon. and learned Member, and were capable of indefinite extension under similar provocation. He desired the Government to give their serious attention to the matter. Any question which had to do with the status of the forces exercised a most exciting effect on British Army. The duties cast upon the soldiers of assisting the Civil power were never pleasant, and would be rendered highly dangerous if the soldier were not protected in Ireland, as in other parts of the United Kingdom.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, after the word "or," in line 1, to insert the words "the privileges, and liberties of such portions of Her Majesty's armed forces as may, for the time being, be stationed in Ire-land; or." —(Mr. Brodrick.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I entirely agree with the hon. Member, that it would be extremely improper and unwise to raise any feelings of disquietude in the Army. But I do not quite understand the hon. Gentleman's remarks in reference to the Riot Act. According to my recollection of the Riot Act, the soldier only appears, as any other subject of the Crown, to preserve the peace. The hon. Member spoke of the action of the Viceroy, but putting the Riot Act into operation will not be the action of the Viceroy, but of the Magistrate on the spot, who will take measures as circumstances require. No apprehension need, therefore, arise as to that score. With regard to the second point, the hon.

    95
    Member fears that the Irish Legislature will do something to cripple the Army in Ireland. We assume that the Irish Parliament will be in possession of their common senses, and will, therefore, no more do this than they will do something to promote dynamite out rages. The hon. Member seems to assume that the Irish Parliament will be devoid of common sense, and will devote themselves specially to promoting dynamite outrages and to crippling the Army.
    MR. BRODRICK: That is not my point at all. My point is that the Secretary of State for War stated most clearly that there would be occasions upon which the Viceroy would use his own judgment as to the employment of troops, and would not be guided entirely by the Irish Executive.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: But suppose he did. The Viceroy in that case will have in his hands the power of preventing the Irish Parliament from passing legislation which will have the effect of paralysing the British Army. I can only return the same answer as I have before given. If hon. Gentlemen opposite assume that the Irish Government will desire to do these things which are inconsistent with the safety of Ireland, it will be the duty of the Viceroy to prevent the Irish Legislature from doing acts of such folly. Hon. Gentlemen picture to themselves that the Irish Parliament is going to become a monster of folly. They want protection against this insane and criminal monster. That is the history of the whole matter. The Government do not make that assumption, and that is the difference between hon. Gentlemen and the Government. We assume that the Irish Legislature will act with common sense; hon. Gentlemen opposite assume that they will act with great folly and wickedness. But, even if the assumption of hon. Gentlemen opposite be correct, the Bill gives the Viceroy, as representing the Imperial Authority, power to prevent the acts being done. This is an answer to 99 out of every 100 questions raised, including the present Amendment.
    Mr. E. STANHOPE: I do not think the right hon. Gentleman is really conscious of the object of the Amendment. He does not seem to recognise that the soldier stands in an exceptional position. He spoke of the
    96
    Riot Act, and said the soldier was not in a different position from the civilian under that Act. That is so, with this important exception, that the soldier is ordered to go, in the performance of his duty, to assist the Civil Authority, and the civilian is not. The real truth is that the soldier in the performance of his duty might be placed—I do not put it higher than that—in an extremely difficult and unpleasant position. The soldier may be called upon, if this Bill becomes law, to do something directly in opposition to the views of the Irish Parliament, and we desire that to secure his rights and privileges under such circumstances. Efforts are being constantly made to raise the status of the soldier, and to make him be treated in every respect on a par with the civilian. We therefore desire to secure that no opportunity shall be given in Ireland to injure the status of the soldier.
    SIR THOMAS LEAsaid, there was one point on which he desired information. It related to the powers of the Army in Ireland—
    THE CHAIRMAN: The word "powers" in the Amendment has been ruled out of Order.
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid, that on a matter of this kind, which immediately concerned the soldier, a soldier might be allowed to say a few words without even asking the leave of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: I only desire to keep you in Order.
    COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid, it was very difficult to continue the argument in consequence of the continuous and not very courteous interruptions of the hon. and learned Member. He understood that the Chairman had ruled "powers" out of Order; but he hoped an opportunity would be found at the right time for discussing the important subject of the relations between the Army and the Civil power when the Army was called out in aid of the civil power. He would confine himself to "the privileges and liberties" of the soldier, as the Amendment expressed it. He should confess that as a soldier he found it difficult to follow the Mover of the Amendment, for he was not aware what "the liberties and privileges" of the individual soldier were. But there

    97
    were "liberties and privileges" concerning not the individual soldier, but the Army at large. The one point on which he wished to lay stress was the important question of recruiting. Ireland had always been a great recruiting ground; and he hoped it would not cease to be such, even under Home Rule. Contingencies might arise—though he hoped they would not arise—under which objection might be raised in Ireland against the facilities for recruiting which had always been enjoyed in Ireland being continued; and he thought the matter should be safeguarded in some way under the Bill. He did not consider that he would be justified in dwelling upon such minor topics as travelling allowances and billeting, which were considered liberties and privileges of the soldiers. ["Order, order!"] He did not know from whom that cry came, but they found on the Front Bench opposite a singular liking to interrupt those who very seldom took part in Debate, but who, when they did, talked about matters they understood. He trusted nothing would be done which would at all interfere with the important work of recruiting.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided: —Ayes 249; Noes 289. —(Division List, No. 110.)
    THE CHAIRMANstated that the next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Yerburgh) was out of Order. The Amendment was as follows: —
    Clauses, page 2, line 1, at end, insert, —"(4) Any judicial or executive officer to be appointed by the Imperial Government for the time being as hereinafter provided; or."
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  NOTICE.
    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
    Dr. MACGREGOR: I beg to give notice that if the discussion on Clause 3 of the Government of Ireland Bill is not concluded by half past 6 o'clock on Friday next I shall then move, under the provisions of Standing Order No. 25, "That the Question that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill be now put."
ORERS OF THE DAY.
  PRISON (OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION) (No. 2) BILL. —(No. 359.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Question proposed, "That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. W. WHITELAWsaid, that he should oppose this Bill unless the case of certain Scotch officers were dealt with. He was in communication with the Scotch Office with the view to the introduction of a Bill on the matter, and until such a Bill was introduced and advanced to the same stage as the present Bill, he felt compelled to object to the further progress of the Bill. He begged to move to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." —(Mr. W. Whitelaw.)
    MR. ASQUITHwas sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman giving expression to such a threat. This was in no sense a Bill in which the Government had any interest whatever. It was a Bill which provided solely for the case of a certain gallant officer who had performed admirable service, but who, through some technical flaw in the Prisons Act of 1877, could not obtain the pension to which he was entitled, and it was in order to remove that flaw that the present Bill had been introduced. That was the whole scope of the Bill. Yet the hon. Gentleman, without any regard to the merits of the Bill, got up and said that unless the case of certain officials in Scotland were attended to—which had nothing whatsoever to do with the case of this gallant officer in England—he should stop the further progress of the measure. He ventured to say that such a course was an abuse of Parliamentary Forms. If the hon. Gentleman could show that any officers in Scotland were being unjustly treated, he was sure the matter would be remedied by the Scotch Office.
    MR. WHITELAW: There are three hon. Members who are supporters of the Government who entirely approve of the action I have taken.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESremarked that the virtuous indignation of the Home Secretary was somewhat thrown away, as the remedy was in his own hands. The Government had taken all the time of the House, and the right hon. Gentleman had only to put down the Bill as a first Order, and it would not be unduly discussed.
    MR. ASQUITHsaid, he would not take any Division upon this Motion, but should throw upon the hon. Gentleman and those who acted with him the whole responsibility for blocking this Bill.
    SIR HERBERT MAXWELLsaid, although the Home Secretary was a Scotch Member, he did not seem to be acquainted with the best method of conciliating opposition. Had the right hon. Gentleman condescended to make the explanation which he did without accompanying it by a rebuke, the hon. Member for Perth would probably have been more disposed to assist the right hon. Gentleman.
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Friday next, at Two of the clock.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION (No. 1) BILL. [Lords.]

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Question proposed, "That the Schedule stand part of the Bill."
    MR. T. M. HEALYwished to ask the Government if they could not now solve the questions arising in Ireland regarding the display of the Union Jack? This Schedule repealed certain portions of the Act of William IV. There were other sections of that Act, relating to the display of emblems, which had been a source of disturbance in Ireland, and he ventured to suggest that this opportunity should be taken to repeal them.
    MR. ASQUITHsaid, the Act to which the hon. and learned Member referred was not in this Schedule, and it would perhaps be more convenient if the question were raised on a subsequent Statute Law Revision Bill, when there would be better opportunities for discussing it.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he had never heard a worse suggestion than to include controversial subjects in a Statute Law Revision Bill, from which they were invariably excluded.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLwould oppose the introduction of any such thing in a Statute Law Revision Bill.
    MR. ASQUITHsaid, all he had stated was, that if his hon. and learned Friend chose to raise the point upon a later Bill there would be more time to discuss the matter. He quite agreed that the Statute Law Revision Bills ought to be kept for their proper purpose.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he would not think of making any such proposal as he had indicated unless it could be done with the general assent of the House.
    Schedule agreed to.
    Bill reported without Amendment; Bill read the third time, and passed, without Amendment.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.—(No. 319.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES (EDINBURGH) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.—(No. 347).
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL.—(No. 345.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.—(No. 346.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER [CRANBROOK AND PADDOCK WOOD RAILWAY, &c.] BILL.—(No. 339.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL. —(No. 342.)
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL. —(No. 354.)
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL. —(No. 371.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERY PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [Lords].—(No.363.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' ACT (1875)

    AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Howell, Bill to amend "The Friendly Societies' Act, 1875," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Howell, Sir Herbert Maxwell, Mr. Bartley, Mr. James Rowlands, Mr. Rounded, Mr. Henry Hobhouse, and Mr. Molloy.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 381.]

