Commons Sitting of 5 June 1893

QUESTIONS.

  RATE PAYMENTS BY LANDLORDS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can inform the House if the Act authorising Local Authorities to compound with the landlords for the payment of the rates in respect of their cottage property is universally adopted; whether he can say what is the average abatement in the rates made by the Local Authorities in favour of the landlords in such cases; and what is the number of electors for Local Authorities who by the operation of the compounding Acts pay no rates directly?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): The provisions of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, with respect to the payment of rates by the owners instead of the occupiers in the case of small tenements have been largely, but not universally, adopted. The maximum abatement which can be allowed to the owners in these cases is prescribed by the Act, but I am unable to say what is the average abatement allowed. Neither can I state the number of electors for Local Authorities whose rates are paid directly by the owners.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an approximate idea of the number of electors who do not pay the rates directly?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I will see if it can be obtained, but that is a very troublesome and, I fear, almost impossible Return.

  THE ZULU EXILES.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is able to confirm or otherwise the statement made by Mr. Fox Bourne, the Secretary of the Aborigines'
  182
  Protection Society, at the annual meeting of that Society on the 17th instant, that he (the Secretary) had had an interview with the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, and that the wishes of the Society with regard to the Zulu exiles would be substantially gratified within the next few months; whether these words are to be accepted as implying that the Zulu Chiefs now at St. Helena are to be released and allowed to return to Zululand; and whether the Governor and authorities of Zululand have been consulted as to the expediency of this step?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): The statement attributed to the Secretary of the Aborigines' Protection Society is not correct, and I understand that he denies having made it. The only statement I have made in regard to the matter is that Mr. Osborn (now Sir Melmoth Osborn) is retiring on pension, and that, until after his successor takes up his appointment, no change will be made in the present position of affairs. His successor will be Sir. Marshall Clarke, who for so many years has been administering Basutoland with marked ability.

  ADMIRALTY CRUISER SUBVENTIONS.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when he hopes to be in a position to announce the decision of the Admiralty in the matter of the application for the subvention to the steamers engaged on the now service between Australia and Canada viâ Honolulu?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH,): The Admiralty are unable at present to add to the list of steamships which receive a subvention as armed mercantile cruisers.
  MR. HOGAN: When the right hon. Gentleman says the Admiralty are not prepared to recommend a subvention, am I to understand that, when this service has passed through the experimental stage, and proved itself to be a permanent link of communication between Australia and Canada, its claims to Imperial recognition will be re-considered?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I have no doubt that any future application will be considered with the same care as the present one.

  DIPLOMATIC EXPENDITURE IN THE EAST.
  SIR ANDREW SCOBLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India what is the amount of the contribution paid by the Government of India towards the cost of Diplomatic and Consular Establishments in China, Persia, Turkey, Siam, East Africa, and elsewhere; and whether he is able to state what proportion such contribution bears to the total cost of such Establishments respectively?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): The Secretary of State is unable to state the cost of the Diplomatic and Consular Establishments maintained under the control of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The following statement shows the present contributions towards such Establishments paid by the Indian Government, as well as the cost of similar establishments maintained and paid for under the control of the Indian Government:—China: a fixed contribution of £12,500 per annum paid by India towards the cost of the Diplomatic and Consular Services. Persia: (1) a fixed contribution of £7,000 per annum towards the cost of Her Britannic Majesty's Legation at Teheran; (2) the salary and establishment charges of a special officer (Consul General) on Khorassan frontier (about Rx.15,000), paid wholly by India; (3) the salaries and establishment charges of Bushire Residency, including salaries of Her Britannic Majesty's Consul General for Fars, &c., and Vice Consul at Bushire (about Rx.10,000) are paid by India; the salary of the Vice Consul at Mohammerah is not paid by India. Turkey: (1) the cost of the Political Residency in Turkish Arabia, including the salaries of Consul General for Bagdad and Consul at Bussorah (about Rx.9,000) is paid wholly by India; (2) half the cost of the Consulate at Jeddah for the Eastern Coast of the Red Sea—Indian share being calculated at £458—is paid by India; (3) the expenses of the Vice Consulate at Hodeidah (Consul's salary
  184
  amounting to £360, and other expenses £160) are met from Indian Revenues, but towards this cost the Imperial Government pays £200. Siam: The Chiengmai Vice Consulate charges (about Rx.1,000) are paid wholly by India. Somali Coast: The Political Assistant is also Her Britannic Majesty's Consul; his salary (Rx.1,756) and expenses are paid by India. Muskat: The salary (Rx.3,120) and expenses of the Political Agent and Her Britannic Majesty's Consul are paid wholly by India. French Colonies: India pays £650, not towards Consuls' salaries or cost of establishment, but for travelling expenses and interpreters, £500 to the Consul at Réunion, and £150 to the Consul for Cayenne and Surinam, on special grounds in the interests of Indian coolie emigrants. Goa and Pondicherri: Her Britannic Majesty's Consul at Goa and the Consular Agent for Pondicherri and Karikal are paid by India.

  PASSENGER TRAFFIC IN THE ENGLISH CHANNEL.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the foreign vessels carrying passengers across the English Channel are frequently inspected by the Board of Trade as to their seaworthiness and suitability for passenger service; and in such case, if he can say when the steamships France and Prince, plying between Dover and Calais, were built, and last overhauled by a British surveyor?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): The Board of Trade have no power to inspect foreign vessels as to their unseaworthiness or suitability for passenger service, unless they carry passengers between places in the United Kingdom—or come under the Passenger Acts. These French cross channel steamers do not carry passengers between places in the United Kingdom, and they do not come under the Passenger Acts. They are subject to French Regulations, as British ships engaged in the same traffic are subject to British Regulations.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Can the right hon. Gentleman give any information as to the steamships named?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I cannot give any information as to ships not inspected by the Board of Trade.

  COUNSEL'S FEES AT THE BEHRING SEA ARBITRATION.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what amount, in addition to salary, is payable to the Attorney General on his brief in the case of the Behring Sea Arbitration now proceeding at Paris; what additional amount he receives daily as a "refresher," or otherwise; and whether the latter sum is paid when the Arbitration Court does not sit or the Attorney General does not appear in Court?
  MR. CARVILL: At the same time, I will ask the right hon. Gentleman what amount is payable to the Attorney General of the late Government on his brief in the case of the Behring Sea Arbitration now proceeding at Paris; what additional amount he receives daily as a "refresher" or otherwise, and whether the latter sum is paid when the Arbitration Court does not sit, or the hon. and learned Member does not appear in Court; and what is the sum total of the fees in this case under the late and under the present Government?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The Attorney General and the late Attorney General have each received an inclusive fee, for six weeks' attendance in Paris, of 2,000 guineas. The Solicitor to the Treasury has been instructed to arrange for the payment to both hon. and learned Gentlemen of reasonable fees for further attendance beyond the period of six weeks; but the exact amounts have not yet been submitted to the Treasury for approval. The fees paid by the Treasury Solicitor to the late Attorney General in the case up to December 31, 1892, amounted to a total of £1,055 6s., and there are some further fees not yet settled up to the time when the arrangement was made for the payment of the lump sum for six weeks' attendance.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman state the amount of the "refreshers" paid to the Attorney General? Will he also
  186
  kindly say whether the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight receives a salary of £7,000 a year for attending to public business?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: This is contentious business outside the salary, and would have been deemed so whatever Government was in Office. With respect to daily "refreshers," I should explain that no such fees are payable during the period of six weeks, as the 2,000 guineas is inclusive.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: In consequence of the unsatisfactory reply of the right hon. Gentleman I shall call attention to the subject on the Estimates.

  MILITARY CANTEENS AND THE SUNDAY CLOSING ACT.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the police have made any Report concerning the evasion of the Sunday Closing Act by the establishment of a canteen in connection with the 4th Battalion Royal Irish Rifles at Manarrene Park, Antrim; and whether the sale of intoxicating liquor to civilians, under such circumstances, is legal?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. Morley,): I am informed that the canteen referred to is conducted strictly according to the Queen's Regulations, which prohibit the sale of liquor to civilians either on Sundays or weekdays. So far as the police are aware there is nothing irregular in the management of the canteen, and there is no evasion of the Sunday Closing Act.

  IRISH DISPENSARY DOCTORS.
  MR. M'CARTAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will state the number of dispensary doctors in each of the following places—namely, County Antrim, County Down, and City of Belfast; and how many of them in each place are Catholics?
  MR. J. MORLEY: There are 34 medical officers of dispensary districts in the County Antrim, and 33 in County Down. In the City of Belfast there are 15 dispensary doctors. The Local Government Board have no information as to the religious denominations to which these officers belong.
  MR. M'CARTAN: In both the two counties, as well as in the City of Belfast, there is only one Roman Catholic dispensary doctor.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY ARMS.
  MR. ARNOLD-FOESTER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many stand of arms are in the possession or under the control of the Royal Irish Constabulary; what is the amount of ball cartridge ordinarily in their possession and in reserve for Constabulary purposes; and in what magazine is the Constabulary ammunition stored?
  MR. J. MORLEY: There are in possession and under the control of the Royal Irish Constabulary about 17,400 stand of arms. The usual quantity of ammunition in possession of each man is 40 rounds of ball and 12 of buck shot. There is practically no reserve of ammunition kept in the Department, and supplies, after the annual practice, are drawn from the War Department. It is understood the War Department issues the supplies to counties from the military divisional magazines.

  SWINE FEVER.
  MR. FELLOWES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that the evidence given before the Committee on Swine Fever has been published by the Board of Agriculture, he is now able to say whether he intends to give effect to the recommendations of that Committee?
  MR. CHANNING: I beg, at the same time, to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in view of the important character of the evidence now issued on which the Departmental Committee on Swine Fever have based their recent Report, and in view of the recent serious increase of the disease, and the opinion of the Committee that the disease can only effectually be dealt with by a Central Authority, Her Majesty's Government will take steps to carry out the recommendations during the present year?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDENER,): I am in communication with the Treasury with
  188
  regard to the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, and at present I can only refer the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Northamptonshire, who has also placed a question on this subject on the Paper, to the statement made on behalf of the Government immediately before the Recess. I may perhaps add, however, that although, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already been good enough to inform the House, I am personally very anxious to take the disease in hand, an immediate decision on the subject is by no means a matter of such urgency as the frequency of the questions addressed to me with regard to it would suggest. I am informed by my professional advisors that the late autumn is the best season for the commencement of operations, and, with regard to the extent of the disease, I may say that so far from there having been any recent serious increase, as my hon. Friend states, the available statistics point to exactly the opposite conclusion. The number of outbreaks recorded last year was less than half the number recorded in 1891—in fact, smaller than in any year since 1884; and, although it is no doubt true that many outbreaks are unreported, there is absolutely nothing to justify the impression which seems to be gaining ground that the owners of pigs are face to face with a crisis of a very serious character.
  MR. FELLOWES: If the Government are unwilling to bring in a measure on this question, will they give facilities for the Bill already before the House?
  MR. GARDNER: My hon. Friend must by no means understand that the Government are unwilling to bring in a Bill.

  TRINCOMALEE PORT.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, in view of the fact that the port of Trincomalee, in Ceylon, is off the trade route, and is destitute of commercial shipping of any value, whether Her Majesty's Government proposes to spend in the future the money necessary to defend Trincomalee in enlarging the harbour of Colombo (which is often inconveniently crowded with shipping, causing vessels to lie off in the roads, instead of having the protection of the harbour), and in con-

  189
  structing a commodious (lock, fortifying the place more thoroughly, and protecting the coal stores, British shipping, and commercial interests in Colombo, as recommended by Rear Admiral Bowden-Smith and other authorities?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The Admiralty do not contemplate transferring the Naval Establishment at Trincomalee to Colombo. As regards the question of enlarging and protecting the original harbour at Colombo, I am informed by the Colonial Office that the improvement of the harbour and the construction of a graving dock are works which would primarily be constructed out of Colonial Funds, and the question of undertaking these works has for some time been under the consideration of the Colonial Government and its technical advisers.

  THE UNION JACK IN IRELAND.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, as the 6 & 7 William IV. c. 38, s. 8, uses the words that a publican shall not display any sign, flag, or symbol, colour, decoration, or emblem whatsoever, "except the known and usual and accustomed sign of such house," he will have a test case from Deny submitted to Petty Sessions, and a case stated thereon to the Superior Courts with a view to decide whether this section imports that it is lawful to fly a particular flag from licensed houses but forbids others?
  SIR T. LEA: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the object of this section has not been frequently stated to be to prevent retailers from permitting illegal assemblies in their houses or hanging out the banners of rebel associations? Would not the repeal of the section allow these things to be done?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: No one proposes to repeal it.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I will read the opinion of the Irish Law Officers, whom I have consulted. Their opinion is as follows:—
  "In our opinion the 8th section of the Act of 1830 prohibits the hanging out or displaying of every flag, whether the Union Jack or other. The words used are of the largest kind, and they are strengthened by a use of the exception 'the known and usual and accustomed sign of such house.' The penalty provided by the 8th sec-
  190
  tion may be proceeded for by any person. It is not necessary for the Crown to be the prosecutor. I should not think it wise for the Crown to prosecute for the exhibition of the Union Jack, or raise a test case as to such a flag."
  I may add that it is not the intention of the Government to prosecute for the exhibition of the Union Jack upon the occasion in question, nor to raise a test case thereupon.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I inquire whether, as the late Government constantly prosecuted Nationalists for exhibiting flags or emblems, it would not be acting merely on the principle that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander if a prosecution were ordered in regard to the display of the Union Jack at Derry?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I quite agree with the principle that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. It is not for me, however, to invite Parliament to repeal the section of the Act in question, even if I were inclined to do so. It is sufficient for me to decide on the action of the Government as circumstances arise. I have already stated that in this case I do not think it would be wise for the Crown to institute a prosecution.
  SIR T. LEA: When the right hon. Gentleman says that what is sauce for the goose is also sauce for the gander, I suppose that is equivalent to placing the Union Jack on a level with other Party emblems?
  [No answer was given.]

  INDICTABLE OFFENCES IN IRELAND.
  MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many persons have been returned for trial to Quarter Sessions in the Counties of Cork, Kerry, Clare, and Limerick respectively, in respect of outrages committed within the districts described by him as disturbed areas; and will the jurors in attendance at each Quarter Sessions, or any of them, be persons resident within the disturbed areas?
  MR. J. MORLEY: There are six persons in Kerry and one in Clare awaiting trial at Quarter Sessions in respect of outrages committed within the disturbed areas in those counties respectively. The jurors in attendance at such Quarter Sessions include persons resident within those areas. There are no persons

  191
  awaiting trial at Quarter Sessions in respect of outrages in the disturbed areas of Cork and Limerick.

  CANADIAN BEEF IN SCOTLAND.
  SIR JOHN LENG: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether his attention has been called to the complaints of agriculturists in Scotland on account of the large numbers of fat Canadian cattle now being slaughtered at one time on landing at Shieldhall, Glasgow, seriously affecting the price of home-fed fat cattle, and that it would be much to the advantage of Scottish farmers if they could feed young Canadian cattle for the market; and whether, in the interests of Scottish agriculturists, the present prohibition against the importation of Canadian cattle for feeding purposes will be removed at the earliest possible date?
  MR. GARDNER: I am well aware of the feeling to which my hon. Friend refers, and I should be very glad to find myself in a position to remove the existing restrictions if I could do so consistently with the wider interests which it is my statutory duty to consider. At the moment I can only say that I must await the complete results of the special examination of the lungs of the animals arriving in this country which is now proceeding.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Is the right hon. Gentleman able now to give us the result of the examination of the lungs which he told us last week was under consideration?
  MR. GARDNER: No. It is a special microscopical examination, and I have not yet received the Report.

  WOMEN AS MAGISTRATES.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, under the provisions of the Local Government (England and Wales) Bill, a woman may be elected Chairman of a District Council, and thus become ex-officio a County Justice of the Peace; and whether the effect of the same Bill is to deprive the Justices of the Peace, as such, of all their administrative and non-judicial duties?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I venture to submit to the House that the proper time for considering the nature and effect of
  192
  the provisions of the Local Government Bill is in the Debate on the Second Reading and during the Committee stage of the Bill.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSE: As this is a point on which considerable confusion is felt in the country, cannot the right hon. Gentleman give a straight answer?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am submitting to the House that we cannot, in question and answer, discuss the provisions of a Bill which cannot be brought before the House for several weeks to come.

  THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY RATES.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he has noticed the statement in Friday's Times, that the French Railway Companies have, at the instance of the French Government, reduced by 25 per cent, the rates for hay and other cattle food; and if, in consideration of the serious scarcity of feeding stuffs now prevailing in parts of England, the Board of Trade will follow the example of the French Government by inducing the Great Western Railway and other Companies, who have recently raised their rates for the carriage of such goods, to reduce those rates by such an amount as shall substantially assist the farmer to procure the necessary food for his stock?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I noticed the statement referred to, but the Board of Trade have no power to induce the Great Western and other Companies to reduce their rates for such a purpose as that suggested by the hon. Member. The French Government, as owner of nearly 2,000 miles of railways and as contributor to others, has powers of control which the State in this country does not possess.