    CHARITY COMMISSIONERS (INQUIRIES) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Alpheus Morton, Bill authorising the Charity Commissioners to inquire into Charities hitherto exempt from inquiry, and enabling the Councils of Counties and Boroughs to claim inquiries, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alpheus Morton, Mr. Lloyd-George, and Mr. Spicer.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 382.]

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (No, 2) BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    SIR JOHN MOWBRAYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had nominated the following Members to the Joint Committee on Electric Powers (Protective Clauses): —Mr.
    102
    Bruuner, Mr. Forwood, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Molloy, and Sir Bernhard Samuelson.
    SIR JOHN MOWBRAY SIR JOHN MOWBRAY further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged Mr. Brunner from the Joint Committee on Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges, and had appointed in substitution Mr. Philip Stanhope.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  CIVIL SERVICE OF INDIA (EXAMINATION)—RESOLUTION
  MR. PAULsaid, that in rising to move the Amendment which he had placed on the Paper he must at once disclaim originality both for the substance of the proposal and for the terms in which it was expressed. The proposal which he had now to bring before the House was brought forward in 1868 by the late Mr. Fawcett. The terms of his Amendment were derived from the Report of a Committee, appointed in the year 1858 by the Secretary of State for India, of which Sir John Willoughby was Chairman, and Mr. Mangles, Mr. Arbuthuot, Mr. Macnaghten, and Sir Erskine Perry were members. In the course of the Debate in 1868 Mr. Fawcett met with what he might call a sympathetic refusal of his request from Sir Stafford Northcote, who was then Secretary for India. He was opposed with very great vigour, in a speech of immense eloquence and power, expressed in the most picturesque and racy vernacular, by his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland (Sir G. Trevelyan), who, if he might judge from the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on that occasion assumed, and perhaps with justice, that having written the Com-

  103
  petition Wallah, he had done as much for the natives of India as could be reasonably expected. He (Mr. Paul) felt that they stood at a great disadvantage in discussing subjects which had a bearing on the interests and welfare of India, because of the fact that the Secretary of State did not sit amongst them. Where Lord Kimberley was they did not know; at this hour of the night he was not even in another place; he was beyond their control, they could not even curtail his salary. He was sure that his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for India (Mr. G. Russell) would not think that he meant, by these remarks, to show any disrespect for him; he only wished his hon. Friend were Secretary of State himself, as he felt sure that the India Office would be most ably represented by him. What was the state of things existing at present, which his Amendment was intended to modify? On the 1st of August next, according to a notice that had been given by the Civil Service Commissioners, there would be held in Loudon an open competitive examination for the Civil Service of India, for which all subjects of Her Majesty, now between the ages of 21 and 23, were at liberty to enter. As a matter of fact, the only subjects of the Queen, not resident in the United Kingdom, who desired to submit themselves to this examination were the natives of India, and they were expected, in order to have a chance of succeeding in that examination to come over to London, to remain such time as they might think necessary for the purpose of preparation, and, if they were successful to remain for another two years to undergo a period of probation. It would be observed that his Amendment only related to the preliminary competitive examination for the Civil Service of India. If it were carried, if the Government were to act upon it as they might without any change in the law, any natives of India who were successful in the preliminary examinations would be compelled to come over here and undergo the two years' preparation, and to improve themselves by associating with us, and acquainting themselves with our manners and customs as much as they did now; but they would not be obliged to submit to
  104
  an expense which he (Mr. Paul) believed he might put at the figure of £1,000 to come over here and reside here on the mere chance of being declared by the Examiners qualified for places in the Indian Civil Service. He hoped the House would clearly bear in mind that he did not seek by his Amendment to exempt any native of India from the duty of coming to this country and qualifying himself by residence and study here if he were successful in the preliminary competitive examination. Perhaps he might be allowed, as it was really the foundation of his whole case, to read an extract from the Report of that Committee, which was presented to Parliament on January 20, I860. The Committee said, in the second paragraph of their Report—
  "We are, in the first place, unanimously of opinion that it is not only just, but expedient, that the natives of India shall be employed in the administration of India to as large an extent as possible consistently with the maintenance of British supremacy, and have considered whether any increased facilities can be given in this direction."
  And then they made a quotation from an Act of Parliament, which showed that before the government of India was taken over by the Crown, even in the old days of the East India Company, the natives of India had a statutory right to an equal chance of employment in the administration of their own country with British subjects of the Queen. They said—
  "It is true that, even at present, no positive disqualification exists. By Act 3 & 4, Will. IV., c. 85, s. 87, it is enacted 'That no native of the said territories nor any natural-born subject of His Majesty resident therein shall, by reason only of his religion, place of birth, descent, colour, or any of them, be disabled from holding any place, office, or employment under the said Company.' It is obvious, therefore, that when the competitive system was adopted, it could not have been intended to exclude natives of India from the Civil Service of India."
  Hon. Members might say they were not, and he, therefore, invited their attention to this paragraph—
  "Practically, however, they are excluded. The law declares them eligible, but the difficulties opposed to a native leaving India and residing in England for a time are so great that, as a general rule, it is almost impossible for a native successfully to compete at the

  105
  periodical examinations held in England. Were this inequality removed we should no longer he exposed to the charge of keeping the promise to the ear and breaking it to the hope."
  Now he came to the precise terms of the Amendment which he had the honour to move—
  "Two modes have been suggested by which the object in view might be attained. The first is, by allotting a certain portion of the total number of appointments declared in each year to be competed for in India by natives and by all other natural-born subjects of Her Majesty resident in India. The second is, to hold simultaneously two examinations, one in England and one in India, both being, as far as practicable, identical in their nature, and those who compete in both countries being finally classified in one list according to merit, by the Civil Service Commissioners. The Committee have no hesitation in giving the preference to the second scheme, as being the fairest and the most in accordance with the principles of a general competition for a common object."
  He need not argue in that House that natives of India had the same right as ourselves to take part in the government of India; by law they had the same right. He need hardly quote the words of the Queen's Proclamation in which Her Majesty declared her will that her subjects, of whatever class or creed, should be freely and fully admitted to any offices for the duties of which they might be qualified by their education, abilities, and integrity duly to discharge. That Royal Proclamation was, in fact, a Statute, because the principle of it was embodied in the Act of 1858, by which India was transferred from the Colonies to the Crown, and it had been the declared intention of successive Governments to give the natives of India the same terms as the inhabitants of the United Kingdom. It might be said that there were great difficulties in holding the same examination in two places at the same time. When the Committee of 1860 sat the Civil Service Commissioners, under whom these examinations were held, were consulted on this point; and they replied to the Committee that, so far as they were concerned there would be no difficulty whatever; it would be merely necessary to amend the Order in Council by including, after "London," the words "Calcutta, Madras, or Bombay." The University of London at this moment held an exami-
  106
  nation, not only in many distant parts of Her Majesty's Dominions, but in the City of Calcutta. In the speech delivered by Mr. Fawcett in 1868 he, who knew as much about examinations and the mode of conducting them as any man who ever sat in that House, used these words—
  "There would be no difficulty in carrying out this plan; for the examination papers might be sent under seal to India; and, the examination being fixed for the same day as in London, the candidate's papers might be sent home under seal and inspected by the same Examiners, the names of the successful candidates at all four examinations being arranged in order of merit."
  He was aware that there might be some practical difficulty as to that part of the examination which was conducted viva voce. Although it gave some advantage to people who spoke more quickly than they thought over people who thought more quickly than they spoke, he was aware that it was a convenient mode of testing the real knowledge of a man who might be able to write a paper on a subject he did not properly understand; but he could not think that a great question of policy, as he hoped to show this was, would be decided on that narrow ground, and from his own experience of competitive examinations he did not think that vivâ voce played a very large part in determining the ultimate selection of a candidate by the Examiners. He had said he did not, in the least, wish to interfere with the duty of natives of India to obtain some experience in this country before they undertook the task of governing their own. He had here—and he could promise the House this was the last extract he should trouble them with—the opinion of a man whose name was highly respected, who was the first Secretary of State for India, the late Lord Derby. Lord Derby, speaking as Lord Stanley in that House in the year 1853 about the proposal to establish a sort of Indian Hailey bury, used these words—
  "He could not refrain from expressing his conviction that, in refusing to carry on examinations in India as well as in England—a thing that was easily practicable—the Government were, in fact, negativing that which they declared to be one of the principal objects of their Bill, and confining the Civil Service, as

  107
  heretofore, to Englishmen. That result was unjust, and he believed it would be most pernicious."
  And then he went on with that independence and courage that so distinguished him—
  "Let them suppose, for instance, that instead of holding those examinations here in London, that they were to be held in Calcutta. Well, how many Englishmen would go out there—or how many would send out their sons, perhaps, to spend two or three years in the country on the chance of obtaining an appointment! Nevertheless, that was exactly the course proposed to be adopted towards the natives of India."
  He was not aware that our Secretaries of State, the distinguished gentlemen who in this country were responsible for the affairs of India, were always subjected to the preliminary test of visiting that country. Lord Kimberley had been in many places in a more or less official capacity, but he did not know that he had ever been in India; he did not know that the natives of India had ever enjoyed the opportunity of seeing Lord Cross, so that they had the most competent Secretaries of State and most competent Under Secretaries who had had no personal knowledge of the country the affairs of which they were responsible for. At the same time, he should be the last to underrate the advantage native candidates obtained from seeing something of our institutions. He knew very well that they were required to make practical acquaintance with the inside of our Courts of Law; they were required to attend that august tribunal, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. There was no Court in the world that had such an ample and important jurisdiction; but he had no doubt the reports of the judgments could be read in India as well as here, and would form a necessary part of the training of every Indian administrator. But when it came to what strikes the eye—
  "Segnius irritant animos demissa per aures, Quam quæ sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus."
  After the native of India had seen these elderly gentlemen sitting round a table at what used to be called the cock-pit, he would take him to the Guildhall, to see, as a more impressive spectacle, an Alderman in all his glory, dealing with drunks and disorderlies. He did not wish to deprive the natives of India of
  108
  the great privilege of residing at our Universities. They might go to Oxford and see the Indian Institute standing in the place where it ought not; they might teach Sanscrit to Sir Monier Williams, learn Christianity from the Master of Balliol, and there were a number of other advantages of which his Amendment would not deprive them. What he wished to impress upon the House was that by the scheme which he proposed in his Amendment no native of India would be relieved from any part of the duties incumbent upon him now of submitting himself to a residence and training in this country before he could fill the humblest post in the Service of the Crown in India. But he ought, in can-dour, to say that since the Committee of 1860 an independent Commission sat on the same subject in Calcutta, and arrived at a somewhat different conclusion. It was a Commission over which Sir Charles Aitchison presided, and which reported in 1887. Amongst other subjects considered was that of holding simultaneous examinations in England and India. The Commissioners reported against the scheme. Their reasons were, as it seemed to him, extremely simple; in number they were two, in character they were mutually destructive. The first reason they gave was that the system of education in India was not sufficiently advanced to afford the requisite training. Well, he should have thought that was an evil that could be provided for, because if these candidates were not well prepared they would not pass. The second reason was that the stimulus given to the system of education in India would lead to a danger of cramming. But it was the duty of the Examiner to defeat the crammer, and he was not worth his salt if he could not detect the difference between a candidate who really knew and one who only pretended to know. He knew there had been of late years a dead set made against competitive examinations, which had been instituted for the Civil Service by one of the most distinguished Members of the Conservative Party (Sir Stafford Northcote) and a distinguished Member of the Liberal Party (Sir Charles Trevelyan). He also knew that the enemies of this system of competitive examination were incompetent teachers, incapable examiners,

  109
  prigs, pedants and professors, impudent jobbers, and the parents and guardians of idle boys. But this system of competitive examination, in all its horrors, was applied to the natives of India, and was only barred by a test which an infinitesimal number were able to surmount. There were two main arguments against his proposition, and he should be sorry to say that either of them was dishonest; but one was, undoubtedly, honest, and, if he might, he would begin with the other. The other argument was that it was a positive stimulus to the natives of India—that it really encouraged them to enter our service and take part in the government of their own country if they were compelled, on the mere chance of obtaining an appointment, to expatriate themselves for several years, and subject themselves to considerable expense in the hope of obtaining ultimate success. He did not think that argument could be maintained in that House. The other argument—the honest argument—was that we did not want the natives of India in the Civil Service at all. That argument could not be reasonably maintained, as it was contrary to the law of the land, and the Queen's Proclamation; contrary to the promises given to the natives, to the policy that had always been laid down by every Governor General and every Secretary of State. It might be said they had no objection to a few men being admitted under certain conditions, but they objected to the Civil Service being flooded. He did not think it showed a very great reliance upon the vigour and powers of our own countrymen to assume that they would be defeated in this wholesale manner by the natives of India. But if that were an objection it ought to be met in a straightforward manner by saying there were posts which they could not confer upon natives, or that there were limits beyond which they could not permit the natives of India to go; they should not say that the Civil Service was just as much open to them as to Englishmen, and then impose upon the natives of India conditions which we would not for a moment submit to ourselves. It had been said that the characters of the natives of India who were most successful in passing examinations were not such as to fit
  110
  them for high administrative posts; but a certain number of them had attained to positions of responsibility, and the Commission of 1887 said that they had discharged their duties with satisfaction to their superiors and to those with whom they had had to deal. In the prospectus it was said that candidates must be men of good moral character and able to perform journeys on horseback, which meant that they must be able to ride and to speak the truth—a version of the whole duty of man which was a good deal more ancient than their rule in India, and which was of Eastern, and not of Western, origin. What he wanted to impress upon his Indian fellow-subjects—what they ought to impress—was that the system which they adopted was one which, in accordance with British declarations, gave them fair play. But, unfortunately, the policy was one of professing to give places and opportunities to the natives, which were, in fact, given to others and not to them. As far as he had been able to ascertain, out of nearly 1,000 members of the Coveuanted Civil Service there were not 20 natives—11 in Bengal, two in Madras, one in Bombay, and two or more elsewhere. If this were the result of competition with equal treatment for all, no one could complain; but it was the result of holding examinations only in London, where, of course, the majority of the Indian candidates were unable to appear. There was a portion of the Civil Service not open to competition, not fenced round with any safeguard against abuse, but left to the selection of the Governor General and his advisers; and the Commission of 1887 unanimously condemned the results of this method of selection, whereas they reported favourably upon those natives who had been admitted to the Service under the system of open competition. If the system of selection was unsuccessful in 1887, the state of matters must be worse now. He knew there were objections—strong objections—to employing natives of one part of India in another part of it. But those objections could be met by necessary regulations; and were no argument against the main proposition. He did not want to occupy the time of the House unnecessarily. He hoped that other hon. Gentlemen would take part in the Debate

  111
  after his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. Naoroji) had seconded the Motion—a gentleman, he might say, who was better acquainted with the subject than he was. He hoped to hear the views of the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for India. He was anxious to learn the line of action he would pursue—whether he would regard the present system as the best or whether he would say that there might be a better system. But he looked with special interest to the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, who, as a native of India, with special knowledge of Indian requirements in this as in other respects, would deal with the question of policy and its effects. His hon. Friend could tell them much that would be valuable with regard to the National Congress which had met in India for seven years past, and at every meeting of which a resolution had been passed in favour of the views embodied in this Amendment. His hon. Friend would address them as one of the Indian subjects of the Queen—the first who had ever taken his seat in the House of Commons. It was, so doubt, very desirable that members of the Indian Civil Service should come here to associate with the best classes of Englishmen, Scotchmen, and Irishmen; but if they required instruction and training in the art of government, they could not derive it from a better source than from the members of that great administrative system in India, of which they were so justly proud, and which, by the splendour of its services, but above all by the spirit of justice which animated it from top to bottom, had enhanced the name, and the fame, and the honour of Great Britain in every portion of the Empire and every nation of the world. He concluded by moving the Resolution.
  MR. NAOROJIsaid, he had to speak to a specific Resolution, and, if he did not dwell on the great good India had received from England, it was not because he ignored it. He only wished he had the pleasant task of describing all the blessings England had conferred upon India; but, at present, he must confine himself to this acknowledgment and proceed to the subject in hand. The present appeal was not made to one Party or the other,
  112
  but it was made to the whole House; it was not a question of Party, for he felt that the natives of India had as much reason to be grateful to Conservatives on the other side as to Liberals on his own side of the House. It was to the Conservatives they owed the Proclamation of the Queen in 1858 and as Empress of India in 1877, and to them they owed other services. He appealed to the whole House upon the merits of the case. The question simply was, as his hon. Friend the Mover of the Resolution had told them, one as to promises given by Parliament and the British people to the people of India. Sixty years ago it was distinctly laid down by Act of Parliament—and in the interval the pledge and promise had been repeated several times—that in India there should be no distinction of race, class, or creed, but that all should be admitted equally, according to their qualifications, to the Service of the Crown. The pledge had been repeated on the renewal of the Company's Charter, on the transference of India to the Crown, or the assumption by the Queen of the title of Empress; and, again, on the celebration of the Queen's Jubilee. These pledges and promises had been intentionally broken over and over again. The Committee of 1860 acknowledged the failures, and they had been emphatically acknowledged by the Duke of Argyll when, in proposing the clause in the Act of 1870, he said—
  "We have not fulfilled our duty or the promises and engagements which we have made."
  What was the reason for the breaking of these pledges? He (Mr. Naoroji) was the last person in the world to impute motives. He had the greatest respect and admiration for the character of the English people; he had lived among them for a long time, and he was proud of being a British subject. Still, he must say that the natives of India had not been fairly treated in this matter. At the first National Congress one of the speakers read an extract from a confidential Minute of Lord Lytton which explained why the promises given to the people of India had not been fulfilled. Lord Lytton said that a native once ad-