  SWAZILAND.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any arrangement has been arrived at between Sir Henry Loch and President Krüger relative to the future of Swaziland; and, if so, whether he will communicate it to the House?
  MR. S. BUXTON: No further arrangement has as yet been arrived at between Sir H. Loch and President Krüger beyond that already mentioned in

  193
  the House. But Sir H. Loch is now at Pretoria, and it is probable that an arrangement may be arrived at in regard to Swaziland during his visit to President Krüger. I can only repeat that full information on the whole subject will be communicated to the House at the earliest possible moment compatible with the interests of the Public Service.

  DOCKYARD CLASSIFICATION.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty what is the cause of the delay in announcing the decision of the Government on the subject of the system of classification in Her Majesty's Dockyards, which decision it was promised would be made before Whitsuntide; and whether he can state the time at which it will be made?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): As I have repeatedly explained to the hon. Gentleman, the decision of the Admiralty as to classification will not be announced until we are in a position to deal with all the other questions affecting labour in the Dockyards. An immense mass of material has had to be collected, analysed, and considered. Unexpected difficulties of various kinds have delayed the decision, but we are doing everything we can to hasten it.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the latter part of my question? He told us that the decision would be made known before Whitsuntide.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: I cannot name any date.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I shall repeat the question on Thursday.

  GOVERNMENT EMPLOYMENT FOR DISCHARGED SOLDIERS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has seen the statement in The Army and Navy Gazette of 27th May, that, out of 5,000 posts under Government suitable for discharged and Reserve men, only 220 are so allotted; and whether he can state the number of appointments reserved for old soldiers by the State in Germany, Austria-Hungary, and France respectively?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,&c.): I am not aware upon what basis the figures quoted rest, and I cannot, therefore, give an opinion of their accuracy. As to foreign countries, I would refer the hon. and gallant Gentleman to the Paper recently presented to Parliament containing Reports from Her Majesty's Embassies in Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, and Italy.

  THE IRISH NATIONAL FEDERATION.
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to a meeting of the Irish National Federation, Rosscarbery Branch, which was held in the National School Room on Thursday, 11th May, at which a charge of land-grabbing was brought against Michael Sweeny; and whether the National Board allow such meetings to be held in their schools?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I understand that meetings of the nature indicated took place in the National School at Rosscarbery on May 14 and two subsequent dates. The attention of the National Eduation Board has been drawn to the matter. Sweeny is reported to have attended the meetings voluntarily, and the police are closely watching the case.

  IRISH MAGISTRATES AND LAND- GRABBERS.
  MR. THEOBALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that a meeting, at which a so-called land-grabber was denounced and boycotting resolutions were passed, was presided over by Mr. J. Hughes, who has recently been appointed a Magistrate for Limerick by the present Government; and whether he will call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the matter?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It is stated in a newspaper report, which I have seen, that a meeting in reference to the evicted farm of Miss Morrison was presided over by a Mr. John Clune (not Hughes), who is a Magistrate for the City of Limerick, and was appointed shortly after the present Government came into Office. The alleged conduct of Mr. Chine has been brought under the notice of the Lord Chancellor.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: Perhaps I may be permitted to say that I have here a letter from Mr. Clune denying that any resolution advocating boycotting was passed at the meeting in question.

  CLARE AND LIMERICK JURIES.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, seeing that the Circuits have now been arranged for the Summer Assizes in Ireland, the Government intend, in view of the failure of the juries in Clare and Limerick at the last Assizes, to make arrangements under which prisoners who may be charged with serious offences in these counties shall be tried outside the local venue?
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the words "in view of the failure of the juries" are in Order; is it right to put down in the form of a question an assumption of so grave a statement of fact?
  MR. SPEAKER: I read the question to mean failure of the juries to agree.
  MR. SEXTON: But the question does not say that.
  MR. SPEAKER: I put the most charitable interpretation on the words.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Government do not, under present circumstances, intend to make arrangements of the nature indicated.
  MR. SEXTON: What is it that the juries have failed to do? Is it the view of the Government that a jury "fails" unless it convicts?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I referred to the statement of Mr. Justice O'Brien at the last Assizes, when he was reported to have said that, in mercy to the jurors themselves, who had been plainly terrorized, he hoped some means would be found to remove the criminal jurisdiction out of the county.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have not before me the figures for the last two Assizes in Clare and Limerick; but my impression is that, on the whole, the proceedings of the juries did not amount to a failure.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Has not the right hon. Gentleman read the words of Mr. Justice O'Brien at the close of the Spring Assizes in County Clare, in which he stated that seven persons had been brought before him and, without excep-
  196
  tion, acquitted, and that, in mercy to the jurors, who had been plainly terrorised, he hoped some means would be found for trying these cases out of the county?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I believe that that was the tenour of Mr. Justice O'Brien's remarks.

  THE ARMY AND HOME RULE.
  Mr. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he will have any objection to state the exact words of the Report received by him from the Colonel commanding the Leinster Regiment at Aldershot; and if he will cause direct inquiry to be made as to the truth of the allegation that, on an occasion prior to the 18th ultimo, the toast of "The Queen and no Home Rule" was proposed at the mess of the above regiment by a civilian guest, and responded to by all the officers present, including Major E. W. Murphy; and, if so, will any notice be taken of such conduct, having regard to the fact that the majority of the rank and file of the Leinster Regiment are Irishmen?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The officer commanding the Leinster Regiment at Aldershot stated that the alleged incident did not occur. What may have given rise to an exaggerated story is that on one recent occasion, when the toast of "The Queen" had been proposed and drunk, as those present were sitting down, a civilian guest made a remark as to "No Home Rule," but no notice was taken of it.

  ELECTION DISTURBANCES AT DROMORE WEST.
  MR. WILLIAM KENNY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the charges of riotous assembly and assault at Dromore West, County Sligo, on the 18th March last, on the occasion of the election of a Poor Law Guardian, have been as yet disposed of; how many persons have been made amenable; have they been summarily convicted or returned for trial at the Assizes; and, if so, on what charge; and, if returned for trial, is it proposed to try them in the County of Sligo where the offence was committed?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The case referred to was heard at Easkey Potty Sessions on the 17th and 18th May, when the

  197
  Rev. Mr. Kelly and 19 other defendants were returned for trial to the Sligo Summer Assizes on a charge of riot, unlawful assembly, and obstructing the police in the discharge of their duty. Three of the 20 defendants have also been sent for trial on a charge of assaulting a voter, from whom the voting paper was taken by force on the occasion mentioned, and seven others of the defendants, including the Rev. Mr. Kelly, are charged with aiding and abetting in the assault. All the defendants have been admitted to bail. Two other defendants who had been summoned did not appear at Petty Sessions, and it is believed they have left the country. There is nothing in the past experience to lead us to believe that Sligo jurors are not impartial.

  THREATENED EVICTIONS IN THE ISLAND OF ARRAN.
  SIR CHARLES CAMERON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether his attention has been called to the fact that between 70 and 80 notices of removal have been served on behalf of the Duke of Hamilton upon tenants of his in the Island of Arran; whether he is aware that the houses and lands from which these tenants are threatened with eviction have, as a rule, been built and reclaimed without assistance from the landlord; and whether, in view of the urgency of the situation, he will consider the propriety of the Government taking measures to bring Arran under the operation of the Crofters' Act?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): Notices of removal have been served on 72 tenants of the Duke of Hamilton in the Island of Arran. The tenants, together with the notice, received an invitation to enter into an agreement from year to year which placed them under the obligation to give up the whole or any portion of their holding on one month's notice, receiving compensation for loss of crofts and unexhausted manures, and a suitable deduction from the rent if only a portion of the holding is taken. I believe that the houses of most of these tenants were, as a rule, built by themselves, and are frequently of considerable value; and if the tenants lived in Inverness-shire or Ross-shire they would be crofters under the Act. When
  198
  the Government legislates again about crofters they will consider carefully the proposal of my hon. Friend to include Arran in the operation of the Act.
  MR. MURRAY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no intention of turning any one of these tenants out of their houses?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I am extremely glad to hear it.

  LEWISHAM FEVER HOSPITAL.
  MR. FREDERICK FRYE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that the Metropolitan Asylums Board have asked the consent of the Local Government Board to the purchase of a site for a fever hospital at Lewisham, in the midst of a rising suburb; that the Asylums Board propose to purchase this site, though there are several other sites available in the immediate neighbourhood, the selection of which would not injure the inhabitants; whether he is also aware that the inhabitants have pledged themselves that if the Asylums Board choose one of the suggested sites in their parish, instead of the proposed site, no opposition will be raised to the erection of such hospital in Lewisham; that the site, for which the Board propose to pay £22,500, was within a period of a few months sold to the present owner, with two and a-half additional acres, for a sum of £12,600; and whether he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter?
  Mr. H. H. FOWLER: The question whether the consent of the Local Government Board should be given to the purchase by the Metropolitan Asylums Board of a site for a fever hospital at Lewisham is now under consideration. An inquiry has already been held upon the subject.

  "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 the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ireland in the case of "Kelly v. Battray"; and whether, in view of the fact that the reason of the decision was purely technical, the Government will either introduce an amending

  199
  measure or assist a measure for that purpose introduced by private Members?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am advised that the Redemption of Rent Act, 1891, in terms only applies to cases of landlord and tenant, and such was the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ireland. I am informed that the cases of fee farm grants, reserving a full agricultural rent, to which the Act docs not apply by reason of the relation of landlord and tenant not existing, are likely to be very few in number, and I cannot undertake to introduce an amending Bill, or to assist a measure for the purpose.

  OUTRAGE IN COUNTY CLARE.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether be is aware that, on the 17th May, the house of Mr. Pearce O'Brien, J P., near Ennis, County Clare, was fired into; and whether any arrests have been made in connection with this outrage?
  MR. J. MORLEY: A revolver shot was fired outside, but not into, the house of Mr. O'Brien on the date mentioned. No arrest has yet been made in connection with this outrage.

  THE ATTACK ON A BERMONDSEY VICAR.
  MR. MACDONA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to a letter in The Times of 1st June, signed J. F. Benson Walsh, Vicar of St. Ann's, Bermondsey, in which he states that his version of the attack upon him by the mob in Bermondsey has not heretofore been given to the public, because until now he was not able to see, much less to write, but that now he will be pleased with the help of witnesses to prove that the facts of the case were as previously stated; and whether he will make inquiry into the circumstances of the case and offer a reward for the perpetrators of the crime?
  MR. BARROW: May I inquire whether the Rev. Mr. Walsh was well enough to go to the seaside a fortnight ago and last Sunday week to conduct the Church services as usual without the aid of glasses; and whether he has since been to the Continent?
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I desire to ask whether the question last asked by the hon. Member affecting a private individual is not within the ruling given by you, Mr. Speaker, against such questions the other day? The question is put under circumstances which prevent its being answered.
  MR. SPEAKER: It would have been better had the hon. Gentleman waited to hear the reply of the Minister.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): In answer to the question on the Paper, I may say that full inquiry has already been made into this case. But if the rev. gentleman can either give information himself, or obtain evidence from other witnesses, which will throw further light upon the matter, I hope that be will be good enough to put himself in communication with the police, who will give the most careful attention to any fresh materials which may be brought before them. No effort has been or will be spared to detect the guilty persons and to bring them to punishment; but experience shows that the offer of rewards in such cases does not tend to promote the ends of justice.
  MR. MACDONA: May I forward to the right hon. Gentleman the correspondence connected with the case?
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes.

  THE WELSH SUSPENSORY BILL—THE PROGRESS OF GOVERNMENT BUSINESS.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can inform the House how many parishes geographically within the operation of the Welsh Suspensory Bill are exempted from its Suspensory Clause; and if he can state what is the proportion of the population who will be thus excluded from participation in the benefits proposed to be conferred by the Bill?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): I have no official means of getting at the knowledge which the hon. Gentleman desires to obtain; but if the hon. Member has any great anxiety on this subject, as is testified by his repeated questions, I venture to make this communication to him and to

  201
  others—that the Government do not, in the slightest degree, object to introduce an Amendment into the Bill at the proper stage, which would allow private advowsons to be brought within the scope of the Bill by consent of the person interested in the advowson; and I can also promise him, as to one parish with which I am intimately connected, that that consent will be given.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: After the important communication just made by the right hon. Gentleman, I wish to ask when we shall have an opportunity of inserting those Amendments in the Bill?
  MR. BARTLEY: I desire to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can inform the House when he proposes to take the Second Reading of the Local Veto Bill, or whether that measure is to be dropped?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am sorry the answer is to this effect—that I can throw no light whatever upon the stages or the progress of the Bill, or of any Bill, until we have made effectual progress with the Home Rule Bill.
  MR. BARTLEY: Are we to understand that the Local Veto Bill is really dropped?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No more than all the other Government Bills, the whole of which are practically suspended, and with respect to which I have no communication to make.
  MR. THEOBALD: That means, I presume, that they are all dropped?
  MR. ALBAN GIBBS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is intended by the Welsh Suspensory Bill, in the case of a benefice in private patronage, where the incumbent has jure officii rights of patronage, to suspend the vested interests of any incumbent nominated by the clergyman, and to reserve the vested interests of any incumbent nominated by the lay patron?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONEwas understood to answer in the affirmative, adding that the question correctly interpreted the Bill as framed.

  THE FINANCIAL PROPOSALS OF THE HOME RULE BILL.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government have now completed their inquiry into the Estimates on which the financial proposals of the Bill for the Government of Ireland have been based, especially with regard to the contribution from the Excise to the Irish Budget; and whether he can now fix a date when the amended proposals of the Government in regard to the financial relations between the two countries will be laid upon the Table?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The inquiry to which my right hon. Friend's question refers has been rather minute, but it is now completed, and the Estimates will be laid upon the Table within the present week. The amended proposals of the Government in regard to finance will be presented immediately afterwards.

  IRISH POLICE RECORDS.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the event of the Government of Ireland Bill becoming law, all confidential Reports, records, and other documents relating to the commission and detection of crime, the treatment of prisoners, and generally to the administration of the Criminal Law, which are now among the records in Dublin Castle, or elsewhere in Ireland, will be removed from the inspection of Irish Ministers and placed in safe custody within the limits of Great Britain?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: This question does not in terms refer to a distinction which I have no doubt the hon. Gentleman has in his mind between that class of Papers which are in the main confidential and the class of Papers which may be called routine. With respect to those called routine, I do not suppose he would wish to have them removed; but with respect to Papers which are confidential, or included within confidential limits, undoubtedly I think it would be right that they should be regarded as a closed door, and that those Papers should not be considered as part of the material officially at the disposal of the Irish Government.

  INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS.
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what steps the Government intend to take to carry into effect the Resolution of the House as to the holding of simultaneous Civil Service examinations in India and England?
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: With the permission of the House, I wish to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman which I will confine as near as I can to the strict form of a question. But the subject is of such great interest that perhaps I may be forgiven if I stray for a moment. I wish to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, viewing the circumstances of the Debate on Friday night on the question of the natives of India passing into the Covenanted Civil Service of India without going through the examination held in this country, he will, on certain arguments bearing on the question, give the House of Commons another opportunity of re-considering the subject? Hon. Gentlemen opposite will find that the demand I make is one of extreme moderation. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Representatives of the India Office, after consultation with the Secretary of State, are opposed to the change proposed in the Resolution, which was submitted to a very thin House and carried by a very small majority? Is he aware that the subject has occupied the most attentive and profound study of a succession of Secretaries of State for India, and does he know—
  MR. SEYMOUR KEAY: I rise to Order. I wish to have your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to whether it is in Order thus to question a Resolution of this House?
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not understand that the Resolution is in terms questioned. The noble Lord asks the Government what they propose to do upon a Resolution passed the other night; whether they propose to act upon it, or what course they intend to adopt.
  MR. SEXTON: I rise to ask whether the House did pass any Resolution on Friday night? The Question was, Mr. Speaker, "That you leave the Chair."
  MR. SPEAKER: The words were added. The hon. Gentleman in charge
  204
  of the Resolution moved the Closure. I said it was not necessary to move the Closure, and put the Question, "That those words be there added." Then, after it was too late to make objection, an hon. Member said, "I object." That was after the words had been added. I may now say that if it had been necessary I should have accepted the Motion for the Closure made by the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Resolution.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: As to the point of Order, of course, Sir, I would not think of disputing your ruling. I had nearly completed my question when I was interrupted. I will still keep within the form of a question, and, under the very exceptional circumstances, when the question involves the defeat of the Government on a matter on which I think the general body of the House would be prepared to support them, I will ask whether a long succession of Indian Secretaries, belonging to both Parties, have ever had a doubt—[Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I am afraid the noble Lord is giving a reason why the Government should take a particular course. The noble Lord may ask what course the Government intend to adopt.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: I will say no more than that the matter is far more important than any other of which I know, and I thought it necessary to give an explanation. The Government will understand my motive.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I would ask the Prime Minister whether he is aware that the noble Lord did not think it worth while to come and vote against the Resolution?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I may say, with respect both to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Elgin, and to that of the noble Lord, I entirely agree with the motive at the root of them—namely, that this is a matter of very deep importance indeed, and as to which, no doubt, as the world at large is aware, there has been a great deal of inquiry and consideration in India. The time has been very short. Not a moment has been lost in giving attention to the subject, both by the Secretary of State for India and by the Government; and if my hon. Friend will postpone his question for a couple of days, I shall be able, I think, to give him an answer as to the

  205
  views which the Government take of the present situation. That, perhaps, is the best answer I can give to the noble Lord opposite.