  113
  mitted to Government employment was entitled to expect and claim appointments in the fair course of promotion to the highest post, in the Service. He said—
  "The Act of Parliament is so undefined, and indefinite obligations on the part of the Government of India towards its native subjects are so obviously dangerous, that no sooner was the Act passed than the Government began to devise means for practically evading the fulfilment of it. Under the terms of the Act, which are studied and laid to heart by that increasing class of educated natives, whose development the Government encourages without being able to satisfy the aspirations of its existing members, every such native, if once admitted to Government employment in posts previously reserved to the Covenanted Service, is entitled to expect and claim appointment in the fair course of promotion to the highest post in that Service. We all know that these claims and expectations never can or will be fulfilled. We have had to choose between prohibiting them and cheating them, and we have chosen the least straight forward course. The application to natives of the competitive examination system as conducted in England, and the recent reduction in the age at which candidates can compete, are all so many deliberate and transparent subterfuges for stultifying the Act and reducing it to a dead letter. Since I am writing confidentially, I do not hesitate to say that both the Governments of England and of India appeal to me up to the present moment unable to answer satisfactorily the charge of having taken every means in their power of breaking to the heart the words of promise they had uttered to the ear."
  He (Mr. Naoroji) did not and would not believe that the people, the Parliament, and the Sovereign had played this ignoble part. He was sure they were sincere in their desire for a policy of justice and in their pledges. It was the Executive Indian Governments who were guilty of those subterfuges and unworthy and un-English means. Now, he could not admit that the Parliament of England passed Acts with hypocrisy and did not mean what they said. But it was an unfortunate fact that no sooner were Acts passed favouring the Indian population than means were devised to prevent them from deriving benefit from them. Under the Act of 1833 Indians were entitled to claim appointments, with chance of promotion to the highest grade in the Service. Every means in the power of the authorities had been used to break this word of promise and make Act a dead letter. He did not want to quote Lord Macaulay; but he
  114
  would remind the House that, in his speech in 1833, that great man had fully commented on the objects and English policy of the system of the treatment of India from every point of view, and he said the path of duty was the path of honour and prosperity. He called the clause in the Act of 1833—
  "That wise, that benevolent, that noble clause."
  And said—
  "That to the last day of my life I shall be proud of having been one of those who assisted in the framing of the Bill which contains that clause."
  There were Proclamations by the Queen declaring over and over again what the policy of this country to the natives of India should be; but when the gross corruption and oppression of the last century were swept away, its spirit unfortunately survived. The Anglo-Indian system had made use of every subterfuge to defeat those Acts. He would give another instance. When the Act of 1870 was passed it was ignored, and allowed to remain a dead letter till 1878, which was very discreditable, because the decisions of Parliament ought to be obeyed and enforced. At that time they had the good fortune to have as Secretary of State Lord Cranbrook, who put pressure on the Indian Government to have the Act of 1870 carried out, and they were obliged to make certain rules; but those rules were so constructed and interpreted that, instead of carrying out the intentions of the Act, they brought discredit upon it. The appointments were then begun, and went on. But the Anglo-Indians could not bear this, and an opposition burst out against the Ilbert Bill. Then they had Lord Hartington (now Duke of Devonshire), who had the sagacity to understand the secret of the agitation against the Ilbert Bill, and who did not hesitate to declare that it arose from the jealousy of the non-official class of Europeans, who thought that all the appointments ought to be reserved for them. He said—
  "I could quote passages in letters in the Indian papers in which it is admitted that, the agitation was directed against the policy of the Home Government in providing appointments for native civilians while there are many Europeans without appointments."

  115
  Here they had the whole idea. It was one of selfishness, without regard to the name or fame or honour of the British people. Indians must be excluded from fair representation and share in the administration of their country, and English men must fill all posts. They could form some idea of what the policy meant if they referred to the statement of the present Commissioner for Burmah, who said that Englishmen wanted employment for their boys. That was the entire policy of the system now in operation. The Viceroy, at the time when the Queen assumed the title of Empress of India, speaking in the name of the British people and the British Sovereign from the Throne of the Mogul, assured India before the whole world—
  "But you, the natives of India, whatever your race, and whatever your creed, have a recognised claim to share largely with your English fellow-subjects, according to your capacity for the task, in the administration of the country you inhabit. This claim is founded on the highest justice. It has been repeatedly affirmed by British and Indian statesmen, and by the legislation of the Imperial Parliament. It is recognised by the Government of India as binding on its honour, and consistent with all the aims of its policy."
  Yet a year afterwards the same Viceroy told us what the real policy and spirit of the Indian Government was in the Minute which he had already read—to use every subterfuge to thwart and defeat Acts of Parliament and Proclamations of the Sovereign and the people. The Indian Government adopted a policy exactly the reverse of that thus declared from the Throne of the Moguls. The policy of the people and the Parliament of England was undoubtedly, "Be just and fear not;" the policy of the Anglo-Indian system was, "Fear and be unjust." The House had now to determine whether the declarations made in the name of God and before the world were, by means of every deliberate subterfuge, to be made dead letters, or whether the Parliament and people of this country meant what they said? He appealed to the House to take the matter into their serious consideration; he asked them once for all to be honest; and, if they really meant that the declarations they had made were to be so many shams and delusions, let it be distinctly proclaimed
  116
  to the world that they had been acting hypocritically. For the good name of the British people, and in order that their power might rest upon the strongest foundation of the contentment of the people, he asked the House to act honestly and justly. In doing so they would lay a foundation which would be unshakable for ever. If the feeling that they had been intentionally and deliberately cheated was once introduced into the hearts of the people of India, he would only weep for them as well as be sorry for the British power. The British people had a great mission to perform, and the prosperity and progress of India would be to them as beneficial as it would be glorious. The idea that Indians were not capable of taking a due and proper share in the government of the country had been refuted by his hon. Friend. He was himself as anxious as anybody else could be that those who occupied posts in the higher administration of India should have the opportunity of spending at least a year or two in this country and becoming familiar with the spirit and pluck of the English nation before they went out there and worked with English colleagues. What he suggested was that which was recommended by the Committee of 1860—namely, that the first competitive examination by which candidates were selected should take place both in India and England, and that those selected at the examination should pass the subsequent examinations in this country. The excuse could not then be made that the candidates would not have a sufficiently good training in this country. Besides the Covenanted Civil Service there were the other Civil Services—the Engineering, the Telegraph, and the Forest Services—for which also examinations were held in England alone. The first competitive examinations for these Services were only of a general character—and these examinations should be held simultaneously both in India and England. And after the successful candidates are selected they would come to be educated in this country in their respective subjects for two or three years. Thus the object of the training in this country would be completely attained. If the Indian Government would only once for all cast away that timidity and selfishness which