  TRADE MARKS IN GERMANY.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can give any further information as to the fate of the German Draft Bill for the Protection of Trade Marks, and the repressing of false trade descriptions, of which a Copy was set out in "Commercial, No. 1, 1893" [C. 6854]?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): The German Trade Marks Bill was interrupted in Committee by the dissolution of the Reichstag. It is expected that the measure will be laid before the new Parliament at the first opportunity.

  ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY EQUIPMENT.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the men of the Royal Irish Constabulary are compelled to provide themselves with valises, haversacks, and leggings, and pay for them out of their own pockets; if men are compelled to wear leggings in hot weather, to the injury of their health, on detachment duty, &c.: what is the cost of these articles on each man, and was it left optional to the officers to procure the new silver ornaments; what is the utility of these valises; and will he see that the men are either relieved from purchasing valises and leggings, or cause them to be supplied like the rest of the men's clothing?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I understand the men of the Royal Irish Constabulary are required to provide themselves with the articles mentioned at their own expense, the prices of which are—valise, 11s.; haversack, 2s. 8d.; loggings, 3s. 1d. Leggings are required to be worn on all outdoor duties between November and March inclusive, also on detachment duty. The Inspector General has no reason to think that the wearing of leggings as stated is injurious to health; on the contrary, he imagines their use in
  206
  wet weather is conducive to health and comfort, particularly when men are on detachment duty. The new silver ornaments for officers were ordered to be introduced after a majority of the officers had declared in favour of them. The valise is apparently indispensable on detachment duty, as it contains a change of clothing, shirt, boots, &c. The Inspector General cannot recommend that the articles referred to should be supplied at the public expense.

  CHARITABLE FUNDS IN DUBLTN.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to certain irregularities alleged to have taken place on the part of the Trustees in connection with the expenditure of funds bequeathed for charitable purposes to the parishioners of the united parishes of St. Nicholas, Without, and St. Luke, Dublin; whether the Government can take any action in the matter; how much money is paid annually to those Trustees by the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests; and if properly vouched accounts of the expenditure of the amount so paid are furnished to the Commissioners by the Trustees?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Secretaries to the Commissioners state that, so far as they have the means of ascertaining, they are unable to find that the irregularities referred to have taken place. It is true that allegations in this respect have been made to the Commissioners from time to time by a person formerly in the employment of the rector and Vestry; but when called upon to make a specific charge to enable the Commissioners to make inquiry, he declined to do so. The amount annually remitted by the Commissioners for the benefit of these parishes is £54 5s. 4d. Accounts have been specially rendered of such funds as are usually accounted for the Commissioners; but it is not their practice, I am informed, to require Trustees to support their accounts by vouchers. The secretaries have, however, examined all the books of the united parishes, and are satisfied that the funds in the hands of the Trustees have been applied in accordance with the Trusts affecting them.

  EQUALISATION OF LONDON RATES BILL.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, with a view to giving to the County Council and the Local Authorities of London full opportunities for the consideration of the provisions of the Loudon (Equalisation of Rates) Bill, he will name a date before which its Second Reading will not be taken; and whether he can fix an approximate date for its Second Reading?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: This question has been virtually answered by the Prime Minister. Due notice will be given of the Second Reading of the Bill, and I have every reason to believe that the Local Authorities of London will have ample time for the consideration of the provisions of the Bill.
  MR. WHITMORE: When is it the intention to take the Second Reading?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I can only repeat that ample notice will be given.

  UGANDA.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any telegraphic communication has been received from Sir Gerald Portal in regard to his action in Uganda; if so, whether he will communicate it to the House; if not, whether he will telegraph to Her Majesty's Representative at Zanzibar to inquire whether any Despatch has been received by him from Sir Gerald Portal, and, in the event of such a Despatch having been received, desire him to telegraph it to the Foreign Office?
  SIR E. GREY: A telegram has been received from Zanzibar, in which it is stated that Sir Gerald Portal requests sanction for the temporary appointment of a transport officer on the road to Uganda beyond the Company's territories. Mr. Rodd further states that he hears that the Commissioner was, on the 31st of March, on the point of proceeding to Buddu to investigate Catholic grievances. Her Majesty's Government do not think it necessary to make inquiry by telegraph as to the further contents of Despatches, which are on their way.

  THE CATHOLICOS KHRIMIAN.
  MR. FRANCIS STEVENSON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to state the result of the negotiations relating to the detention of the Catholicos Khrimian at Jerusalem?
  SIR E. GREY: Her Majesty's Government have not entered into any negotiations on the subject, and they have no official information respecting it.

  THE ARMY AND HOME RULE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the fact that a Petition against Home Rule is being circulated amongst the wives of non-commissioned officers and men at the Curragh Camp; that it has been initiated by the wife of the Lieutenant Colonel; and that it has been taken round for the women's signatures by the Colonel's orderly; and whether the War Office Authorities have any knowledge of this proceeding, and is it in accordance with the Regulations of the Service?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The General Officer commanding at the Curragh has reported as follows:—
  "A Petition against the Home Rule Bill was circulated among the wives of the non-commissioned officers and men of the Royal Engineers in this camp; it was not initiated by the wife of the Commanding Royal Engineer, but was a portion of one initiated in the County of Kildare by the Duchess of Leinster. The soldier who voluntarily took the Petition round was not acting as Commanding Royal Engineer's orderly, but in his private capacity when off duty."
  So much for the facts. If I am asked for my opinion on the general question, I would say that any agitation or propagation of Party or political views on one side or the other among soldiers in camps or barracks is to be strongly deprecated, and in this case it was indiscreet (to say the least of it) to allow the Commanding Officer's orderly, even in his leisure moments, to circulate a political Petition.
  MR. FLYNN: Will the circulation of this or similar Petitions be discountenanced by the War Office?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I hope, after this expression of my opinion, it will not be done.

THE STATE OF CLARE ISLAND.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  MR. JACKSON: I desire, with the indulgence of the House, to put a question to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Owing to my attendance in a Committee upstairs on Friday I was not in my place at Question time, and it was only on Saturday, while travelling by train, that I learned that a reference had been made to me by the Chief Secretary and by the lion, and learned Member for North Louth, which took me by surprise. I at once wrote to the Chief Secretary, and telegraphed to the hon. and learned Member for Louth, that I would put a question to-day. In order to make the matter clear, I will read a portion of the question to which I refer. The hon. and learned Member for Louth, putting a supplementary question to one put by the hon. Member for Down in reference to some outrages at Clare Island, made the statement—
  "That the evictions which were to have been carried out were abandoned under the pressure which had been brought to bear by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Chief Secretary."
  To which the Chief Secretary replied—
  "I believe 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."
  Then the hon. Member for South Antrim asked—
  "Does the right hon. Gentleman say that any pressure was brought to bear by the Chief Secretary?"
  And the hon. and learned Member for North Louth said—
  "I stated that, and I stick to it."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I stick to it, and I will prove it to-day.
  MR. JACKSON: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to complete my question first. The hon. and learned Member added—
  "In any case, the evictions were abandoned."
  The Chief Secretary then said—
  "To the best of my recollection certain legal proceedings were withdrawn in consequence of the then Chief Secretary becoming aware of the desperate and deplorable condition of some of the people in the district."
  I desire to ask the Chief Secretary if he will be good enough to inform the
  210
  House, upon whom I brought any pressure, what was the nature of that pressure, and when was it brought?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I be allowed to make a statement before the Chief Secretary replies? [Cries of "Order!"] I am entitled to be heard, and I will be heard. Twenty-two persons were served with eviction notices in Clare Island. The Adjournment of the House was moved with reference thereto by my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork. Thereupon, the private secretary to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds went down to Clare Island and the evictions were abandoned.
  MR. J. MORLEY: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman, I have to say this: that I was speaking upon the spur of the moment on Friday, and I was dependent upon the recollection of the moment. My recollection was very much as my hon. and learned Friend has just stated. I remember the Adjournment of the House being moved in connection with certain evictions then in progress in Clare Island, and I remember that during the Adjournment—I think the Whitsuntide Recess—these evictions, for some reason or other, were stayed. It was assumed, whether the right hon. Gentleman's private secretary had anything to do with it or not, that there was some action taken by the right hon. Gentleman, in withdrawing assistance or in sonic other way, which had checked these proceedings. I find, whatever measures were taken by the Irish Government were not of the nature or extent supposed, and if any false impression has been conveyed by what I said I regret the misrepresentation.
  MR. JACKSON: I think I shall convince the right hon. Gentleman that he has hardly done justice in his answer to the question I put to him. Let me, first, say that the charge made against me—if charge it may be called—was specific.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: It was a compliment to you.
  MR. JACKSON: A compliment? Well, I do not wish to take credit I do not deserve. The statement was specific that I had brought pressure to bear, and that, in consequence, certain legal proceedings had been withdrawn. I will toll the House, and I think the House

  211
  will believe, that, so far as I am concerned, there is not a word of truth from beginning to end in that statement. Now I will answer the hon. and learned Member for North Louth, and I hope he will see the justice, if not to me, to the House, of withdrawing a statement absolutely without foundation. The hon. and learned Member has referred to a visit paid to Clare Island by my private secretary. I will tell the House what happened about that. I am not sure whether it was at Easter or at Whitsuntide—I think it was at Easter—I went down to Galway, in connection with some work of the Congested Districts Board, to meet Mr. Green, a member of that Board, and we went across on a Saturday to Arran to see what had been done there, and to see how the arrangements had been carried out with reference to the matter of the fishing. I came back on Saturday night, and slept at Galway, and I occupied Sunday in looking about the place, and making one or two visits. I came back on the Monday morning. My private secretary was anxious to see what was being done with regard to certain curing stations in connection with the District Board at Innisboffin, and he went round to Mr. Tuke, Mrs. Tuke, and Father Davies in a steamer which was hired by Mr. Green. Father Davies desired to go to Clare Island to see the priest there, and my private secretary went on to Clare Island with Father Davies, in order to insure his getting back in time. They were in Clare Island 20 minutes, and absolutely no communication, direct or indirect, passed between me or my private secretary with anybody connected with the evictions.

PRIVILEGE.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I feel it my duty, Mr. Speaker, to call the attention of the House to what I believe to be a breach of Privilege in connection with two statements that appear in The Daily News of to-day. The first of these statements purports to be a report of a portion of the Debate in Committee of the House of Commons on Thursday night last, and I call atten-
  212
  tion to the character of the following report, which is headed—
  "English Gentlemen,"
  "Scene: the House of Commons. Time: 11 p.m. The Home Rule Bill in Committee; Mr. Mellor in the Chair.
  "Mr. Gladstone: As a pointed appeal has been made to me by my right honourable Friend [laughter], perhaps I may be allowed to say [loud cries of 'No, no'] that, while I accept the principle of the Amendment, I am not quite satisfied with its terms. ['Oh, oh.'] I said before—but my voice is not quite so strong as it used to be [loud cheers, 'Speak up,' 'We can't hear you.' 'Progress, progress']—that the Government would bring up a new clause dealing with the subject. [Loud and prolonged laughter.] I am at a loss to understand why that statement should excite merriment. [Loud cries of, 'Oh, oh,' 'Rigby, Rigby,' 'Progress, progress.'] I do not share the suspicions of the Irish people so freely expressed by Gentlemen opposite. [Loud laughter and ironical cheering.] I am not angry. [Shouts of 'Oh, oh.'] I am grieved to the heart [Loud and prolonged cheering] that such a declaration should be so received. [Loud and repeated shouts of 'Progress, progress,' 'Rigby, Rigby.']
  "The Chairman: Order, order, Mr. Chamberlain."
  I will first say, Sir, what is imputed to my right hon. Friend, that it does represent, with more or less accuracy, the language he used about 11 o'clock on Thursday night; but the justice of my complaint with regard to this report lies, of course, in the interpolations with which it is alleged the speech of my right hon. Friend was received by the House. It is reported, in what professes to be a verbatim report, that there were 12 interruptions of a most offensive, and in some cases most malignant character. That is the report of what my right hon. Friend said. Then, Sir, I am made to speak, and these are the words put into my mouth—
  "Mr. Chamberlain: 'I am sure my right hon. Friend mistook the meaning of the sounds to which he alluded. They were, I am convinced, intended to express the general esteem and regard in which he is held by all sections of the House' (Great laughter, in which Mr. Chamberlain, as he resumed his seat, heartily joined)."
  Of course, the House may think that this report is intended to be a burlesque, but, if so, it is a very dangerous burlesque, for it is calculated very much to increase the bitterness which necessarily arises in connection with such a Debate as that upon the Home Rule Bill. It imputes to the Opposition and to me a deliberate attempt to insult my right hon. Friend,

  213
  an offence of which neither my hon. Friends nor myself have ever been guilty. [Mr. Gladstone nodded assent.] What happened on Thursday night was this. My right hon. Friend agreed to accept a portion of an Amendment which had been moved, and he proposed in some way or other to restrain the powers of the Irish Legislature to create a central police force; but in doing so he said he did not share the suspicions upon which the claims for the Amendment were based, and he thought those suspicions were unfair to the Irish people and their Representatives. Thereupon there was slight laughter on the other side of the House, and that laughter, as I have some reason to believe, was merely an expression of an objection to my right hon. Friend's statement that the proposal to impose another safeguard in a Bill which is full of safeguards could be in any way a slight upon the Irish people. So I understood the interruption, such as it was, and accordingly when I got up I said to my right hon. Friend that I was sorry that he should be pained by what he heard, and I pointed out that the interruption was due to the opinion that there was no more slight to the Irish people in requiring this particular safeguard than in putting in all other safeguards in the Bill. I have put before the House exactly what occurred. Already to-day I have seen two or three people who, I think very naturally, not having been present in the House, although Members of the House, assumed this to be an accurate report of what occurred. There is not a word to show that it is otherwise than an accurate account, and if throughout the country the idea gains ground that there is this extreme and malignant feeling between the two sides of the House, it will be a public mischief and a public scandal. I have never before called attention to a matter of Privilege. I do so now because I wish to call attention to the policy of the particular journal to which I have referred, whose chief proprietor is a Member of this House, and one of whose chief writers is also a Member of this House; and because I think it is time to protest against such conduct, as not only prejudicial to the Members attacked, but also injurious to the honour and dignity of this House. I shall ask the Clerk at the Table to read this extract, but before
  214
  I do so I have another to which I wish to draw attention. The practice of this journal is to give false accounts of speeches made in this House by Members of the Party it opposes, and then it proceeds to comment on those false reports. I never have objected to newspaper comments, and I am not likely to begin to do so now; but I do object when those comments are based on false statements of fact. The language in the leading article in The Daily News of to-day is to the following effect:—
  "He lives to carry out a great policy, and he will not spare himself in the task. Deliberate and organised attempts to interrupt him, to embarrass him, and to shout him down ought to be sharply and sternly punished. If Irish Nationalists behaved as some of the Tories behaved on Thursday night, they would have been promptly named and suspended."
  I respectfully submit to the House that both these statements are breaches of the Privilege of the House. As regards the reporting of our Debates, nothing is clearer than that, although the general idea that any report of our Debates is a breach of Privilege has long fallen into desuetude, anything like a deliberate misrepresentation of our Debates is still a breach of Privilege. As regards the second passage, that is a deliberate attack on the impartiality of the Chair, because it is alleged that the Chairman would have named and suspended the Irish Members for precisely similar interruptions to those which occurred on Thursday night, and were not noticed by the Chairman.
  The said newspaper was handed in, and the passages complained of were read, as followeth:—
  "English Gentlemen.
  "'At least our associates are English gentlemen."—Right hon. J. Chamberlain, M.P.
  "Scene: The House of Commons. Time: 11 p.m. The Home Rule Bill in Committee; Mr. Mellor in the Chair.
  "Mr. Gladstone: As a pointed appeal has been made to me by my right honourable Friend—(laughter)—perhaps I may be allowed to say—(loud cries of 'No, no')—that while I accept the principle of the amendment, I am not quite satisfied with its terms. ('Oh, oh.') I said before—but my voice is not quite so strong as it used to be—(loud cheers, 'Speak up,' 'We can't hear you,' 'Progress, progress')—that the Government would bring up a new clause dealing with the subject. (Loud and prolonged laughter.) I am at a loss to understand why this statement should excite merriment. (Loud cries of Oh, oh,' 'Rigby, Rigby,' 'Progress, progress.') I do not share the