  117
  had been inherited from past centuries, and would make up their minds to fulfil honestly and honourably the pledges which had been given to the people of India for 60 years continuously, and to faithfully give effect to the Act of 1833, both India and England would be blessed and benefited. He appealed to the good faith, to the sense of honour, and to the sense of fairness and justice which the British Government had always proclaimed as being the only principle by which they were guided in their relations with the natives of India, and he asked the House to assent to the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "all open competitive Examinations heretofore held in England alone for appointments to the Civil Services of India shall henceforth be hell simultaneously both in India and England, such Examinations in both countries being identical in their nature, and all who compete being finally classified in one list according to merit."—(Mr. Paul.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  GENERAL SIR G. CHESNEYsaid, the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment commenced his speech somewhat unfortunately by quoting from some State Paper of the year 1860. For all practical purposes, as regarded the Administration of India, he might just as well have quoted from a State Paper of the Reign of Queen Anne, because during the last 30 years a complete and thoroughly drastic administrative change had taken place in India. The hon. Gentleman had, of course unwittingly, misled the House by one statement be made. He had said something to the effect that at present the natives of India were excluded from almost every appointment. As a matter of fact, at the present time, practically the whole Civil Service of the country was occupied by the natives of India. The natives had almost all the judicial appointments, and a very large share of the Executive appointments of the country.
  MR. PAULsaid, that what he had meant to make clear was that the immense
  118
  majority of the natives were practically excluded from the competitive examination for appointments to the Civil Services.
  GENERAL SIR G. CHESNEYsaid, that if he had had no Indian experience he should certainly have gone away with the impression, after what the hon. Member had said, that the whole of the civil offices in India were held by Englishmen, and that natives were excluded. As a matter of fact, the whole of the Judicial Service, with the exception of a very few reserved appointments, were held by the natives of India; all the subordinate Executive appointments were held by them, and all the clerical appointments in the different public Departments to which we in this country attached the title of "Civil Service" were held by them. But what the House had to deal with on the present occasion was the higher and more important administrative Service, which, in fact, conducted the Government of India. The officers composing this were altogether, he believed, less than 700 in number. When the hon. Member spoke of the Queen's Proclamation of 1858 as being the Charter by which the natives of India were justly entitled to share in the higher and reserved offices, he seemed to give the House to understand that the pledge given in the Queen's Proclamation had been violated. But the hon. Member did not state the most important condition, which was that no person should, by reason of his race or religion, be excluded from any office whatever for which he was fit. That was the real question at issue. It was not a question between Englishmen and Indians, but between fitness and unfitness.
  MR. PAUL: I quoted the very words.
  GENERAL SIR G. CHESNEYsaid, he did not gather that the hon. Member laid any stress on the question of fitness, on which the whole matter turned. The question at issue was whether the number of Englishmen now serving in India was in excess of the necessities of the country, and whether proper facilities in pursuance of the pledge that had been given were

  119
  offered to the people of India for entering the Service? As to the question of competitive examination, he might be allowed to say that he had been from his first entrance into the Public Service a strong advocate of the principle of unlimited competition. He had the honour to belong to a branch of the Service, the Royal Engineers, which was, he believed, the very first into which the competitive system was introduced, and he had seen the greatest possible advantage resulting to that Service from its introduction. During the last 10 years, in which he had been employed partly under the Government of India and partly as a Member of that Government, he had occupied himself very largely in introducing the principle of competition into all the clerical Departments of the Indian Public Service. He might claim the merit of having introduced and carried through a system of unlimited competition in all the clerical offices under the Government of India. As regarded the higher Civil Service in India, to his mind the greatest possible benefit had been derived from the application of the competitive system to that Service. He might be allowed to allude particularly to the case of the members of the Civil Service who came from Ireland. He had in that Service many personal friends, to some of whom he was opposed in politics, but to whose great abilities and capacity for administration he desired to testify. They had entered the Service through channels which in former years were closed to men from Ireland, and he gladly recognised what a very large field in the future India offered for Irishmen of ability. Holding this opinion as to the merits of the competitive system, ho, nevertheless, was not prepared to admit that for the purpose of choosing Indian administrators from the people of India it was necessarily the best or even a suitable system. In this country the assumption might fairly be made that while any number of young men brought up in the same may might be intellectually different physically and morally they would be very much on a par. If, therefore, we applied the competitive system of examination to them we lost nothing of the physical and moral capacity, but we gained much in the superior mental capacity which was obtained for our services. But that
  120
  notion, as applied to India, would be absolutely delusory. In India there was no similarity between the moral and intellectual conditions such as was to be found in England. In India we had, on the one hand, a class who crowded into the Government Colleges, and who were intellectually very acute, and who had extraordinary powers of assimilation of book-work, but whose capacity for governing their fellow-men had yet to be proved. The great Province of Bengal, the richest, most populous, and most important Province in India, contained 70,000,000 of people, and yet amongst them he believed not one single soldier was to be found. He did not wish to say anything against his Bengalee friends; but he thought that when it was found that in a great country as large as France, and more densely populated, there was not to be found one single man who gave any evidence of a desire for a military career the presumption was that the people were, at any rate, wanting in some of the peculiar attributes which had made the English nation what it was. He would go further. Amongst those 70,000,000 of people not one successful administrator had been produced. ["Oh!"] He made the statement without the slightest hesitation. We had a great number of highly respectable officials, mostly in subordinate positions; but if we went back to the history of India before the English came on the scene we did not find a single instance of a Bengalee having risen to any position of eminence. The men who conquered and governed India before we came there were men of a class who were still highly respected by the people of India, and to whom the people of India looked upon as their natural rulers, but who would not have a chance in a competitive examination. The people of India, as a whole, would regard with the greatest horror and indignation a system by which they would have imposed upon them administrators who were chosen by open competition alone. Some people talked of the people of India as if they were a nation. They were a congeries of nations, separated from each other by race, by blood, by language, by physical position, in some cases by religion, and, more than all, by political feeling. Nothing

  121
  would be more distasteful to the most important of these peoples than to have placed over them administrators belonging to a race which they regarded as inferior to their own. A very hostile feeling between them still existed even at this moment, although kept down by the Pax Britannica. He did not mean to say that we must necessarily accept those prejudices and act upon them entirely; but the did say that we must take reasonable precautions that the men we chose to govern the country had the moral qualities required in rulers of men. One of the very first of these qualities was to be found in the readiness of a man to give up his caste prejudices and to take a voyage to England. This opinion was shared by everybody who had been connected with the Government of India. Too great a value could hardly be set on the moral and mental education imparted to the native of India who came to England and spent three or four years at one of our Universities. He had had the pleasure of meeting at Oxford at different times young men who had been sent there from India for educational purposes, and he recognised that they had gone back fit to take a position in the Civil Service which they had not been fit to occupy before. The hon. Member had said that, whilst the candidates ought to be required to come to England, the preliminary examination should take place in India. The term "preliminary examination" had a somewhat delusive aspect in this connection, because it was applied in the case of the Army competitions to what was really not an examination, but only a small eliminating test. The "preliminary examination" referred to by the hon. Member opposite was practically the final examination, and included a vivâ voce examination to which the Government of India attached a very high value. They said it was quite impossible to hold simultaneous vivâ voce examinations in different places which should be of equal value as tests. He would read a short extract from an opinion which had been expressed on the point by the Government of India. He might observe that the Government of India, which was responsible for the good administration of the country, had, perhaps, as strong an interest in the
  122
  efficiency of the Public Service as any hon. Member of the House. By going to India a man did not lose his sense of public duty or his sense of patriotism. He gained additional knowledge of the enormous responsibility attaching to the Civil Service, and it was to be hoped that there was no hon. Member who considered that experience and the good judgment derived from it were disqualifications for forming an opinion. Well, what was said by the Government of India on the point to which he had just referred? He would quote from the Despatch sending home the Report of the Public Service Commission of 1887—a Commission presided over by a former Governor of the Punjaub, Sir Charles Aitchison—and a more appropriate appointment could not have been made. The hon. Member opposite had spoken of the Commission as though it were composed of Anglo-Indians, but such was not the case. It was composed of some members of the Public Service, of some natives, and others. As to whether the examinations should be held simultaneously in England and India or only in England the Commission reported—
  "The Commission decides that it is inexpedient to hold an examination in India simultaneously with the examination in London. The Commission points out that while the Covenanted Civil Service is only large enough to man 765 appointments all told, the duties which the officers composing that Service are called on to discharge involve wide and serious responsibilities, and require very high qualifications and special training in the agency employed. It recognises that as the Covenanted Civil Service represents the only permanent English official element in India, the importance of recruiting that Service with reference to the maintenance of English principles and methods of government cannot be over-rated. Having regard to the general considerations set forth with great force in paragraph 60 of the Report, the Commission concludes that recruitment in India for the Civil Service is undesirable."
  MR. PAUL: Did the native members of the Commission concur in that?
  GENERAL SIR G. CHESNEYsaid, the native members had not confirmed it. The Government of India said—
  "We are unanimously of the opinion that this conclusion is correct. The true principle on which the Commission has very strongly insisted is, that the conditions of the open competitive examination should be framed with the object of securing candidates trained in the highest and best form of English education.