  215
  suspicions of the Irish people so freely expressed by gentlemen opposite (loud laughter and ironical cheering). I am not angry (shouts of 'Oh, oh'). I am grieved to the heart—(loud and prolonged cheering)—that such a declaration should be so received. (Loud and repeated shouts of 'Progress, progress,' 'Rigby, Rigby.')
  "The Chairman: Order, order. Mr. Chamberlain.
  "Mr. Chamberlain: I am sure my right honourable Friend mistook the meaning of the sounds to which he alluded. They were, I am convinced, intended to express the general esteem and regard in which he is held by all sections of the House. (Great laughter, in which Mr. Chamberlain, as he resumed his seat, heartily joined.)
  "Nothing is more difficult, than to convince Mr. Gladstone that he ought to husband his strength. He lives to carry out a great policy, and he will not spare himself in the task. Deliberate and organised attempts to interrupt him, to embarrass him, and to shout him down ought to be sharply and sternly punished. If Irish Nationalists behaved as some of the Tories behaved on Thursday night, they would have been promptly named and suspended."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise to a point of Order. I think I heard the Clerk read out something of which the right hon. Gentleman did not complain—namely, that at least his associates were English gentlemen.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the right hon. Gentleman move that these passages constitute a breach of the Privileges of this House?
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I move. Sir.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the passages in The Daily News complained of constitute a breach of the Privileges of this House."—(Mr. J. Chamberlain.)
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. MELLOR,): As I was in the Chair at the time referred to in the article, I think I ought not to allow this matter to pass by without saying a few words with regard to what occurred on Thursday night. One of the statements in the article is that had Irish Nationalists behaved as some of the Tories did on that night they would have been named for suspension, and that, I suppose, has reference to myself. [Cries of "No!"] I sincerely hope that it has not; but, taking the statement in conjunction with the other paragraph that was read, I came to the conclusion that some persons might think that the reference was
  216
  to myself. Let me call attention to the position on that night. There was undoubtedly a slight noise such as has been described; but I may at once tell the House that I am not aide to recognise in the paragraphs in The Daily News that I have seen to-day the state of things I heard then. But I may state, further, that this happened on Thursday, and it is not until Monday this paragraph appears. My impression was that this was not intended to be a serious account of what took place in the House of Commons. I noticed that when the Prime Minister was speaking on Thursday night there was either a slight laugh or slight noise. But I wish to call attention to this—that when I am sitting in the Chair it is very difficult for me to take notice of anything that occurrs behind me, and, unquestionably, what I heard on that occasion was behind me. I have, I hope, always done my best to maintain the honour and dignity of this House. I am as anxious as anybody can possibly be that no disorder, no heat, and no ill-feeling shall arise; but it is impossible for me to take notice of any disorder caused by an individual when I do not know who he is and cannot see him. Therefore it is that I occasionally pass over matters which, under other circumstances, I might take notice of. I believe that the House will agree with me that I have always endeavoured to make no distinction between Members of one Party and Members of another; and, whilst I am in the Chair, I shall always try to carry out the very difficult and very responsible duties which the House has imposed upon me in that spirit.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I am sure no Member of the House, or any Party in the House, desires to cast the smallest reflection on the impartiality of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees. We all recognise the pains with which he discharges his duties, and his desire to be perfectly impartial to every section of the House. I was glad, however, to hear the right hon. Gentleman confess that the position he occupies in the Chair does not always enable him either to recognise the persons who interrupt, or the entire character of the interruptions; and I therefore feel bound to say that I am entirely at issue with him as to the

  217
  character of the interruptions. I believe I shall be borne out by a large number of hon. Members of this House when I say our strong impression was that on that night the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was not only very much, but very grossly and rudely interrupted. [Cries of "Oh!" and "No!"] [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE signified dissent.] The right hon. Gentleman himself, I know, rose immediately after these interruptions, and put upon them a different, and, I think, a very charitable interpretation, because he said he was not angry, but that he was grieved to the heart at these interruptions—[Cries of "No!"]—interpreting them as meaning a reflection, not on himself personally, or a desire to interrupt him rudely, but as a reflection on the Irish people. But I am a little surprised at the action of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. I hold that the charge made in The Daily News—a charge, in my opinion, fully made out by the facts of the case—[Cries of "Oh!"]—I hold that the charge in The Daily News is a serious and a grave charge. It is that of gross and rude ill-treatment of a leading Member of this House, who is entitled to the respect of every hon. Member of the House. But I remember, Mr. Speaker, that, on previous occasions attention has been called to comments by newspapers on Members of this House, charging them, not with this sufficiently grave offence of bad manners, but with complicity in forgery and with murder, and yet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham joined in all the speeches that were made that the Press should be perfectly entitled to make these charges without any interference on the part of this House. I must say the right hon. Gentleman's tenderness as to himself contrasts very seriously, indeed, with the manner in which he viewed attacks on the late Mr. Parnell. I am not surprised, however, that the right hon. Gentleman should make his Motion today. The ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman in finding means of postponing—[Cries of "Oh!"]—all the business of the country is excessive—[Cries of "Oh" and "Order!"]—and, therefore, I was not surprised that he was able to seize on the comments of The Daily News as a means of occupying
  218
  some of the time of the House to-day. [Cries of "Question!"] What is his charge? His charge is that The Daily News misrepresents the attitude of himself and hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway who act with him with regard to the Prime Minister. Well, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that a feeling is growing in this House, and it is growing still stronger in the country, that the object of the right hon. Gentleman is to waste the energies—[Cries of "Question!"]—the energies of the House—[Renewed cries of "Question!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman. The question before the House is one of Privilege, and the discussion must, be strictly confined to whether the words read at the Table do constitute a breach of Privilege. The hon. Gentleman will, therefore, confine himself strictly to the event of that Thursday night on which the comments in the paper now before the House were made.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I will, of course, Sir, as I hope I always do, endeavour most scrupulously to respect your ruling and your suggestion. I will not pursue that line of argument further than to say my reason for alluding to it was—[Cries of "Order!"]—that I believe the comments of The Daily News on the action of the right hon. Gentleman that night, and on those who act with him, were rather beneath his deserts than above them. I believe The Daily News was justified in its comments, because undoubtedly on that night the right hon. Gentleman and his confederates above the Gangway were endeavouring to interfere and postpone and delay discussion on the Bill—[Cries of "Order!"]—and that one of their means of doing so was by what I may call baiting the First Lord of the Treasury. I have no right to make any suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government—it would be presumptuous on my part to do so—["Cries of Order!"]—I am sure if hon. Gentlemen who hear me are not able to measure their own littleness compared with the right hon. Gentleman, I am—but I would strongly implore the Prime Minister not to give encouragement to the system which has now been organised—[Cries of "Question!"]—of which the proceedings of Thursday night—[Renewed dies of

  219
  "Question!"]—were only a little more flagrant specimen than than on other occasions. For these reasons, I beg to move as an Amendment—
  "That this House declines to take notice of the extracts read from The Daily News, and passes to the Orders of the Day."
  Mr. A. J. BALFOURand Mr. Hunterrose together.
  MR. SPEAKER (addressing Mr. Hunter): Does the hon. Gentleman rise to second the Amendment?
  MR. HUNTERsaid, he begged to second the Amendment. It had been said by Sidney Smith that it required a surgical operation to put a joke into the head of a Scotchman. That raised n serious question to his mind—as to whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was a Scotchman—because no man could read the passage in The Daily News—deliberately and purposely exaggerated—without being reminded of those contributions which appeared every week in the pages of Punch under the name of "Toby M.P." which contained similar exaggerations. [Cries of "No!"] He could scarcely believe it possible that any Englishman could road the passage and suppose it to be an absolutely historical record of the proceedings of the House. For one thing it did not appear in that part of the paper which gave the report of the proceedings. He was glad to discover that after all they who came from Scotland were capable of seeing humour where their friends from the South wore not.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House declines to take notice of the extracts read from The Daily News, and passes to the Orders of the Day."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: If I bear a part in the drama which has been brought before us, it is, I can assure the House, an involuntary part; and it causes whatever embarrassment I feel in intervening in this Debate which I am aware pertains to the position that for the moment I have the honour to hold in this House. But I must say this, and
  220
  my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham will not misunderstand me, engaged, as we are, in a very grave national and Imperial controversy, I regret the importation into our proceedings of anything collateral, anything not essentially and necessarily involved in their character, anything which can possibly evoke or can possibly make an addition to the passions, to the feelings of warmth which I am well aware are inseparable from the main issue. But, above all, I am anxious that in the midst of this controversy this House should not go out of its way to do any act which is petty or small. We ought to be—and I am sensible that the matters with which we are engaged are great matters, and we ought, I think, to conform in all respects to that conception of them. For my own part, I confess I have not read the words which have been quoted to us by my right hon. Friend. Undoubtedly if I had read them in the usual course of one's examination of the newspapers, I should have supposed that they were not intended seriously as a report of the proceedings of this House, and, moreover, I should have supposed—I may be right or I may be wrong—that no one could have mistaken them for a serious report. And, shall I confess it?—it is my impression now at the present moment. But my duty, undoubtedly, is not limited to the delivery of that opinion. I think it is right I should refer to what took place on Thursday night, and with respect to those matters I can give an account which, so far as I am concerned, is perfectly clear, and which I hope may tend to allay any feelings of offence or dissatisfaction that are anywhere entertained. In the first place, Sir, it is, perhaps, hardly right I should give an opinion upon any comments made in a public journal upon the conduct of the Chairman of Committees. Yet I am prompted to say under the circumstances of the case, and closely associated as I was with those circumstances—I am tempted to say that I am convinced that no writer intending to be seriously understood and founding himself upon such a report of the circumstances as that could have found the slightest ground of imputation upon the Chairman of Committees on that occasion. But it is perfectly true and quite within my recollection, as stated by him, that the inter-

  221
  ruption which occurred came from behind the Chairman, and I cannot conceive how, if he had had the eyes of a lynx, it would have been in his power to notice the interruption. Now I refer to the interposition of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham on that occasion. It would have been extremely wrong if I had misunderstood the character of that interposition. My right hon. Friend and I now-a-days, unfortunately, are from time to time very sharply divided. But I could not for a moment fail to see that the motive of his interposition, so far as I was concerned, was a kind motive. Then, Sir, I am obliged to refer in the same way, and take this opportunity of making acknowledgment to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. A. J. Balfour), who has more than once testified his desire that, so far as he exercises influence in the House, that influence should be used to secure for me—as I have no doubt he would wish it to be secured for any other person occupying my position—a fair, and more than a fair hearing. Now I come to a tender ground, and that is in relation to the interruption that undoubtedly did occur. I think the memory of hon. Gentlemen will bear me out in saying that, as I have said, I know nothing of these persistent and continued interruptions. I may be wrong, but I believe that is, in the imagination of the writer, made use of for the public purpose he has in view. But, Sir, interruption did undoubtedly occur at a particular portion of my speech. I noticed that interruption, but permit me to say I did not notice it at all as an interruption. I did not notice it as intended to be offensive, but as expressive of a sentiment, and with regard to that sentiment, whether rightly or wrongly, I say again I condemned it, and cannot but repeat that the expression of that sentiment grieved me to the heart. But it was a totally different matter, and never crossed my mind that I myself had received the smallest form of insult. There are some things—there are many disadvantages of old age—but there are some things, at all events, it ought to learn, and I think no person who has had a small fraction of my experience in this House can fail to feel that large allowances are to be made in these controversies for sentiments and emotions that cannot
  222
  be suppressed. I am here recognising it as an absolute duty to give the very same credit to hon. Gentlemen opposite—although I believe them to be involved in the most deplorable, in the most grievous error that has ever taken possession of a political Party. But as respects motives, as respects character, as respects honour, as respects integrity—I am bound and obliged to give to them the same credit that I ask for my hon. Friends and myself. Not only so, but as I know that my hon. Friends, and as I know that I myself, feel strong emotions in these Debates—emotions which I frankly own I have great difficulty in repressing, but which I deem it my first duty if I can to govern and restrain—so I must make the same allowance for hon. Gentlemen opposite, and however much I may lament and grieve the sentiments which I sometimes think I may detect in the movements that mark our Debates from that as from every other portion of the House, yet it would be monstrous, I think, to attempt to make those matters of serious and, above all, of retrospective complaint. But on the occasion to which I refer, I had, personally, no ground whatever, in my opinion, for any complaint at all. The expression of my true and deep sorrow was because I thought the sentiment expressed by the interruption was a sentiment which was unjust, and I ought, perhaps, to say thought the sentiment cruel to the people of Ireland, and to the Representatives of the people of Ireland. That is the true statement of the case, and the one conclusion I arrive at with clearness on this subject is that it would not beseem the dignity of this House, and it would not answer any good or useful purpose, were we to enter further into this discussion. The Amendment moved by my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) is an Amendment to displace the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham; but I confess I should rejoice under the circumstances if, by the consent of all Parties, both the Amendment and the Motion were withrawn.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman, as was to be expected from what we know of his character, has done everything to allay any passions that might have been aroused by the somewhat unfortunate speech of the hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment.

  223
  If I had followed that hon. Gentleman—
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I wish to say I distinctly except that right hon. Gentleman from any discourtesy to the Prime Minister.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Had I followed the hon. Gentleman I might have been tempted to comment somewhat severely upon the language he used. But I am unwilling now, as the House has perhaps wiped that speech from its memory, to go back upon it, and will say nothing more upon the subject but to note with satisfaction that every hon. Gentleman who has spoken—the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, the Chairman of Ways and Means, the hon. Member for Aberdeen (Mr. Hunter), and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister—have all agreed, as against the hon. Member for the Scotland Division (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), that the account of what occurred, as given in The Daily News, and read by the Clerk at the Table, are judged merely by intrinsic evidence to be regarded as a burlesque. I do not know that it is necessary for me to say much more on the subject except this. There has been, undoubtedly, an attempt in some quarters, of which the extract read is a specimen, to endeavour to make out that in the undoubtedly embittered controversy in which we are engaged, there is an attempt among gentlemen who agree with me to personally embarrass the right hon. Gentleman who is in charge of the Home Rule Bill. Well, Sir, it is not possible but that an accusation of that kind should be regarded by us as deeply injurious. This House has, I believe, never allowed personal considerations to enter into its Debates. However vehement Party hostility may be, personal generosity has never been absent from among us; and I believe at the present moment there is not a single individual in this House, be his opinions what they may, or be the part he takes in our Debates what it may, who is not perfectly certain of fair and honourable treatment at the hands of those who most widely differ from him. If that be true of all hon. Members, how much more is it likely to be true of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who, however much we may differ, and however much
  224
  we do differ, has behind him 50 years of a great Parliamentary career, and whom we all recognise as one of the greatest Parliamentary figures who have illustrated and adorned this House since Parliamentary history began. I thought I was bound to make this brief statement, because the right hon. Gentleman, being from the very nature of the case in the very forefront of this great battle, naturally is, as everyone must admit by his position—I will not say interrupted—if it is so I regret it—but subject to exclamations which have arisen in the course of his speech indicating dissent from or assent to his views from various sections of this House. That is the fate of every man who takes part in Parliamentary controversy. I know I am speaking the sentiments of every man who sits behind me when I say that, so far as the right hon. Gentleman is concerned, we desire not only to give him fair play, but more than fair play, if I may use such an expression. Never should the weapon of unintelligent interruption be used. It is a weapon which should never be used against any man, and least of all against a gentleman in the position of Prime Minister.
  Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think if the Amendment is withdrawn, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I should ask the House to allow me to withdraw my Motion.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

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

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 2nd June.]
    [THIRTEENTH NIGHT.]
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Legislative Authority.
    Clause 3 (Exceptions from powers of Irish Legislature).
    ADMIRAL FIELDmoved to amend the clause by inserting at the end of line 1, page 2, the words—

    225
    "The ancient jurisdiction, powers, and duties which do belong or appertain to the office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as 'Custos Maris' or guardians of creeks, harbours, and coasts of the sea, and upon fresh waters, ports, navigable rivers, or creeks whatsoever, or any places covered with water within 'flux and reflux' of the sea at full tide, as also wrecks of the sea, divers droits, rights, duties, privileges, which have been by express words, or otherwise, heretofore granted to the Lord High Admiral."
    He said that many of the Amendments that, had been made from that side of the House had been characterised as hostile Amendments, and based only upon suspicion of hon. Members from Ireland. Let him, therefore, say at the outset that his Amendment was in no sense a hostile Amendment, but that it was conceived in the best interests of Ireland and in the best interests of the Service. He observed in the provisions of the Bill that no account had been taken of the point which his Amendment raised. This led him to refer to the remarks made by the Prime Minister in answer to himself that there was "a naval view to this Bill;" and he (Admiral Field) regretted that the Bill was not referred to the Board of Admiralty, that they might make some observations upon it, because the Amendment was sufficient proof of the fact that the view he had had to embody in it had been entirely ignored and lost sight of ["No, no!"] 'The First Lord of the Admiralty, who was in the Cabinet and who ought to be the first man to guard the interests of the Board of Admiralty, had failed entirely to realise his responsibility in this matter. But where was the Secretary to the Admiralty, and where was the Civil Lord? Where had they been to thus neglect their duty in this matter? Their duty was to watch over the rights of the Lord High Admiral, and if other gentlemen failed in the performance of their duty the Secretary or the Civil Lord ought to do theirs. The Counsel to the Admiralty ought to be dismissed from his post for failing to bring the attention of the Board of Admiralty and the Government to the great omission in this Bill. The reason of the omission by the Government could be partly accounted for by the fact that they had no naval officer on the Government side of the House to inspire them on this point. Therefore, as a modest, humble sailor, be (Admiral Field) would do his best to show the hon. Member
    226
    for Dundee (Mr. E. Robertson) and his colleague that they had failed in their duty by not having considered and dealt with this matter. A word or two he must say about these ancient powers of the Board of Admiralty. The powers of the Admiralty were very much more extensive than simply governing the Navy, and they went back for centuries. Powers were bestowed on the Admiralty by special Act of Parliament in 1690, and in 1692 a Resolution was passed by that House calling upon the Government of the day to advise the Crown to delegate these powers. Now, he should like to say a word or two about what the powers were. Sir James Graham, in his evidence before a Select Committee of the House upon the duties of the Board of Admiralty, spoke very forcibly and specifically on the subject. He was asked questions about the patent, and about many points in it being obsolete. He said the patent in direct terms gave very little to the Board, and simply delegated by reference powers of the Lord High Admiral. With regard to these powers he added—
    "But large and powerful as they are, the patent did not contain anything like all the powers now exercised by the Board of Admiralty, or all the powers heretofore exercised by the Lord High Admiral."
    Then Sir James Graham was asked whether be thought it would be wise to amend the Patent by Act of Parliament, and he replied—
    "Certainly not, lest any of the powers should be lost by any change in the patent."
    He (Admiral Field) would not weary the Committee with too many quotations, but he must give one more from Sir James Graham's evidence. Asked—
    "Supposing it were advantageous to the Public Service that the Board should be relieved of its duties in the Harbour Department, that; is to say, control over the harbour waters in this country, and whether these powers could not be transferred to another Department?"
    He said—
    "If asked whether it is possible for an Act of Parliament to do it, I should answer 'most certainly;' but if asked whether it is expedient by Act of Parliament to do it, I should say, 'Certainly not."
    At a later stage of the Committee's proceedings he said—
    "Before my evidence is closed, the Committee will permit me to state, with regard to the powers of the Commissioners of the Admiralty,

    227
    I find as amongst the most important and most ancient, that of the Custos Maris, powers with reference to harbours and creeks—and in my Parliamentary experience it has always been insisted upon that one of the first duties of the Board of the Admiralty was to be guardians of creeks and harbours, and with this view additional facilities have been added by the sanction of Parliament."
    Now, the Committee must understand that those powers were not limited to the United Kingdom. The patents themselves were long, but he would read a short extract from the last patent granted at a time when the Duke of Somerset was First Lord of the Admiralty. This patent pointed out that the Lord High Admiral had powers in
    "the United Kingdom, and the dominions, islands, and territories thereunto belonging."
    And all colonies were included until they got self-government. He wished to show that his Amendment was a necessary Amendment, and it was in the best interests of the Irish people that he ventured to move it. Supposing that an Irish Parliament were to be created by Statute, they would have no machinery to deal with these important questions of jurisdiction over the foreshore between high and low water marks and kindred matters. They would have to create machinery for the purpose; and his point was that, as they were about to except naval and military matters from the control of the proposed Irish Parliament, they should exclude also the powers and duties of the Lord High Admiral and the Board of Admiralty of the United Kingdom. So far as he could understand, naval opinion was at the present time much exercised as to what rights we should have in Queens-town Harbour if the Bill passed without some such clause as he now proposed. If the Bill passed in its present form, they would have no power to make laws affecting the harbours and ports of Ireland. His contention was that the Board of Admiralty ought to have the same jurisdiction over the harbours in Ireland as they had over any in England or Scotland. Supposing a man was holder of a large piece of land, and a creek or arm of the sea ran up into his property. The Admiralty Commissioners would have jurisdiction over land covered with water within what was called in ancient phraseology "flux and reflux," and no holder of land would be able, without their sanction, to erect a pier or landing stage. These
    228
    powers should be left to the Board of Admiralty. Even in the interest of the Irish people themselves, they ought to maintain the jurisdiction of the Lord High Admiral, and allow him to exercise his duties in Ireland. Jurisdiction over creeks of the sea were very important, and he pressed this Amendment upon the Government, feeling that it was absolutely necessary that these powers should be excluded from the jurisdiction of the Irish Government. If they tried to exercise them, they would do themselves injury through lack of knowledge of the wide extent of the powers now exercised by the Board. With regard to Ireland itself, the Navy had nothing but the kindest possible feeling towards the Irish people. They had seen much of their harbours, and they were always very happy when they were there. He ventured to say, therefore, to the Irish Members that they would do wisely to speak in support of his Amendment proposed in their own interest. They would be perfectly ignorant of the way of dealing with these vexed questions. Some few years ago hon. Members from Ireland brought forward a Bill to remove a monument in which everybody in the Navy of England was deeply interested. [A cry: "Not the Irish Members."] That was his last point, and he regretted that he did not include this in the Amendment. He should have liked to have done so. He hoped this Home Rule Bill would never pass, but if it did it would give them a great deal of trouble, and they would have to spend a lot more of their time in the Irish harbours. But if the Irish Members got this Bill passed they should remember they ought not to exercise the power of pulling down the Nelson Monument in Sackville Street, Dublin.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 1, after the last "or," to insert the words—"The ancient jurisdiction, powers, and duties which do belong or appertain to the office of Lord High Admiral of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland as 'Custos Maris' or guardians of creeks, harbours, and coasts of the sea, and upon fresh waters, ports, navigable rivers, or creeks whatsoever, or any places covered with water within 'flux and reflux' of the sea at full tide, as also wrecks of the sea, divers droits, rights, duties, privileges, which have been by express words, or otherwise, heretofore granted to the Lord High Admiral; or."—(Admiral Field.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR W. HARCOURT: There will not be the slightest interference with the rights of the Admiralty under this Hill. The historical disquisition the hon. and gallant Member has given us of the office of Lord High Admiral is very interesting no doubt; but there is nothing in the Bill which will tend to trench on the powers of that office. Clearly the right of the Admiralty belonged to the Crown, and will be dealt with accordingly, either under this clause or under Clause 5. The office of Lord High Admiral will, of course, continue to be exercised as now. It is a jurisdiction which is not a purely Irish local matter, and there is not the smallest intention to interfere with that authority; neither is there anything in the Bill which will do so. If the Irish Legislature were to attempt to interfere with that jurisdiction they would be acting ultra vires. I hope the hon. and gallant Member will not press the Amendment.
    LORD G. HAMILTON: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the particular point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that in years gone by the Admiralty had certain jurisdiction over tidal waters and over the foreshore, which it exercised on behalf of the Crown. These powers were transferred to the Board of Trade, and the question which my hon. and gallant Friend desires to raise is as to whether the Irish Legislature will have power to deal with the jurisdiction which has been so transferred. It is desirable that there should be uniformity in these matters in all parts of the Kingdom. The point raised is an important one, and it is one upon which the Solicitor General may, perhaps, he able to express an opinion. This is the only section of the Bill which deals in any way with limitations imposed on the Irish Parliament in regard to civil and military matters; therefore, I think it is desirable to take measures to provide that the jurisdiction of the Admiralty shall be properly exercised.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: There is really no legal question involved in this matter. It is a question of prerogative, and, whether exercised by the Admiralty
    230
    or not, it is a mere matter of administration. The jurisdiction is in the Crown, and will be dealt with by the Crown. The power transferred to the Board of Trade was one formerly exercised by the Department of Woods and Forests. Something like an insurrection taking-place in consequence of the manner in which it was exercised led to its transference to the Board of Trade. But it is now purely a matter of administration.
    ADMIRAL FIELDsaid, that the matter was not entirely one of the prerogative of the Crown, seeing that powers formerly exercised by the Crown had been delegated by Act of Parliament as explained by Sir James Graham, who would not, therefore, alter the patent. He felt bound to divide the Committee on his Amendment.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Aves 260: Noes 297.—(Division List, No. 112.)
    THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon Member for East Somerset (Mr. H. Hobhouse):—In Clause 3, page 2, line 2, after "treaties," insert "diplomatic, consular"—is out of Order.
    MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, he wished to move the omission of the Sub-section 4, in order to call attention to the language in which it was drawn. He did not think there could be a more important subject for that Committee to consider than the relations of the future Legislature of Ireland with foreign countries, and he might remind the Committee that though this clause purported only to deal with legislation, yet they had already been told that it included all Appropriation Acts that would be passed with a view to supplying money for Executive purposes. He would urge the Government, not from any hostile view, to make the future compact between the two nations a clear and decisive compact from the first, and let there be some specific mention in this sub-section that the future State of Ireland was debarred from sending any Representatives abroad to Foreign Courts, or from appointing any separate Consuls. He asked that this should be done for two reasons. In the first place, he thought, in spite of the view hitherto expressed by the Government, that nothing was more

    231
    likely in the future than that an Irish Government should wish to have Representatives both at the Court of Rome and in the United States. They knew that the relations of any future Irish Government with the head of the Catholic religion would be of a very important and delicate nature; and he could not conceive that that Roman Catholic State, as it would in fact be, would be content to have no accredited Representative to convey the views of the Government to the head of that religion to which the great majority of that Island belonged. That Government might well use the argument which had already been used by their Representatives on other occasions in that House, that they had been put in a position which made them responsible for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland; that part of the machinery for securing the order and good government of Ireland was that great hierarchy of the Roman Catholic priesthood, which they had seen used with great effect on certain recent occasions; and if they had no moans of dealing with the recognised head of that great hierarchy, they were not in a fair position for securing the peace and good government of Ireland. Let them remember that this country had no Representative at the Papal Court—it was not likely to have, and therefore it would be impossible for a future Irish Government to carry on any communications of this kind through the Representatives of the Imperial Government, and they would naturally desire to have what every other Catholic State in Europe had—namely, a mouthpiece of their wishes with the head of the Catholic religion. Take, again, the case of the United States of America. Every week and month thousands of Irishmen crossed the Atlantic, and millions of Irishmen in the closest relations with certain Irish classes at home were living under the shadow of the United States Government. It was extremely likely that future questions might arise which would make it most desirable for the Irish Government to wish for a Representative of their own, at any rate a Consul, resident at New York. Secondly, let him remind the Committee that at this very moment in a country in Europe which was held up to them a few years ago as one of the most successful instances of Home Rule—
    232
    Sweden and Norway—this very question of separate Consulates had assumed a most acute phase, and threatened to bring about something like separation between the two countries which had been hitherto united. Surely the future State of Ireland would have just as good a claim for separate Consulates in certain countries, where she had separate interests, as Norway had against the government of Sweden. Therefore, it was most desirable from the first to say in this Bill, clearly and specifically, that the appointment of any Representative of Her Majesty abroad should be denied to the new Government of Ireland. This would prevent any misunderstanding arising hereafter, and the Government should not rest content with the vague words—"treaties and other relations." At the present moment certain of their Colonies practically made treaties with European States of their own account; but these Colonies had never yet raised a claim to separate diplomatic or Consular representation. He contended, therefore, that the two things were different, and both ought to be specifically mentioned in this clause; and he suggested to the Government, in perfect good faith, not with a view to destroy the clause, but with a view to future good understanding and harmony, that they should insert some specific words such as he had suggested.
    Amendment proposed to omit Subsection 4.—(Mr. H. Hobhouse.)
    Question proposed, "That the words, 'treaties and other relations with Foreign States,' stand part of the Clause."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Mr. BRYCE,): This Amendment, Mr. Mellor, can surely hardly be intended seriously, because its effect would be to leave out the most important part of the clause.
    MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, he had moved the omission of the words formally, in order to discuss the point, he had just raised.
    MR. BRYCE: The Question you put, Mr. Mellor, was that these words which it is proposed to omit—"treaties and other relations with Foreign States "—should stand part of the clause.
    MR. T. M. HEALYasked whether an hon. Member who moved an Amendment which he did not wish to see carried was not trifling with the Committee?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The omission is to omit Sub-Section I which is in Order. The Question I have to put is that these words, "treaties and other relations with Foreign States," stand part of the clause, in order to prevent the next Amendment being shut out.
    MR. H. HOBHOUSE: Is it not the constant practice in this House, when certain words have to be drawn attention to in debate, to move the omission of certain words formally, in order to draw attention to them?
    MR. T. M. HEALY: In order to evade the Chairman's ruling, Sir, he stated he would move the omission of the sub-section.
    MR. BRYCE: I submit to you, Sir, that the Motion before the House is that these words be omitted; and as I do not suppose the hon. Member intends to divide against the words, I presume his object has been already attained by the remarks he has made, and that he will withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. H. HOBHOUSEremarked that he expected an answer from the Government. He had drawn attention, he believed, in a perfectly reasonable way to the wording of this sub-section. Surely, the Government could not contend that these words were of no importance, and that it did not matter how they stood. He submitted that, at any rate, he was entitled to a brief answer.
    Mr. TOMLINSONsaid, it did seem to him that the sub-section was worded obscurely, and he was desirous to see the provision put in an intelligible form. The phrase "the relations between different parts of Her Majesty's Dominions" was a most obscure form of words. Did it mean that the Irish Government was to be at liberty to deal directly with any one portion of Her Majesty's Dominions, but was not to interfere in a matter relating to two portions of those Dominions? What he understood to be intended was that this Legislature, which was only to deal with purely Irish concerns, should not enter into any relations whatever with any other part of Her Majesty's Dominions. If that was the intention, then it seemed
    234
    to him to be very obscurely and imperfectly carried out by the clause. If this obscurity were not removed, and the Bill became an Act, it would be a cause of difficulty hereafter in the relations between this country and Ireland.
    MR. BRYCE: The Government have no wish to refuse to give any reasonable explanation on any question which may arise, and our only wish is that the clause should be as plain as possible. We considered that, in this sub-section, we had entirely debarred the Irish Legislature from dealing in any way with any question which might arise, as between the United Kingdom and any Foreign State whatever, or between Ireland and any Foreign State whatever. The Irish Legislature is altogether excluded from any such dealing, and we conceive that the addition of any other words would be more likely to weaken than to strengthen the clause. As regards the observations of the hon. Member for Preston, what is intended is, as there is to be no power of legislation as regards the relations between Ireland or the United Kingdom in regard to any Foreign State, neither should there be power to legislate with regard to the relations between any part of Her Majesty's Dominions with any other part. We have endeavoured to exclude all Colonial matters and all Colonial relations as completely as foreign relations, and I think the Committee will see that the words we have chosen are sufficiently effective for their purpose.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERobserved, that this was not so much a question of the action of the Irish Legislature as of the possible action of the Irish Executive. Was there anything in the Bill to prevent the Irish Executive from having Envoys. When this question of Envoys was discussed, the Prime Minister intimated that no diplomatic Representative could be paid according to the financial scheme, and that, consequently, there need be no fear of Envoys going out for nothing. At any rate, Civil Service money was not debarred from that Bill, and any Mission could be provided for out of such money. As regarded Consular appointments, for the most part Consuls were practically unpaid, and what was there in the Bill to prevent the Irish Executive from accrediting Consular Representatives at any

    235
    ports they thought fit? An Act of that kind, he took it, would not be outside the scope of the Bill. In the case of Norway and Sweden very grave Constitutional differences had arisen in respect of this very action; and he believed at the present moment very considerable agitation was going on in those countries with regard to the claim put forward by one section of the United Monarchy to have separate Consular Representatives abroad. He should like the right hon. Gentleman to tell them plainly how that question was dealt with in the Bill.
    MR. T. M. HEALYdesired to know if it was in Order, on a clause relating to the making of laws, to discuss Executive action as to the appointment of Consuls?
    THE CHAIRMANthought it would not, on this clause, be in Order to discuss such a topic.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, what he wished specially to know was, what limitation there was upon the Legislature which would control the Executive?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,)observed, that the only question raised by the clause was the power of making laws, and it was provided that the Irish Legislature should not have power to make laws with regard to relations with Foreign States. Consular appointments were subject to Treaties and Statutes, and it was only when a person was brought within the terms of those Treaties and Statutes that he could claim the status of a British Consul with reference to them. There was absolutely nothing in the sub-section to entitle the Irish Executive or Parliament to confer such powers or enable any of their agents to exercise functions as Diplomatic Agents or Consuls.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, the Solicitor General had stated that this sub-section prohibited all legislation with regard to relations with Foreign States. If that was what was meant, why did the sub-section not say so? It said "treaties and other relations with Foreign States." Why were Treaties specially brought in? The real reading of the clause was that it did not refer to all foreign relations, but only to relations ejusdem generis with Treaties. If it was really intended that this sub-section should apply to all relations, why had
    236
    the words "treaties and other" been inserted?
    MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid, the latter part of the clause did not seem to him to be at all clear. They understood from the right hon. Gentleman that Ireland would not be allowed by this Bill to make Commercial Treaties with any part of Her Majesty's Dominions. Would it permit Ireland to have the power to make emigration arrangements with the Colonies?
    MR. BYRNEwas under the impression that the "other relations" referred to matters ejusdem generis with Treaties; and it was upon that impression he had founded another Amendment. He should be glad to hear it was not so. He contended that, as it stood, the language of the sub-section was very ambiguous.
    SIR R. TEMPLEasked the Solicitor General ought he not to insert the words "all treaties and all other relations"? His hon. Friend thought relations meant relations of the same kind as Treaties. If that were not so, and if "other relations" did include Consular and Diplomatic appointments, then they had better put in words to say so at once. With reference to what had been said by the right hon. Member for Thanet, if this sub-section applied only to the Legislative Assembly, and did not restrain the Executive for the very same purpose, then they should have to propose further Amendments, in order to restrain the new Executive in Ireland from doing that which the Legislature was by that Bill prevented from doing.
    SIR J. RIGBYconsidered that the objections to the clause were not founded on a very important basis, though, perhaps, the words might be improved. A very slight change might improve the wording, and in substance carry out the views of hon. Members. He would suggest these words—
    "Treaties or any relations with Foreign States or the relations between different parts of Her Majesty's Dominions."
    That would get rid of any difficulty. The object of the Government in drawing up the sub-section was to preclude the Irish Legislature from any kind of legislation as regarded any other country than Ireland.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Might I suggest to the Government that these drafting