  123
  If under such conditions native candidates succeed, they will then, as Lord Macaulay said, 'enter the Service in the best and most, honourable way.' The establishment of simultaneous competitive examinations in India and in England would sacrifice the principle we have stated. It would be entirely foreign to the intentions of the framers of the competitive system, and be open to grave practical objections."
  But the Government of India, and naturally, in their position, did not lay stress on the gravest objection, which was that under a system of competitive examination held in Calcutta there would not be a fair representation of the people of India. They would, no doubt, have a large representation of the educated people, but the Government of India held that it would be in the highest degree undesirable to flood India with Bengalee Civil servants. It would be resented in the strongest manner by the people of India themselves. It must be remembered that they were not legislating for the particular benefit of the 300 or 400 young men who wanted employment, but for the peace, prosperity, and good government of the whole of the people of India. Sir James Lyall, Governor of the Punjaub, had reported that even if there were a system of open competition for the Punjaubees alone, for the Civil Service of that Province alone, the result would be to give the Government the wrong set of men. Sir James Lyall said that it was the governing classes in India whom the people looked up to, who were just those who could not pass competitive examinations. And though no one held a higher opinion of the value of competitive examinations for England than himself, in his opinion it would be madness to apply a system of competitive examination for selecting Administrators in India. He would further point out that administrative change had just been entered upon of a most important kind in the Civil Service. It was proposed by the Government of India that the Covenanted Civil Service in that country should undergo a large reduction, and that the numbers should be made up by the appointment of natives who had given evidence of their qualification by good service already rendered to the State, but who had not undergone competitive examination. He and other
  124
  members of the Council would have gone even further than they had done already in this respect, but, being in a minority in the Council, they had been over-ruled. He mentioned that to show that, though he was opposing the Resolution, he had for many years identified himself very closely in these reforms. The proposed reduction in the Covenanted Civil Service was one-sixth, and in future those appointments would be filled up by natives of the country who were already in the service of the State. Everyone who was acquainted with the condition of India would, he believed, affirm that no better mode of appointment could be made. When a man had been 10, or 12, or 15 years in the Service in India his character was known, and public opinion approved of the appointment of such men to important positions. Moreover, it was not to be supposed that the Government of India were under the impression that they had reached anything like finality in this matter; but they believed that, having reduced the Covenanted Civil Service by one-sixth under the present circumstances of India, they had gone as far as they could safely go at the present time. Any person who thought otherwise, and voted for an opposite view, must be prepared to take great responsibility on his shoulders. The question was not whether competitive examinations should take place here or in India, but whether Englishmen were required at all in the Indian Civil Service. If none were required were they going to have a Civil Service consisting entirely of natives; and if they were, were they going to recall the 70,000 British troops? That was the question they had to answer. Disguise the matter how they might, there was no hiding the fact that India was held at present by the sword, and he did not believe anyone in this country was prepared to do away with the English Agency in the government of India. The point to be considered, therefore, was whether the reduction which had taken place in the Covenanted Service during the past five years was not, as times went, a reasonable one. No doubt, if the belief were generally entertained in this country that the Indian Government were moving too slowly in the matter, hon. Members could vote for the Motion, the rate of progress

  125
  would be accelerated, and in a short time the English element would have disappeared from the Indian Civil Service. But even so they would not have the Indian people properly represented. They would have a few of the educated natives of Bombay in the Service, but the great bulk would be educated Bengalees, who up to the present had never taken an effective part in the government of the country.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSEL,): I think the time has arrived when I ought to intervene in this Debate on the part of Her Majesty's Government; but in view of the many hon. Members of great experience in relation to this subject who, I presume, are desirous of speaking, I promise that my remarks shall be kept within reasonable limits. Whatever may be the views of hon. Members as to the merits of this matter, we must all feel gratified at the signs we see around us of reviving interest in Indian affairs. In days gone by it was scarcely less than a scandal that the Service of our enormous Indian Empire excited so little interest in the House of Commons. But to-night we have been able to make a House and keep a House, and that is a great achievement. Thus there are signs that the present House of Commons, at all events, is more alive than its predecessors to its responsibilities in the matter. My thanks are due to the hon. Member for South Edinburgh and the hon. Member for Finsbury for the courteous manner in which they have brought forward the Motion. The hon. Member for Finsbury suggested, I think, that India is administered by us in the interests of selfishness alone; but I hope, before I have done, I shall succeed in convincing him that whatever our errors may be they are not founded in selfishness. The hon. Member for South Edinburgh expressed regret that I and others have not spent some portion of our lives in India. I admit that this is to be regretted; but, still, I must say I consider that our state is more gracious than that of those who have spent three, four, or five months on a tour through India,
  126
  who are hurried from one official residence to another, and come back crammed with undigested knowledge. The hon. Member for South Edinburgh has limited his Motion more narrowly than I thought he intended. He proposes that those who pass their first examination in India should come to England to pass the second. If his view were carried into effect it would limit the disabilities under which the natives of India labour, and would very largely increase the number of natives occupying appointments in the Covenanted Service. The hon. Member referred to the Minute of 1860. References have been made to that before, and I have had occasion before now to say that that was not an official or an authoritative document. It was merely an expression of opinion on the part of three eminent men of that time, and was never adopted by the responsible Government. But, above all, it is now absolutely out of date owing to the changes which, since that time—30 years ago—have taken place, and especially to the institution of the Provincial Service in India. From 1860 we come to 1868, when certain inhabitants of India addressed themselves to the English Government in the sense of the Motion of my hon. Friend, and although Mr. Fawcett favoured the proposition, it was strongly opposed by Lord Lawrence, whose view was sustained by Sir Stafford Northcote. In 1887 there was a strongly-supported proposal which was somewhat germane to the proposal of my hon. Friend, and yet, in a certain sense, contrary to it. I think he said that the inhabitants of India are the only persons concerned in the proposed change. But that was not the case in regard to the proposal of 1887, which was for simultaneous examinations to be held in some of the Australian Colonies. But if this was carried out, why should Canada and the other Colonies be excluded? and if they had been included, the result would not have been to the advantage of the natives of India. In 1886–7 the Public Service Commission, which was referred to by the last speaker, sat, and, although three native members who took part in that Commission did not see the objections to the simultaneous examinations or the mischiefs that were likely to occur which the

  127
  others saw, yet they were unanimous with the other members of the Commission in rejecting the proposal and approving the Provincial system which the Commission recommended. The grounds of the majority's opposition were, first, that it was necessary to bring up the natives to the standard of modern notions of government; secondly, that Indian education was no sufficient preparation; thirdly, that inequalities would be created between race and race and between class and class, in India, which would be fraught with danger; fourthly, that such an alteration would give an impetus to the principle of cramming; and, fifthly, that the altered arrangement would be incompatible with the vivâ voce examination to which the Civil Service Commissioners attach great weight, as showing the moral equipment of a man more than any paper examination. I confess that, in my view, these objections are but as dust in the balance when compared with the great, fundamental, racial difficulty. People speak glibly of India as one whole entity. If we approach the subject practically, we have to bear in mind that India is not composed of one race but of many, and that we there rule over a community of men composed of different races, holding different religious beliefs, and having differences and diversities of gifts. To a certain section of the inhabitants of India—the Bengalese—there has been conceded in a most abundant measure that valuable quality which is essential for success in competitive examinations. We must consider these marked diversities of gifts. The gift of passing competitive examinations and the gift of governing men are not always committed by Providence to the same person. As a matter of fact, Sir, it has been held by those who are experts in this business, who have a practical knowledge, and sometimes a lifelong knowledge of India and the working of laws and institutions in India, that the gift of rule has not been vouchsafed to the particular class of the population of India who best succeed in these examinations. It is held by those best qualified to form an opinion that the fierce, turbulent races, though they submit contentedly to our rule, would resent, and very strongly resent, any
  128
  attempt on the part of the Bengalese natives to exercise administrative control over them. Now, Sir, if time and circumstances were favourable, I might enlarge at some length upon the enormous magnitude of the problem involved in the Government of India. In that Government we have to deal with a population which, all told, is not much less than 300,000,000. Of this number some 57,000,000 are Mahom-medans, 2,000,000 Sikhs, 208,000,000 Hindoos, and 90,000 Parsees; and to rule all these, in the sense of the Civil Service rule, what is our force? We have 1,000 men in the Covenanted Service, and of these 1,000, 20 are natives. Besides these, there are in the Statutory Service, introduced a few years ago as an experiment, some 58 natives. But now I come to what is more important, the new Uncovenanted Provincial Service created as the result of the Commission to which allusion has been made. The Provincial Indian Service cannot properly be regarded as a subordinate Service, for the members of this Provincial Service are eligible for the very highest posts under the Crown in India. [Cheers.] I am glad to be confirmed in that by the cheers of the hon. Gentleman opposite. There are no posts, however important and influential, which are withheld from members of that Service. It consists at present of some 3,000 men, and of these 50 are Englishmen; therefore, if we compare the Covenanted Service with this Service, it would not seem that we have disregarded the claims of the native races. This Service we regard, as I have said, in no sense subordinate or subject; we regard it as being a complement and an extension of the Covenanted Service, carried on under slightly different conditions, and we consider it as the proper and natural door through which the native population of India should pass into the Service of the Crown. But I am quite aware that we may be charged with inconsistency, and that it may be said—"Is it not almost contradictory in terms to say that the large mass of the native population are not well qualified for the business of ruling and governing, and yet to permit them to compete with Englishmen in examinations in England and to be eligible for the