    237
    Amendments might be left to be inserted in the House of Lords? The House of Lords have not a great deal to do; we have, and I respectfully say that if the Bill generally meets the view of the Government they should ignore these microscopic Amendments, for, as I have said, the House of Lords is the proper place for making these delicate changes.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I welcome this tribute to the House of Lords, coming specially from that quarter. But what I want to point out to the Committee is that the proper course, after the very conciliatory observations made from the Treasury Bench, would be for my hon. Friend to withdraw his Amendment, and then, perhaps, the Government would move the insertion of their own words.
    MR. COURTNEY: I wish to call the attention of the Solicitor General to the fact that consequential Amendments will be necessary. Treaties are not the only relations entered into between States. Trade regulations, for instance, are not ranked as Treaties, but come under a different designation, and I therefore would suggest that the Amendment be "treaties, agreements, or other relations."
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, the words suggested could only be inserted in the Bill out of abundance of caution; and, as they could neither give nor take away anything, he put it to the Government—was it worth while to treat such Amendments as serious, especially as they would not satisfy the Opposition, but would simply urge them on to further exertions?
    MR. J. MORLEY: In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin, I have to say that we understand the word "treaties" is more general than "conventions," and covers commerce. If the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his Amendment we will move to substitute "or any" for "and other."
    MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, the suggested concession by the Government met his view, and he would withdraw his Amendment. He was only sorry that was not offered long before, for it would have saved time. He wished also to say that the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for North Louth, that nothing should be done to
    238
    conciliate the Opposition, was not the wisest course for the Government to adopt. He begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. T. M. HEALYobjected to the Amendment being withdrawn.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Government, having been precluded by the step taken by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth to carry out their pledge at this stage of the Bill, of course their pledge stands; and, at the next; stage of the Bill, they will move to insert the words mentioned by the Chief Secretary, which they meant to insert now, not having foreseen the peculiar action taken by the hon. and learned Member below the Gangway.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Yes, Sir; the words will be introduced.
    SIR H. JAMESrose to move in Clause 3, line 4, after "offences," to insert "or procedure." The object of the Amendment is to secure that the Irish Legislature shall not prevent our Treaties being carried out. The Treaties I have in my mind are the Extradition Treaties. If we allowed the Irish Legislature to pass a law that criminals in Ireland shall not be extradited we should be prevented from carrying out our Treaties with Foreign States. If the clause were passed as it stands the Irish Legislature would have the power to prevent a Treaty being carried out. We should make clear that the Irish Legislature shall not have the power to interfere with the procedure connected with a Treaty, which is really the carrying out of a Treaty.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 4, after the word "offences," to insert the words "or procedure."—(Sir H. James.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR J. RIGBY: I think I understand the motive of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; and although I am not quite in agreement with him on the matter of verbal construction, I think we may very fairly attempt to meet him. No doubt in the case of Extradition Acts it is desirable that not only the substantive form, but the procedure, so far as there is a special procedure, should be the same throughout the United Kingdom. If the

    239
    right hon. and learned Gentleman will accept the words "or special procedure" we will adopt the Amendment. What I mean is that it shall be some procedure which is not the ordinary procedure in ordinary action, but a special procedure by Acts carrying out these Treaties.
    SIR H. JAMES: I do not quite know what "special procedure" means. What I have in my mind is the Extradition Act of 1870, and what I want is that there shall he no interference with that Act. The words "special procedure" might give rise to difficulties of construction, and perhaps it would meet my hon. and learned Friend's view if the Amendment ran "or procedure connected with the extradition of criminals under any Treaty."
    MR. J. MORLEY: That is less than the Amendment on the Paper asks for, and as it meets our views we will accept it.
    SIR H. JAMES: I do not think it is less than the Amendment on the Paper. It meets my view, however, and I am satisfied. I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    SIR H. JAMES: As I understand that no Amendment on the Paper will be struck out in consequence of my Amendment, I beg now to move to insert after "offences," the words "or procedure connected with the extradition of criminals under any Treaty."
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 4, after the word "offences," to insert the words "or procedure connected with the extradition of criminals under any Treaty."—(Sir H. James.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid he thought the Nationalist Members had some reason to criticise the fact that they had not got notice of the words. Was it the idea that if a man committed a criminal offence in Ireland and went to France or America, or any other country, the Irish Government should not be able to get back that criminal from abroad and punish him according to the laws of their own land?
    SIR H. JAMES: My Amendment does not touch that question at all; but if
    240
    it did, I would say my intention is that if there is any question of a criminal being extradited, the application must come from the Foreign Office, and must not be made by any official in Dublin.
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. TOMLINSONrose to move to insert in Clause 3, line 4, at end "the status, condition, or rights of any person not domiciled in Ireland, or." He took it that the effect of the Bill, if carried out, would be to create in some matters the relations of foreigners between Englishmen and Irishmen. For some purposes Irishmen would be foreigners in this country, and Englishmen in other cases would be foreigners in Ireland. At present the business relations between England and Ireland were frequent and extensive. A number of people of Lancashire, for instance, had many trade relations between various parts of Ireland, and it often happened that these people went over to Ireland to look after their businesses. He thought they should limit in some way or other the power of the Irish Government to deal only with persons who were domiciled in Ireland. Of course, if any man changed his domicile, and went to reside in Ireland, he should take his chances of the law; but so long as a man retained a British domicile, and was connected with Ireland only for temporary purposes, the Irish Government should have no power to pass laws affecting his status or position. That was from the point of view of the Englishman. There was also the case of foreigners who were domiciled in England, and who might have relations with Ireland. The Irish Legislature having no responsibility for foreigners and no foreign relations might be careless about the way foreigners in Ireland or England were affected by their laws; and he, therefore, thought the foreigner domiciled in England should be secured against his rights being affected by anything that took place in Ireland. He submitted that the relations of the Irish Legislature with individuals should be limited to those domiciled in Ireland, and that it should have no power to pass laws affecting persons domiciled outside that country. He begged to move his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 4, at the end of the foregoing Amendment, to insert as a new sub-section the words—"The status, condition, or rights of any person, not domiciled in Ireland, or."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It appears to me that a portion of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is redundant, and a portion is based on a totally false conception of the Bill. The Irish Government will have no power to touch the status or condition of any person out of Ireland. That is clear. To prohibit them from doing what they have no power whatever to do is waste of time, waste of trouble, and waste of paper. Then, the introduction of assertions that the Irish Government do not possess powers which no one thinks they do possess would have a tendency to create kindred powers just beyond the line of prohibition. Does the hon. Gentleman mean to contend that Irish securities held by a foreigner are to be exempt from the effect of any legislation which may affect other holders of the same securities? I may misunderstand the object of the hon. Gentleman; but it appears to me that that is the effect, at least, of his Amendment. We cannot accept the Amendment, for we believe that property must be subject to the authority of the local Legislature.
    MR. MATTHEWS: The whole argument of the right hon. Gentleman proceeds upon the assumption that Ireland and England are henceforth to be foreign countries. Let me give a possible example from which even the Government must recoil. There will be nothing to prevent the new Irish Legislature from enacting a law that no man domiciled in England shall be capable of owning land in Ireland. That is not at all an unlikely measure to be enacted by the Irish Legislature. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the status and condition of an individual depends upon the law of domicile, and, consequently, that the Irish Legislature will be tied down to Irish matters alone, and cannot pass laws affecting persons outside of Ireland. That is true if you are going to treat England and Ireland as separate countries for the purposes of status—that is, that the English domicile
    242
    is a foreign domicile so far as Ireland is concerned. That is rather of far-reaching consequences, and I should like to know how far you contemplate going in that direction. Is it intended that the Irish Legislature shall be capable of striking at the rights of persons not dwelling within the four corners of Ireland, and of enacting that such persons shall be incapable of holding property in Ireland? I believe there is more than one considerable landholder in Ireland who was never domiciled in Ireland, and who only occasionally resides in Ireland. Clearly they could be affected. In the same way there are a vast number of interests connected with personal property, trade, and commerce in relation to persons not domiciled in Ireland which may be put on a lower level than the identical interests of persons who were domiciled in Ireland.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: There will be such a thing as domicile in England and domicile in Ireland irrespective of whether they are foreign countries or not. What is domicile in Scotland? Let the right, hon. Gentleman purchase an estate in Scotland, and if he also possesses estates in England when he dies there will be the very awkward question to determine whether he is domiciled in England or Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman asks that people whose domicile is not in Ireland shall be protected against the abuses of the Irish Legislature; and he says the Irish Legislature may proceed to render everyone incapable of holding land in Ireland who is not domiciled in Ireland. That is one of the wild and extravagant suppositions which cropped up like mushrooms even in the brains of right hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite. The Irish Legislature may possibly make that absurd, preposterous, and suicidal law, or they may make an equally proposterou and absurd law prohibiting the holding of land by those who are domiciled in Ireland. Indeed, this great, wise, and almost infallible Legislature, of which we are Members, did proceed in that way not very long ago, when it forbade the Jews to hold land in England. But, really, are hon. Gentlemen opposite determined to have a list of all the crimes, errors, and follies that ever were perpetrated by mankind or by Public Bodies, from the time of Adam to the present day, and to

    243
    say in the Bill, "The Irish Legislature shall not commit these crimes "? That is the tendency of the bulk of the Amendments. I say that if an attempt were made to produce an enormous folio-volume filled with all these follies and crimes, the first consequence would be a second edition on account of the omissions from the first. It would be impossible that property held in Ireland by persons not domiciled in Ireland should be withdrawn from the cognisance of the Irish Legislature.
    MR. MATTHEWS: The argument that the right hon. Gentleman has used is one that we have heard over and over again. The right hon. Gentleman is never tired of telling us that when we seek to impose restrictions upon the action of the Irish Legislature we are imputing wickedness to the Irish people, but he himself in his Bill has imposed half a dozen restrictions to our one. Why has he done so if he thinks that such a course is unnecessary?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have done so in order to please you.
    MR. MATTHEWS: That is hardly a way of meeting the argument. The proposition of the right hon. Gentleman is that to impose restrictions upon the action of the Irish Legislature is to insult and outrage that Legislature; and yet he himself has embodied such restrictions in his Bill. The question is, whether the restrictions proposed by this Amendment are required or not? It is true, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, that there are different domiciles in England and Scotland, but is not the existence of those different domiciles one of the drawbacks in the relations between England and Scotland at the present moment? There is a difference between the laws of the two countries which England has always recognised, and now the right hon. Gentleman is going to set up a fresh distinction between England and Ireland. Does the right hon. Gentleman, or does he not, intend that it should be in the power of the Irish Legislature to say that persons domiciled in England and Scotland shall not have the right to hold land in Ireland? There have been three or four cases of absentee laws being proposed in the last Irish Parliament, and, if I am not mistaken, carried in the Irish House of Commons. [Mr. T. M. Healy: No.] Then, at all
    244
    events, measures for the exceptional taxation of persons not domiciled were certainly carried. If there is one fact that ought to be taken into consideration in connection with this Amendment it is the angry feeling which exists in Ireland against the English owners of Irish land. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend that the Irish Legislature should have the power of legislating in an exceptional manner against a man merely because he has the misfortune to be domiciled in England or Scotland?
    SIR J. RIGBY: It is perfectly easy, when a general proposition is laid down, to take an extreme instance in order to prove that it is absurd. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that there is no Irish domicile now as distinct from the English domicile. We are not proposing to alter the law of domicile in the least degree. We are leaving the matter exactly where we found it, and the idea that there is some spectre of a new domicile being sot up is, I venture to think, very unreasonable.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the Prime Minister seemed to think that it was a reflection upon the Irish Legislature that it could be capable of passing Acts of the kind. Was the right hon. Gentleman aware that several States of the American Union had passed Acts prohibiting aliens from holding real estate in those States? If it was no reflection upon the American States to suppose them guilty of a thing like that, why was it a reflection upon the Irish Legislature to say that they might take a similar course?
    MR. R. G. WEBSTERsaid, the question was whether, in case of a wrong being done in Ireland to a foreigner or an alien, he would be described as a domiciled individual? If the foreign State should ask for reparation from the Government of Great Britain a very important question would be raised.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, this matter required consideration. A substantial question had to be considered. There was no doubt that an Irish domicile was now distinct from an English domicile. The question was, whether it would be competent for the Irish Legislature to discriminate in its legislation between the rights of, persons domiciled in England and Scotland as distinguished from those of persons domiciled in Ireland?

    245
    Reference had been made to the action of several American States, but it was said their legislation was directed against aliens. A case which was a good illustration of the necessity for the Amendment was that of Now Zealand, the Legislature of which had established a system of taxation which discriminated between persons domiciled in that country and British subjects living at home, who, though not domiciled in New Zealand, were not aliens. Another question deserved consideration. Were domiciled Englishmen and Scotchmen to be debarred from holding offices in Ireland? No Member of the Government would, he was sure, approve of preferential legislation, though they might say that it was unnecessary to guard against it, inasmuch as it was so unlikely to arise. But the illustration which he had given of New Zealand showed that it was not improbable. Nor could anyone say it was improbable that Englishmen and Scotchmen would be held ineligible for employment in State, county, or municipal offices. He thought his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government would see that the suggestion of preferential legislation in Ireland was not so unreasonable and fanciful and extravagant as he had tried to make out. It was a matter which deserved examination and consideration, and the subject should be approached in a somewhat different way to that in which the right hon. Gentleman had dealt with it.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: I think that the Prime Minister and the Solicitor General have assumed a little too much as to the state of things which may prevail in Ireland after the Irish Parliament has come into operation. I do not want to make an evil prophecy as to what that Parliament will do, but I think it quite possible that, at any rate, sometimes they will act in a prudent manner, and that their legislation may at first be even unexceptionable. But, after awhile, the source of taxation may be considerably altered, and I will not say that the Irish Parliament would be acting beyond the bounds of ordinary and reasonable legislation if, in order to meet the necessary taxation, they should declare that persons holding land in Ireland should be forced to choose their domicile in Ireland, or, in the alternative, to have a heavy tax laid upon them. The Irish Parliament may even say that English
    246
    domicile should be a disqualification for the tenure of landed property in Ireland. Although I would not say that any British Government would approve of legislation of that kind, I will not say that the Irish Parliament would be debarred from passing it. Irishmen are animated by a certain amount of jealousy in the matter of the ownership of land in Ireland by Englishmen, and I do not think that feeling should be encouraged. But unless you desire the New Zealand precedent mentioned by my right hon. Friend opposite to apply to Ireland, you should take some steps to meet the views and argument of your opponents upon the point, with a view to putting a check upon the Irish Legislature.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It is not the taxing of absentee landlords which I treated as one of those outrageous suggestions that are constantly cropping up, and which I might be compelled to characterise in terms milder than they really deserve. When, however, the crop ceases, the censure will cease likewise. The noble Lord says that the object of the Amendment is to prevent the Irish Government from taxing absentee proprietors. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: That is an illustration.] I doubt whether the Amendment will touch employments, but I am not quite sure that the English Government, at the end of the last century, were disposed to assent that the Irish Parliament should not tax absentees. The Irish Government may say that they recognise residence as the distinct social and moral duty of the landed proprietor, and that they will impose a penalty upon those who own thousands of acres in Ireland, but who never set foot in that country. The Amendment, however, goes enormously beyond restraining the Irish Parliament from doing that, and it goes so far that whenever any person not domiciled in Ireland should own property in Ireland, the fact of his domicile should make the property which he owns exempt from Irish law, and should thus cause it to be held upon a different tenure to that prevailing in the case of property owned by persons domiciled in Ireland.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has set to work to destroy the precise form in which the Amendment has been proposed, rather than to propose any alteration which

    247
    would meet the object in view. He has, in fact, satisfied himself with the position of a critic; and has confined himself to the question of taxing absentees. But with regard to that particular illustration, the right hon. Gentleman has not succeeded in convincing me that the power ought to be left in the bauds of the Irish Legislature. I will not pronounce an opinion as to whether the Irish landlord resident in England should be treated exceptionally; but if we are going to treat him exceptionally it should be the task not of the Irish, but of the Imperial Parliament to deal with that matter. When I reflect on the inducements which hon. Gentlemen who are to be entrusted with the future government of Ireland under Home Rule hold out to English landlords to reside on their Irish property, I do not think they ought to permit this class, who are first driven away from their property by outrage, to be then taxed for non-residence. But though this question of the taxation of Irish absentees is a most important illustration, it is, after all, only an illustration, and my noble Friend alluded to the possibility of a person being excluded from office in Ireland because he was domiciled in England. Is that so extravagant a proposition? It has been my lot to have something to do with Irish patronage for many years. There are other right hon. and hon. Gentlemen in this House who have also had something to do with it, and I appeal to them confidently whether the one thing upon which every Irishman is agreed—and there are not many things upon which every Irishman is agreed—is that any place of emolument in Ireland should be given to an Irishman, and never under any circumstances to an Englishman or Scotchman? That, Sir, which is the habitual practice in Ireland, might, without any great or violent hypothesis, be made a legislative necessity; and you might have the Irish Legislative Assembly saying these good posts in the Irish Post Office, or in the County Councils—to which an hon. Member has referred—and every other place of profit and trust, shall be given to an Irishman, and shall be given to an Irishman alone. The Government will admit they have not answered either of these two cases. I will make an admission on my own side. I admit my hon.
    248
    drawn the terms of his too wide, and I would Friend has Amendment which I think will meet the views of hon. Gentlemen sitting in every part of the House, though perhaps I am too sanguine. If my hon. Friend would word his Amendment this way—and instead of saying
    "the status, condition, or rights of any person, not domiciled in Ireland,"
    would use the words
    "or exceptionally affecting the rights of any British subjects not domiciled in Ireland,"
    that would prevent the Irish Legislature from doing what they may be induced to do, and what none of us would desire—namely, draw a distinction between the privileges of various subjects of the Queen with regard either to the holding of property or place in Ireland. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman I am not suggesting to my hon. Friend to move this Amendment in a new form with any desire to cast a slur on the new Irish Legislature; but if he consults the opinion of hon. Gentlemen behind him, they must know from those discussions that the danger is a real danger, and must be convinced that we ought to insist on equality of treatment between all the subjects of the Queen, in whatever part of the country they may be domiciled, at the bauds of this new Legislature.
    MR. TOMLINSONwas quite ready to admit his Amendment might cover wider ground than he intended. He had not intended to prohibit any dealing generally with property in Ireland; but what he had in his mind was, that a person not resident in Ireland might be affected by the legislation of this Irish Parliament. He was anxious that the business and other relations between persons resident in England and Ireland should, as far as possible, be continued on their present footing, and, in fact, intercourse between the two countries encouraged. He desired to guard against any Act of an alien Parliament injuriously affecting any person not domiciled in Ireland. If the Committee would agree he should be willing to withdraw his Amendment and substitute for it the words suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.
    MR. ROBYrose—
    Mr. John Morley Mr. John Morley rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 252; Noes 217.—(Division List, No. 113.)
    Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 214; Noes 25.—(Division List, No. 114.)
    THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment standing on the Paper is in the name of the hon. Member for the Walthamstow Division of Essex (Mr. Byrne), and proposes in Clause 3, page 2, line 4, at end to insert "extradition, political offenders, or offences; or." This Amendment is out of Order. The next Amendment in Order stands in the name of the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Yerburgh).
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. YERBURGHsaid, he rose to move the insertion, in line 4, of the words "offences committed on the high seas; or." This Amendment was designed for the purpose of withdrawing from the power of the Irish Legislature offences committed on the high seas. He had compared the present Bill with that of 1886, and he found that these words were contained in the latter measure. The powers of the Irish Legislature would extend to the administration of Criminal and Civil jurisdiction over vessels belonging to Ireland. From this fact questions of great gravity would undoubtedly arise, which might cause serious inconvenience between Great Britain and Ireland. British sailors, if taken on board Irish vessels, say, at the Port of Bristol, would be under the jurisdiction of the Irish Courts, and amenable to Irish Law. In the ease of an Irish vessel plying between Ireland and America, a British detective might be on board for the purpose of following some criminal conspirator. He might be discovered and shot; and, under the Bill as it now stood, the Irish Courts would claim jurisdiction, and would have a right to it. Then, again, take the case of a Revenue cutter boarding a smuggler on
    250
    the coast of Ireland. There might be a conflict, and some of the smugglers might be killed in resisting the cutter. Under whose jurisdiction would the smuggler come? As he understood the Bill, it would come under the jurisdiction of the Irish Courts, and the same would be the case if some of the cutter's men were killed. Complaint would lie against the crew of the smuggler; the Irish Courts would claim to try the case. He would not deal with the various difficulties that would arise in the case of foreigners, either taking passage in Irish vessels, or accepting service in them. Under the Bill such foreigners would become amenable to the Irish Courts, and it wan quite conceivable that serious complications might arise with Foreign States which ought to be dealt with by the Imperial Courts. On all these points he submitted that there was a very strong case for the words he proposed to insert in the clause.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 4, after the second word "or," to insert the words "offences committed on the high seas; or."—(Mr. Yerburgh.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. MORLEY: This Amendment is surely one of as superfluous a character as could possibly be proposed. Here is a Bill which aims at giving to an Irish Legislature that power of making laws for
    "the peace, order, and good government of Ireland in respect of matters delusively relating to Ireland or any part thereof."
    Now, offenders on the high seas cannot possibly come within that description. All offences on the high seas will clearly, from the form of the Bill, be offences cognisable, and cognisable only, by the Imperial Parliament. That statement in itself is sufficient to remind the hon. Member that the Amendment—that in view of the scope of the Bill—is unnecessary.
    MR. CARSON: I must say I do not entirely understand the right hon. Gentleman as to the effect of Irish legislation by the Irish Parliament. If the words "peace, order, and good government" had reference to matters happening only in Ireland, I could understand the contention of the

    251
    right hon. Gentleman. But in the subsections of the 3rd section the Government have seen the necessity of putting in a proviso excepting Treaties and other relations with Foreign States, and matters of that kind. If the contention of the right hon. Gentleman wore correct that the words
    "peace, order, and good government of Ireland in respect of matters exclusively relating to Ireland or any part thereof"
    exclude all matters outside Ireland, it would have been unnecessary to put in such a proviso. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that if I were to proceed in the Court of Judicature in Ireland to argue that these words did not give the Irish Courts the right to legislate in respect of matters that may be tried in Ireland—as these matters might be tried—I should at once be met with the argument "If that is so, what was the use of putting in the Bill this exception as to Foreign States and the Amendment 'accepted this evening' as to procedure in relation to extradition?" That procedure has no more connection with
    "the peace, order, and good government of Ireland in respect of matters exclusively relating to Ireland or any part thereof"
    than the matters in respect of which this Amendment has been proposed. What are the matters aimed at by the Amendment? Take the laws relating to pirates and piracy and all crimes and misdemeanours committed on the high seas. How are they to be tried at present? They are triable in the local venues of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman is aware that under the Statutes that regulate these matters the place of trial is either the place from which the party against whom the offence is committed—or, perhaps, the party who has committed the offence—hails, or the part into which the ship first comes. I recollect most distinctly the case of two men tried in the County of Cork in relation to offences—I think it was murder—committed on the high seas. Does the right hon. Gentleman contend that, according to the law as it would stand under this Bill, the Irish Legislature would have no power to maintain or alter such a state of things as that? Would it have no power to alter the law in relation to men who would be criminals under its own jurisdiction? There is little difference in
    252
    principle between the supporters of the Amendment and the right hon. Gentleman opposite; therefore, it should be easy to set this matter right. If the Irish Legislature is not to have anything to say to these matters that would be triable by their Judges, and as to the decrees to be carried out by their Executive, the fact should be distinctly set forth in the Bill. I think it is an irresistible argument that if the Irish Legislature, through their Executive, have the power of process over those parties who commit offences on the high seas, the right hon. Gentleman must see there is a strong argument for saying there must be power to legislate as regards that process. Is it intended that these matters in relation to offences committed on the high seas are to be tried by what we may call the Irish Executive Courts or by the Imperial Court—the Court of Exchequer? To my mind, the position taken up by the right hon. Gentleman is entirely inconsistent. If these cases are so foreign to the functions of the Irish Legislature as established by this Bill, that they become Imperial matters, surely they ought to be tried in the Imperial Court. But where is the proviso for that purpose? The only way, that I can see, is by an exception such as that proposed in the Amendment. If you turn to the 19th section of the Bill you will find that, excepting a matter from the Irish Legislature, it at once drives it into the Imperial Court, and if you tried it for one purpose as an Imperial subject, surely you must treat it as such for other purposes. If you leave the procedure and the power of altering the procedure with the Irish Legislature, what is the use of having the offence at all? If you desired to alter the law in relation to the offence, surely the best way to alter it would be by altering the procedure. The right hon. Gentleman declares that this Amendment will not make any difference in the effect of the Bill. That being so, and as this Amendment seems the most effectual way of effecting the object in view, why does not the right hon. Gentleman accept it? It seems to me that you destroy the effect of keeping this an Imperial matter by giving the Irish Legislature full power over the process. As the right hon. Gentleman says that the object of the Amendment is already

    253
    covered by the Bill, I would, nevertheless, urge him to accept the proposal to bring the trial of these offences into the Imperial Court under the 19th section. No doubt, the right hon. Gentleman has had higher advice than I can give him; but, as a lawyer, I must say I think that to say that the Bill gives the Irish Legislature power in regard to "peace, order, and good government" does not solve the question at all. Where an offence is committed on the high seas it is not a matter belonging to the peace, order, and good government of the country, and I think that measures ought to be taken to provide that these offences shall be triable in the future as they have been in the past. Looking at the enormous maritime and commercial interests of this country, it seems to me a matter of the first importance to take measures to prevent any infringement of our rights on the high seas.
    MR. RENTOULsaid, the Government maintained that this Amendment was not necessary; but he should have thought that an Irish ship on the high seas would have been regarded as Irish territory, and that the words "making laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland" would distinctly relate to such a ship. The framers of the Bill of 1886 had thought this provision necessary, for they had inserted it in that measure; and, so far as he was concerned, he had been unable to see any difference between the Bill and the measure of 1886 that would affect this subject or render a clause that was necessary in 1886 unnecessary now. Take the case of O'Donnell, who murdered James Carey, the Dublin informer, and was tried, convicted, and executed. Suppose he had been on an Irish ship and this Home Rule Bill had been law, it would have been in the power of the Irish Courts to deal with the case, and to declare that O'Donnell had not been guilty of any offence whatever—as an Irish jury would have been very likely to do. It was vastly important, he thought, that these matters with regard to shipping and the high seas should be made very clear. The Solicitor General, no doubt, recollected the case of the Franconia, a vessel which ran into a British ship two-and-a-half miles from the Dover coast. A prosecution was commenced at the Old
    254
    Bailey, and the German captain was convicted; but in the Court for the Consideration of Crown Cases Reserved seven Judges held that the Central Criminal Court had no jurisdiction, whilst six Judges took the opposite view. It was evident that cases of this sort raised questions of the very greatest possible doubt; and it would, therefore, be to the interests of all parties that the point should be made exceedingly clear in the Bill. The Amendment appeared perfectly reasonable, and, inasmuch as it practically appeared in the Bill of 1886, he could not make out why the Government should oppose it.
    COMMANDER BETHELLthought it only proper that the Irish Legislature should not have any power of varying the jurisdiction of the Courts in a matter of this kind. When the Colonial Courts were given jurisdiction over offences committed on the high seas it was specially laid down that the law they were to administer was to be the English law. That being so, there was every reason for insisting that the Irish Courts should be bound by the same law, and that the Irish Legislature should have no power to vary it. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had scarcely treated the Amendment with the respect which was due to its importance; but no doubt since he had had the opportunity of consulting the Solicitor General he had seen that the proposal was of a much more important character than he appeared at first to suppose.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I see no reason whatever why I should alter the opinion I formerly expressed. The whole argument of the hon. and learned Member opposite turns on procedure; but this is not an Amendment on procedure, but one affecting legislation. It seemed to me that some of the hon. and learned Gentleman's arguments were arguments that would have been adduced if his own Amendment had been under discussion. One of the hon. Gentlemen opposite spoke about an Irish ship. What is an Irish ship?
    MR. RENTOUL: A ship owned by Irishmen. I was thinking of a ship flying a green flag, manned by Irishmen, and sailing from an Irish port.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Well, that is one of the most unscientific descriptions I ever heard. I can only recognise ships

    255
    governed by our Merchant Shipping Act,
    MR. RENTOULsaid, he understood the Amendment to be aimed at possible legislation with regard to the establishment of registered Irish ships.
    MR. J. MORLEY: But we cannot deal with all these possible contingencies and hypothetical cases. We are dealing with things as they are, and with things as the law of the land now establishes them. The Bill excepts from the legislative powers of the Irish Legislature all laws dealing with trade and navigation. On what possible construction can it be supposed that the Irish Legislature would be able to deal with questions concerning matters arising on the high seas? Such matters are outside the ambit of Ireland, and outside the competency of the Irish Legislature. I have heard no arguments to shake the opinion I have already expressed.
    SIR H. JAMESthought it was unnecessary to spend much more time in discussing the Amendment, although it was a very important one. He agreed with his right hon. Friend that, as the law at present existed, there was no such ship as an Irish ship. As long as there was only one flag the law did not recognise more than one kind of British ship. His right hon. Friend said that it was unnecessary to put in a prohibition of legislation in respect of a matter clearly outside the power of the Irish Legislature. This, however, was a very dangerous doctrine. The Irish Legislature would think that the sub-sections of this clause contained all the prohibitions of action on their part. Take the case of piracy. It could be dealt with in Ireland as much as in England. Irishmen had, in one sense, as much interest in the subject as Englishmen had. If a ship, sailing from Queenstown, and having an Irish crew, were boarded by pirates and members of the crew were killed, and the pirate was afterwards taken as a prisoner into Queenstown, the Irish Legislature might say they wished to deal with the offence he had committed. What was to prevent them doing that, unless an express prohibition were put into the Act? Of course, the crime of piracy came within the external and not the internal area; and the Irish Legislature ought, therefore, to be prevented from dealing with it. His right
    256
    hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said the Irish Legislature could not deal with it, and yet he would not say in the Bill that they should not deal with it.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Piracy is clearly a matter outside the Irish jurisdiction. A pirate is spoken of in the law books as an enemy of the human race; and, that being so, he cannot be regarded as specially an enemy of the Irish race. My right hon. Friend says—and this is one of the most alarming dicta I have yet heard in those discussions—whatever you leave unexcepted from the Irish powers will be assumed to be within those powers. It is clearly not within the competence of a local Legislature to make laws respecting matters which affect all portions of the United Kingdom and the Empire. When you come to procedure I admit that you may have other considerations to deal with; but, as far as legislation is concerned, there cannot be a shadow of doubt as to what the whole policy of this Bill lays down, and I really cannot see why we should accept the Amendment.
    THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHENsaid, he wished to bring before the Committee a matter which would be within the scope of the Irish Parliament. There used to be, and he believed still was, in existence a kind of law, based he supposed on superstition, amongst the fishermen of the West Coast of Ireland which induced them not to allow any fishing boat to approach the Coast before a certain date. As the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was, no doubt, aware, that unwritten law had resulted in many and great outrages being committed on those who had ventured to approach the Coast. Outrages might be committed in the future as they had been in the past. [Mr. T. M. Healy: When?] He could not give the hon. and learned Member the date off-hand; but he should be happy to supply him with dates within two days' time. Well, he asked what chance the crews of non-Irish boats would have if outrages were again committed, and the matter were referred to an Irish Parliament? He submitted that the fisheries all round the Coast of the United Kingdom should be open to all the people of the United Kingdom.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, he was surprised to hear that the Go-

    257
    vernment would not accept the Amendment, which was based upon the Bill of 1886. It was clear that if the Prime Minister thought the matter of sufficient importance in 1886 to make it the subject of a special sub-section, he was of opinion at the time that it ought to be referred to in the Bill. Under these circumstances, it was surely not sufficient for the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in a sort of off-hand way, to say that the Amendment was unnecessary.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. Member is, of course, quite right in referring to the Bill of 1886; but there are certain words which are not found in the Bill of 1886, and are found in this Bill. Those words occur in the 2nd clause, and are "matters exclusively relating to Ireland or some part thereof."
    SIR H. JAMES: Does my right hon. Friend say that piracy does not in any way relate to Ireland?
    MR. J. MORLEY: I never said that piracy did not relate to Ireland. What I say is that piracy does not relate exclusively to Ireland.
    SIR H. JAMES: Nor does treason relate exclusively to Ireland.
    MR. YERBURGHsaid, it was possible that in the future an Irish Mercantile Marine would be brought into being. If so, as he understood the law, the ships of that Marine would be treated as part of the territory of Ireland, and it would be perfectly open for an Irish advocate to say that they would come under the provision respecting "Ireland or any part thereof. Mr. Hall, in his book on International Law, showed what the state of the law was on this point. It would be perfectly open for an advocate for the Irish Parliament to argue that under the International Law the territory of a State extended to its ships, and, therefore, that the Irish Parliament was at perfect liberty to pass any laws with reference to offences on the high seas.
    MR. SEXTONpointed out that a Mercantile Marine sailing under a flag which was not the flag of the British Mercantile Marine could only be created by an Imperial Act. It must be borne in mind that the authority to whom the hon. Gentleman had referred in speaking of the jurisdiction of a State over offences committed at sea referred to a State that had a flag of its own. Every ship
    258
    sailing under a British flag was, according to law, British territory, and every act done on board such ship was undoubtedly matter of Imperial jurisdiction.
    Mr. J. MORLEY: My right hon. and learned Friend (Sir H. James) asks why have you put treason among your excepted subjects? But he forgets that treason may take place upon Irish soil. Piracy does not take place upon Irish soil.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 162; Noes 225.—(Division List, No. 115.)
    THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley)—
    In Clause 3, page 2, line 4, at end, add "offences against the law of nations; or offences committed in vioiation of any treaty made or hereafter to be made between Her Majesty and any Foreign State; or offences committed on the high seas; or"
    —is not in Order
    MR. BARTLEYthen moved the following Amendment:—In Clause 3, page 2, line 5, after "honour," insert "except such as relate exclusively to and are distinctively styled Irish dignities or titles." He said it seemed to him this was the first Amendment which proposed to extend the powers of the Irish Legislature; and he must say it was putting on unnecessary restrictions where they did not in any way affect the progress, the position, and the stability of this country. If the Irish Parliament thought proper to recommend honours of an Irish nature, he saw no possible reason why they should not be allowed to do so. He should object to their being allowed to suggest any Imperial dignities; but he saw no objection to permitting them to recommend Irish honours and dignities if they wished. The power and influence of these dignities were very great. They had seen examples in recent movements of the important part which dignities had played in Parliamentary work. They had known hon. Members who had changed their opinion considerably being rewarded for so doing by having distinctions and and titles given to them; and he did not see why, if the Irish Parliament desired to make use of the same material, they should not be