  129
  Provincial Service in India?" Both of these are questions which may fairly be put; but my hon. Friend, in moving his Resolution, did us the credit of saying that he did not attribute to the Department at home any endeavour to put forward fallacious or misleading views as to the principle on which these examination; are conducted, and I will try to deserve his praise by meeting this point fairly. We are not inconsistent for this reason. In the first place, we do not lay down an absolute and all-inclusive law. We do not say that these native races are altogether, man to man, incapable; we only generalise and say that, as a race, they are less richly endowed with the gifts of government than with other gifts. But we say, when a young Indian gentleman is willing to come over to England, when he is willing to make this change in his life and habits, when he is willing to leave his home, his friends, and the society of his own people, when he is willing to submit himself to instruction in this country and take his chance in free and open competition with Englishmen, he gives unmistakable proof that he is a picked and marked man—that he has qualifications and self-reliance which will make him a valuable public servant—a man whose admission into the Indian Service we can regard with satisfaction and hope. So we are not inconsistent in saying that if a young man chooses to come over here and enter into a free and open competition under the conditions laid down he is to have equal chances with Englishmen. And with regard to the Provincial Service again, we hold that we are entirely free from the charge of inconsistency, because there the admissions are not by competitive literary examination. The admission into this Service is by selection, and selection by tried merit. Here, of course, there is no means of trying merit except in a literary way; but in the Provincial Service it is not so. He can only be appointed by selection on a trial of merit, by having shown himself a man capable of fulfilling the duties of the position he aspires to hold. He is appointed to the local service, and therefore the difficulty and danger of placing men who are incapable of ruling over warlike and turbulent races in other parts of India is
  130
  avoided in the Provincial Service. Now, Sir, on the whole, and in the main, in the spirit of the explanation I have made, the Government are prepared to adhere to the great principle which has governed its operations from the first—that the best possible education which a man can have, be he a native of India or not, to fit him for a share in the administration of that country is the education and training conferred by the schools and colleges of England. I am quite aware that some hon. Members may look upon this as an old-fashioned system, but they are thinking of the days when Universities and great colleges were, so to speak, close corporations; but one of the most satisfactory and whole some features of the present day is that the University movement has extended all over the Empire, and that first-rate colleges and schools are seen in their fullest perfection growing up on all hands. They are increasing year by year, I may almost say quarter by quarter; and we shall not be considered exclusive or pedantic in saying that we consider, on the whole, the most serviceable and hopeful plan that those who are to carry on the Government of India should, as a rule, receive their training under English influences. I am not speaking of the mere acquisition of knowledge. I draw a distinction between that and the formation of character, for both are involved in the idea of education. It is, perhaps, the formation of character more than the acquisition of accomplishment that we look to for the purpose of the government of India, and habits which we believe that English education is pre-eminently qualified to instil, and which we hold to be pre-eminently valuable in the case of the natives of India, self-control, self-reliance, and the remembrance of the obligations of esprit de corps. These are the qualifications which we believe English education imparts, and which we think should be possessed by those who are to carry on the government of India. It may be said that we are inconsistent in that we only examine them, and do not of necessity submit them to a thorough training. Perfectly true; but when it was decided that the examinations should be in England a sum of money was offered to those Indian candidates who choose to reside

  131
  in the intervening period at one of the Universities, thus providing a strong inducement that they should do so. That was not required in so many words, but tour plan must conduce in the long run to bringing a large number of young men in India under the influences of public school and University discipline who would not otherwise be subject to their training. I am so anxious to hear a few words from other speakers that I will not further labour my point. I hope I have said enough to make it perfectly clear that the so ground on which we resist the proposition of my hon. Friend is that it seems to us to invite disaster in India. The Indian races which are most likely to fill the Civil Service, though they have many gifts and accomplishments, are yet deficient in those particular gifts which excite the admiration and respect of the warlike tribes. The Government of India is a vast, a sacred, and, in some respects, a perilous charge. In administering it we must be equally on our guard against allowing ourselves to be carried away by theories, however specious; by appeals to sentiment, however just; or even by the mistaken application of principles in themselves sound. The one supreme subject which, in dealing with India, every Government, to whichever political Party it belongs, must set before itself, is the maintenance there of a firm, harmonious, and progressive rule. The one supreme danger which we must avoid, as we avoid the worst possible perils to our own country, is any departure in policy which may kindle in India jealousies, hostilities, and rivalries between race and race and between creed and creed. It is because we fear if my hon. Friend's proposition were carried out that these jealousies, rivalries, and hostilities between race and race and between creed and creed would be kindled that we oppose the Motion, and only on that ground; and I hope the House of Commons will hesitate before, by a rash and inconsiderate vote, it dislocates and destroys a system of Government which has been built up by so much anxious care and thought, so much long and varied experience, and under which the Indian Empire has enjoyed so large a measure of order and peaceful progress.
  SIR W. WEDDERBURNsaid, he should like to say a few words in support of the Amendment. The hon. Member for Finsbury had spoken with unrivalled knowledge of the subject, but it might be said that he belonged to a class interested in this question. Being himself an Indian, and not belonging to the official class, he might, therefore, be said to have an interest in the matter. Under these circumstances, he might himself be permitted to express an opinion as belonging to a class which might be said to be interested in the matter as British officials, and therefore opposed to the interests of his hon. Friend. He had no hesitation in saying that he entirely concurred in the view his hon. Friend had taken, and he considered that the refusal to hold simultaneous examinations and so put the Indian and the Englishman upon an equal footing was a breach of faith; it was also disobedience of the clear instruction of that House, and a policy tending to inefficiency and want of economy. He listened with much interest to what was said by his hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for India. He spoke somewhat slightingly of those independent Members who had visited India in order to obtain an unprejudiced view of Indian questions. Well, for himself, he would say he was very grateful to those gentlemen who, even in the short period of a few months in India, often gained a better knowledge and more unprejudiced understanding of Indian questions than men who had passed many years in that country if they had professional interests to serve. He agreed with his hon. Friend that the independent Member was a very good judge of Indian questions, and he asked for no better judge; but he would rather that that judge had not lived in the atmosphere of the India Office, as the Under Secretary of State for India was obliged to do. From what he had said he appeared to come before the House saturated with the official opinions of the India Office. Now, the views that he had placed before the House—the objections he had taken—were twofold. He stated a few days ago, in answer to his hon. Friend the

  133
  Member for Finsbury, that there were two principal objections to simultaneous examinations. The first was that they would sacrifice the principle of obtaining the best and highest form of English education. On behalf of his Scotch and Irish friends, he would say he thought they might object to English education only being referred to; but, apart from that, he held it quite unworthy of the Government to call such a mere detail a matter of principle. The real principle that was being sacrificed now was the principle of absolute impartiality among all Her Majesty's subjects. That was a principle worthy of preservation. The other reason his hon. Friend had given was that by recent arrangements ample provision had been made for the employment of the natives of India in the higher offices. He offered to that allegation a most absolute and complete denial. Now, this question might be thought to be only one of employment in the Public Service, and that it was not a very extensive one; but hon. Members would remember that in India a despotic Government absorbed all the independent professions, and admission to the Public Service was really admission to the liberal professions in India. Upon our giving the natives a fair share of the higher offices depended the composition of the Governing Body—whether the people were to be under an autocracy alien in race, language, and sentiment, or whether they were to be at least not worse off than the Russian people, who if they are oppressed, are only oppressed by their own countrymen. This was a most important question, for it constituted an example of the habitual disobedience by the Anglo-Indian Government of the principles laid down by Parliament and the Crown. The Under Secretary had said there might be circumstances under which the principle of absolute impartiality could not be carried out. Was he prepared to repeal the Act of 1833, and to issue a new Queen's Proclamation stating that impartiality should be carried out only when it suited the purposes of the Indian bureaucracy? Lord Kimberley had admitted not long ago that, by the present arrangement as to examinations in London, the Covenanted Service was barred to natives. It was true that in 1870 an Act was passed to enable the
  134
  Government of India to appoint natives to any office whatever; but unfortunately the Act was permissive. It placed the power of making rules for the admission of natives in the hands of those who were the rivals of the educated natives, and that made the Act no concession at all, for it only gave the Simla clique additional means of putting their friends into good appointments. It was like giving to Dublin Castle the power to appoint Nationalists. The Indian bureaucracy waited nine years before making any Rules at all, and then they made Rules which perverted the purposes of the Act, and which enabled them to give away to their favourites and protégés the good things of the Covenanted Service. It was the re-establishment of jobbery; he had seen it with his own eyes. He was not speaking against individuals, but against the system. It was the interest of the men to behave in this way, and to reward their own supporters, their own favourites, by giving them these appointments. It used to be said that appointments in the Civil Service were worth £10,000 in the old days, and the posts were conferred on the sons and relatives of the bureaucracy. The system was also used for corrupting and undermining the independence of the native community, and, besides, it had the bad effect of discrediting the natives of India, because the Government put in incapable friends of their own, and then they pointed to their failure as evidence of the incapacity of Indians for higher office. As time went on, some further steps were found to be necessary. The best and wisest of all our Viceroys, the Marquess of Ripon, appointed a Public Service Commission, having for its object, not to restrict, but to increase, the advantages of the natives. The object of the Commission was—
  "To do full justice to the claims of the natives of India to higher and more extensive employment in the Public Service."
  What was the result? This Provincial Service to which reference had been made was established; but, instead of extending or elevating the position of the natives, it was restricted and depressed. Under the Statutory Service, as it was called, the natives of India had access to 220 higher appoint-

  135
  ments. By this Provincial Service the natives were restricted to about 180, excluding the highest. They claimed that the Indians should have a fair equal chance of entering the service of their country by the main entrance, that is, by open competition. The Statutory Service opened a sort of mean backdoor to let a few natives into a share of the Government of their country; but the Provincial Service closed even that door. Anyone, therefore, who considered those points would be aware that the principle laid down by Parliament and the Crown had not been carried out with impartiality, and that the recent arrangement, instead of giving ample facilities, had, in point of fact, reduced even the petty advantages which the natives had before in the share of the Government of their own country. It had been said that a certain number of Europeans—Englishmen, Irishmen, and Scotchmen—were necessary in the Government of India. No one denied it, but the natives said—"Do not exclude the people of the country entirely." If a certain number were required let arrangements be made accordingly. Perhaps it would be a good arrangement if a maximum annual grant for European agency were fixed, and that all other salaries should be given to natives. He appealed to the House and the Government to enforce these great principles which had been laid down distinctly in Acts of Parliament and declarations of the Crown, and not to trust to the Government of India, which was really a clique of officials whose interests were directly adverse to the interests of the Indians who claimed to be admitted fairly and impartially to the service of their country. He objected to permissive legislation in regard to such matters in India. The Government of India said to the Imperial Parliament—"Do not order us to cary out anything, but leave it permissive with us." The great object of the bureaucracy of India was not to carry out the orders of the Imperial Parliament. At present the officials in India were practically uncontrolled. After being in the official clique at Simla, the heads of that great bureaucracy came to Westminster and formed an Indian Council, which gave the whole tone and colour to the politics of the Indian Office.
  136
  Those, therefore, who ought to control the Government of India became merely the mouthpieces of the official classes and of official interests.
  MR. EGERTON ALLENsaid, that as he had resided some years in India, had a knowledge of the natives, and had had considerable experience of examinations of natives, he desired to say a few words on the subject of the Motion. Two opinions had been quoted in the course of the Debate. First there was the opinion of some gentlemen of large experience in India, given in 1860, and which had been described as the Report of a Committee presented to Parliament. He had the authority of the Under Secretary for India in saying that that opinion given in 1860 was not a Report presented to Parliament; that it was not an opinion to be considered and deflated in Parliament, but was a mere confidential document presented to the India Office, and devoid of any authority whatever. ["No, no!"] The hon. Member for Finsbury said, "No." The Under Secretary for India had clearly stated, in answer to a question in the House, that the document was never recorded or discussed officially; it was merely an expression of opinion upon a state of things which existed 33 years ago, but had since been materially changed in accordance with subsequent legislation. But the opinion of the Public Service Commission of 1886–7 was of a totally different character. The Commission consisted of a large body of gentlemen appointed to investigate the question as to the desirability of having simultaneous examinations in India and England, and they reported directly against the setting-up of such examinations. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Oxford quoted that opinion, and the hon. Member who moved the Motion asked—"Did the Indian Members agree?" and the hon. and gallant Gentleman replied that they disagreed. As a matter of fact there were six Indians on the Commission—three Hindoos and three Mahommedans; the three Hindoos disagreed with the apprehension expressed in a part of the

  137
  Report; but the three Mahommedans did not disagree. The Authorities were entirely against the Motion before the Committee, and the only argument left was what was called "the justice of the case." That was an important point, and he hoped the House would give it its consideration. The hon. Gentleman who had last spoken said that those who opposed the Motion were sacrificing the principle of impartiality between Her Majesty's subjects. The burden of the speech of the hon. Member for Finsbury also was that in not allowing those competitive examinations to take place in India they were doing an injustice to the natives of India. He would ask one question—Who were the natives of India? Who, he would add, were Her Majesty's subjects? Why, the natives of India were as diverse as the natives of Europe. They must consider them from the north to the south and from the east to the west, and they would find that if they were to test the natives of India by this competitive examination, they would let in a small section of them and exclude the majority. In fact, that supposed test of impartiality would really be most cruelly partial against the majority of the natives of India. Those who would pass the examination would be almost all Hindoos, and beyond the Hindoos, Parsees; and these were just the class in which it would be most unfair to the rest of the races of India that the power of administration in the country should lie. The whole question of justice and impartiality would take a different complexion if they considered that the natives of India were not homogeneous but extremely heterogeneous. It was not a case of native and European; it was a question of race amongst the natives themselves. Let them consider the nations of Europe, and see how the intellectual test would tell. The successful races would be the more southern, the Maltese, Neapolitans, and Levantines for instance, and were those the races they would put in power ruling over the Northerns, such as the Norwegians and Prussians? He was leaving those islands out of the question altogether. Would they select the effeminate southern or the stronger fighting races of the North of India? If the House con-
  138
  sidered that the principles of justice would be violated by allowing the intellectual natives to carry off all the prizes, the effect of the arguments of the supporters of the Motion would be nullified. They were not doing an injustice to the natives of India as a whole by preventing some of them from getting the prizes of the Indian Civil Service. They were not sacrificing the principle of impartiality by ordering that candidates for the Civil Service should be examined in England, because the examination in England did a great deal to retain the standard of real efficiency in the Civil Service of India. He begged the House to believe that he had the strongest sympathy with the native races. He did not believe there was a Member of the House who had as many friends amongst the natives of India as himself. He had not met them in any high official position. He had met them on the ground of his profession, and they had beaten him more often than he had beaten them. No one had a higher admiration for the good qualities of the native races of India than he had, but they were not qualities which fitted them to rule their fellow-men.
  MR. CURZONsaid, that hon. Members on his side of the House had listened with much satisfaction to the statement of the Under Secretary of State for India, which was characterised by the great ability which the hon. Gentleman always displayed on every subject on which he addressed the House. He took a great interest in this question, owing to the fact that during the short term he had hold Office he had served under a Secretary of State for India who was responsible for the reorganisation of the Indian Civil Service, which was now being carried into effect. He wished to say that it was undoubtedly the object of Lord Cross to throw open as wide as possible the doors of official employment to natives in India, and to restrict to Europeans those offices only which must be filled by men of wide culture and experience. It might be inferred, from the speeches of hon. Members opposite, that there was a sinister design to

  139
  keep out the natives of India from public employment. But he thought the speech of the lion, and gallant Gentleman behind him showed conclusively that the bulk of Civil and administrative posts were filled by natives. The Motion before the House only affected 950 posts. Who were the men who filled those 950 posts? They were the fine flower of the Administration of India; men of ability, training, and knowledge; men who were the guardians of British interests in India; men who were every day—he might almost say every hour—confronted with serious and grave responsibilities. They were not Englishmen alone. It was perfectly competent for any Indian of the requisite training and ability to join their ranks, and, as a matter of fact, there were several Indians amongst them; but it was obvious that the work performed by the men who filled those posts must be work based upon a knowledge of English institutions, of English history, and English principles of Government. It was not men of educational aptitudes alone that they wanted in India. They wanted persons of high moral character; men with a knowledge of the world; men with self-reliance, and able to grapple with emergencies when they arose; and experience had shown that this ruling type of man was more likely to be obtained by having the examinations conducted in England than in India. Another point was that at the present moment there was ample opportunity for any native of India to obtain any post, however distinguished, seeing that under the Act of 1870 it was competent to the Government of India to appoint any native to any post, however exalted, in the Indian Service.
  MR. NAOROJI: That is a dead letter. It is not acted on.
  MR. CURZONsaid, that might be true of the past, but there was no reason to believe that it would not be carried out in the future. The result of holding the examinations in England was that we were able to rule India successfully, and he therefore intended to oppose any change in the present system.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 84.—(Division List, No. 111.)
  MR. PAUL: I claim to move that the substantive Question be now put.
  Several MEMBERS: I object.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is consequential that the words be there added.
  Words added.
  Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That all open competitive Examinations heretofore held in England alone for appointments to the Civil Services of India shall henceforth be held simultaneously both in India and England, such Examinations in both Countries being identical in their nature, and all who compete being finally classified in one list according to merit.
  Supply—Committee upon Monday next.

  CIVIL SERVICES, 1893–4 (SUPERANNUATION AND RETIRED ALLOWANCES).
  Copy presented,—of Appendix to the Estimate for Civil Services, Class VI., Vote 1, containing a List of Superannuation and Retired Allowances payable on 31st March 1893 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IRISH LAND COMMISSION (PROCEEDINGS).
  Copy presented,—of Return of Proceedings during the month of April 1893 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) BILL.
  Copy presented,—of Memorandum stating the nature of the Proposals contained in the Provisional Order included in the Bill [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE REPORTS (ANNUAL SERIES).
  Copies presented,—of Diplomatic and Consular Reports on Trade and Finance, Nos. 1216 (Foochow), 1217 (Wuhu). 1218 (Vera Cruz), 1219 (San José), 1220 (Antwerp), and 1221 (Mogador) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock to Monday next.