    259
    allowed. The Irish people were as fond of honours and dignities as most of them. Why he should like to see the Amendment put in was because he felt certain, if the Irish Legislature were ever created, this question of dignities and titles would lead to an agitation in that House by the Irish Members; and, therefore, it would be better to give them the power right off, and let them deal with it in their own way. If they were going to entrust the Irish Parliament with the right of taxation and a great number of other rights and privileges, there was no reason why they should not be allowed to recommend to the Sovereign or the Lord Lieutenant persons for these dignities and titles. He did not want to take up the time of the Committee, and, therefore, he should not go to a Division, but should be satisfied with the Amendment being merely negatived.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 5, after the word "honour," to insert the words "except such as relate exclusively to and are distinctively styled Irish dignities or titles."—(Mr. Bartley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsupported the Amendment. He felt no desire to render the Bill detestable, though he felt a desire to prevent its passing. He regarded it as a bad Bill; but if it was to pass he should like to make it workable. Therefore, although he would restrict the sphere of action of the Irish Legislature, still he would enlarge its powers within that sphere; and, consequently, he thought there was something to be said in many ways for allowing it to recommend or impart titles and honours. He thought great advantage would be found in allowing this to be done. Hon. Members opposite who had not received honours at the hands of the Government might go over to Ireland and be made Baronets, or perhaps Peers; and he thought unappreciated merit would, consequently, find new advantages in a Home Rule Bill such as had never occurred to anybody before. There were hon. Members sitting on those (the Irish) Benches who might very properly be furnished with Irish titles by the Irish Legislature. There might be Sir Timothys and Sir Justins, whom they should be very glad to see back in that House with their new
    260
    honours. He was very glad to stand up in defence of the extension of the powers of the Irish Legislature for this if for no other reason; that his objection to the Bill was that instead of being an enabling it was a disabling Bill, instead of being a Bill for the extension of local authority it was a centralising Bill, and he should like to see it deprived of some of its centralising character.
    Amendment negatived.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment, standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member of South Londonderry (Sir Thomas Lea)—
    In Clause 3, page 2, after line 5, insert the following sub-section:—"(6) Language, or."
    —is out of Order.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURmoved the following Amendment:—
    In Clause 3, page 2, after line 5, insert the following sub-section:—"(6) Appointment of judges or magistrates; or."
    The object of the Amendment, the hon. Member explained, was to withdraw from the Irish Legislature the power of enacting laws dealing with the Prerogative of the Crown to make appointments to judicial posts. He had originally placed upon the Paper an Amendment to the 1st sub-section of the clause withdrawing from the sphere of the Irish Legislature not merely the Crown, but the Prerogative and other Executive powers of the Crown. In deference to representations made to him by the Solicitor General, the justice of which he was constrained to recognise, he withdrew that Amendment, undertaking, at the same time, to frame particular Amendments dealing with the specific points he wished to withhold from the competency of the Irish Legislature. On the occasion to which he referred he understood the Solicitor General to say that the word "Crown" included the Prerogatives of the Crown. He thought it would be of some interest to the Committee if, before the discussion on this clause came to a conclusion, the hon. and learned Gentleman could tell them what Prerogatives of the Crown were included under the word "Crown," for he had since been devoting attention to this subject, and had consulted authorities as to the significance of this word "Prerogative," and he found almost every single subject

    261
    which in this clause was withheld from the consideration of the Irish Legislature was a Prerogative of the Crown, and not only that, but the catalogue of excluded subjects very nearly exhausted the list of what he might call the Executive Prerogatives of the Crown. Among the comparatively few important subjects which did remain, he might mention the power of pardoning and of bestowing offices, and the subject with which the present Amendment dealt—namely, the right of appointing to judicial posts. He hoped the Solicitor General would some time or other inform the Committee whether the Prerogative of Mercy and the patronage of the Crown was included under the word "Crown" in the 1st sub-section of this clause. At all events, as regarded the appointment to judicial posts, he had the hon. and learned Gentleman's distinct assurance that nothing in this Bill would prevent the Irish Legislature from passing laws dealing with that subject. The clause of the Bill to which the Solicitor General referred—the only clause in the Bill, he thought, which dealt with judicial appointments—was Clause 35. The 2nd sub-section of Clause 35 read as follows:—
    "During six years from the passing of this Act, the appointment of a Judge of the Supreme Court or oilier Superior Court in Ireland (other than one of the Exchequer Judges) shall be made in pursuance of a warrant from Her Majesty countersigned as heretofore."
    He had two observations to make upon that sub-section. First of all, it did not contemplate the case of appointments to the post of Magistrate; and, secondly, that after the six years mentioned in the clause were over the Irish Legislature would be at perfect liberty to enact what laws seemed to it fitting in regard to the appointment of Judges for the future. That was exactly what he desired to prevent. It seemed to him that was eminently one of those subjects which ought to be withheld from the competence of an Irish Parliament. He would like to make one point quite plain. The question whether the appointment of judicial officers should be vested in the Imperial or in the Irish Executive was undoubtedly a point of great importance, and one which would have to be raised in Committee before the discussions on this Bill came to an end. For his part, he thought that the answer to the question would depend
    262
    upon the kind of Executive that they were going to set up in Ireland. If the Irish Executive was to be, comparatively speaking, an independent Body like the Executive in the United States, then he certainly could see no harm whatever in giving to it full powers to appoint to judicial posts. But if, on the other hand, the Irish Executive was to be responsible to the Irish Legislative Body, then he thought the question would undoubtedly arise whether, under these circumstances, the power of appointment—at all events to the higher judicial posts in Ireland—should not be reserved for the Imperial Executive? But that question was not raised by the Amendment. What would be the effect of his Amendment? If the Bill were to pass as it stood, at the end of the six years mentioned in Clause 35 how would the Irish Judges be appointed? The Bill seemed to contemplate their appointment being vested in the Irish Executive, and that would appear to be confirmed by another clause in the Bill, which enabled the Judges to be removed upon an Address from both Houses of the Irish Legislature. It would be plausible to infer that if the Irish Houses had the power of dismissing the Judges, they were also to have the power of appointing the Judges. But, so far as he could discover, there was nothing in the Bill which distinctly stated that after the six years were over the appointment of the Judges should be vested in the Irish Executive. In the absence of any legislation dealing with this subject either by the Imperial Parliament or by the Irish Legislature, such a transference could only take place by an Ordinance of the Executive. The effect of this Amendment would simply be to prevent the Irish Legislature having a voice in the matter. It would not necessarily have the effect of vesting the appointment of the Judges in the Imperial Executive. It would confine legislation on the subject to the Imperial Parliament, but would not otherwise alter the existing state of things. It might be asked what did he fear the Irish Legislature might do? That Legislature might pass a law requiring the sanction of one or both Houses to any appointment of Judges that might be made, or it might take away the appointment altogether from the Executive and vest it in the Legis-

    263
    lature, or it might direct that the appointment of Judges should take place in accordance with the popular vote. He hoped they would not be told again, in the words of the Prime Minister, that suppositious of this kind were wild and extravagant suppositions, which cropped up like mushrooms on the soil of this Bill. Every one of these systems of the appointment of Judges was now in force in one or other of the State Constitutions of America; and, considering the influence that the American-Irish were likely to exercise over the future Irish Legislature, he thought there would be nothing improbable in the adoption in Ireland of some of those systems which were actually in force in many of the American States in connection with the appointment of Judges. Some State Constitution not only directed that the appointment to judicial posts should be made by popular vote, but also restricted the tenure of office of the Judges to a certain number of years. The Bill prevented the Irish Judges being appointed for a certain number of years only; the Judges would hold their appointments during good behaviour; but it was worthy of note that the Bill contained nothing to hinder the Irish Legislature from passing laws in regard to the mode of appointment of the Judges, except in so far as they were restricted from doing so for the period of six years. He was not going to argue whether such changes in the appointment of the Judges would be good or bad, for it was not necessary for his purpose, though, personally, he thought the changes would be unfortunate, and, indeed, under the circumstances, even disastrous in Ireland. He did, however, contend that, whether the changes were good or bad, it should be reserved to the Imperial Parliament to make them, if they were to be made at all. The Government were about to give to Ireland a rigid Constitution—that was to say, a Constitution which was superior to the Legislative Body it created, and which could not be altered by the Irish Legislature except in certain specified points. How did precedent stand in the matter? He maintained that it would be difficult to find an example—perhaps there was no example at all—of a rigid Constitution in which the appointment of Judges had not been fixed by that Constitution. It
    264
    had been so fixed in Canada, Australia, the United States, and in every single one of the Constitutions of the separate States. In no case had the appointment of the Judges been left as a matter in respect to which the Legislature was entitled to enact laws, and, therefore, he submitted precedent was entirely in favour of withholding this power from the Irish Legislature. If there was a reason for withholding from the Legislature of the United States the power of passing laws in relation to the Judges, there was a still stronger reason for doing so in the case of Ireland. In Ireland he was sorry to say that, whenever a Judge had the courage to enforce an unpopular law, he had in almost every case become on that very account the mark for calumny on the part of that Party which, if this Bill passed, would be likely to be dominant in the Irish Legislature. He did not wish to say anything that would promote animosity; but he thought those Members of the House who heard the language which the hon. Member for North Louth applied to the Irish Judges on Thursday must have carried away considerable food for reflection.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: What language?
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, he was within the memory of the House on this matter. The hon. Member was twice warned by the Speaker that he was going near to the use of language in regard to certain Irish Judges which violated the Rules of the House. One other point to which he wished to call the attention of the Committee was that if the position of the Irish Judges in the past had not been an easy one, it was not likely to be easier if this Bill passed. Hitherto it had been sufficient that the Judges should correctly interpret the law. In future they would have to decide upon the validity of a law wherever there was any reason to suppose that a law passed by the Irish Legislature conflicted with an Imperial Act, or belonged to that class of subject which was withdrawn from the competence of the Irish Legislature. The duty of determining whether a law was valid or not would not be confined to the two Exchequer Judges. These Judges would in every case constitute a Court of Appeal where such questions arose, but many cases would undoubtedly have to be decided in the first instance by Inferior Courts. In

    265
    America the Federal Courts formed a network over the whole country, and cases in which there was a conflict between Federal Law and State Law were generally taken to the subordinate Federal Courts. No subordinate Courts of a similar description wore provided for under this Bill, and, therefore, many cases would in the first instance be taken before the Inferior Courts, and would have to be decided by them. It would be perfectly clear to the Committee that, under these circumstances, the Imperial Parliament should take great precaution that competent persons were appointed to judicial posts in Ireland, considering that these persons would have to decide cases of conflict between the Imperial Laws and the Irish Laws. The natural thing would be to determine in the Bill the method by which the Judges should be appointed, so that no discussion could arise on the matter hereafter. They might reserve the matter for Imperial legislation, or leave the appointments to the Irish Executive; but whatever the method adopted, he thought they should refuse to allow the Irish Legislative Body to encroach upon a function which, whether upon the grounds of precedent or expediency, should be withheld from their competence. He begged to move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 5, after the word "or," to insert as a new sub-section the words "(6) Appointment of judges or magistrates: or."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The Government have gone a long way in admitting that restraint with regard to the appointment of Judges is justifiable during a transition period for the sake of good feeling and to allay unreasonable fears. But the hon. Member is not satisfied with this prohibition, and desires to impose a permanent disability upon the Irish people in this matter. It appears to us that the Body which, under the authority of a widely-extended national constituency, shall make laws for the order and good government of Ireland are also the persons who ought normally to make provision in all particulars respecting the Judges of Ireland. In
    266
    this matter Ireland, I am sorry to say, has a much better record than England. This is not a case of general imputation or loose opinion. As long as the English Government regulated the proceedings of the Irish Legislature, before the repeal of Poyning's Act, the English Government required the Irish Judges to hold office during pleasure; but when Ireland got a Parliament of its own, one of the earliest steps it took was to secure the independence of its Judges. Our view in this matter is that we ought to allow the general rule in this case to prevail. We have gone a long way in admitting that restraint may be justified during a transition period, but a permanent disability in the matter we cannot agree to recognise. With respect to the words suggested, I have another independent and specific objection. I am advised that the insertion of these words will prevent the Irish Legislature from legislating respecting the numbers of the Judges in Ireland, and that they would preclude the reduction of the number of the Judges in Ireland. Now, Sir, the numbers of the Judges in Ireland are, perhaps, the greatest scandal in Europe. I do not believe that in any country we can find anything approaching to the profligate extravagance of the Irish Judiciary. The Irish judicial establishments are entirely the outgrowth of the Union, and the Irish judicial establishments stand among the judicial establishments of Europe very much as the old Irish Church stood among the Churches of Europe. It was particularly distinguished from them for the same kind of disproportion between pay and work. To prevent the Irish Legislature from laying their hands on this astounding excrescence, this monstrous overgrowth, which is totally indefensible, and which ought to raise a blush to the cheek of every man who has to refer to the subject, I can hardly believe to be the intention of the hon. Member, I think, however, that this is the effect of the suggested words, because if the Irish Legislature are to pass a very stringent law for the reduction of the number of Judges, it may be said that an attempt is being made to alter the character of the office of those Judges who remain. I think that the hon. Member will see how untenable such a proposition is. But even if it were not so, we must still resist anything

    267
    in the nature of the imposition of a permanent disability on the Irish Legislature with respect to a matter which we consider to be one of the essential attributes of free local government. It is so recognised in our Colonies all over the world, and I cannot see why a stigma should be placed on Ireland in this respect.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to hold that under the Amendment the Irish Legislature would be precluded from fixing the number of Judges. I contend that that would not be the effect of the Amendment. There is the word "appointment" in the Amendment; and as far as the number of Judges are concerned, their pay, their tenure of office, and their pensions, the Irish Legislature will have the power to deal and to fix what terms within defined limits they think politic. But when I come to the appointment of the Judges, I think I can bring forward a point with which the right hon. Gentleman has not dealt. When has the right hon. Gentleman known, almost in any time in English history, Parliament interfering with the appointment of Judges? It is perfectly open to any Parliament—it will be open to the Irish Legislature under this Bill, if a bad appointment has been made—to move an Address of both Houses to the Lord Lieutenant; and if the case is a gross one, the Lord Lieutenant may advise the Crown to alter the appointment. This Bill introduces a slight Amendment in the appointment of Irish Judges, because the two Exchequer Judges are to be appointed under the Great Seal of England. Even before 1782 there is no precedent for that system. The Irish Judges were always appointed under the Great Seal of Ireland. In later times the practice has been for the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to recommend to the Lord Lieutenant the person best qualified for the Bench; and the decision of the Lord Lieutenant and the Irish Lord Chancellor has been always ratified. But it has been usual also to make the Imperial Lord Chancellor acquainted with the appointment, and he has been allowed to make any remarks on the appointment which he thinks desirable. I have never heard of a case in which the Imperial Lord Chancellor took ob-
    268
    jection to the appointment of an Irish Judge by the Irish Lord Chancellor, which was ratified by the Lord Lieutenant. That being so, why should the Government change the old practice? This Amendment only takes away from Ireland exactly what the Irish Legislature will not want, and a power which the Irish Legislature could not exercise. Why should not the right hon. Gentleman, without interfering with the powers of the Irish Parliament, withhold the Judicial Bench; why not keep the appointment of the Irish Judges in the old method—as I think he will if he adopts these words—or produce others that shall keep the appointment of the Irish Judges in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant? I think that would be advisable, oven from a financial point of view, and the Lord Lieutenant would act upon the advice of the Lord Chancellor of the Imperial Government.
    SIR J. RIGBY: It is a good rule in all matters that where there is responsibility there should be power. The Executive Government would be responsible for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland, and it would be one of their main duties to provide the proper Judiciary. This Amendment, it is said, although it prohibits entirely any legislation by the Irish Legislature with regard to the appointment of Judges, still gives them sufficient control. I venture to doubt that very much indeed. Suppose that the Irish Legislature passes a Bill that there shall be no new appointment of Judges until the number is reduced to a certain point.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: You can do that under this.
    SIR J. RIGBY: The noble Lord is entitled to his opinion; it is not mine. You are to make no law about the appointment of Judges.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: No; the Amendment refers to the appointment of certain Judges, and I hold that this Amendment would not prevent the Irish Parliament from reducing the Judicial Bench to what number it likes.
    SIR J. RIGBY: The noble Lord is entitled to his opinion, but this is a question of the construction of a Statute, and I must be entitled to have my opinion on the subject. Again, I say, that you are legislating about the appointment of Judges, and that in the

    269
    case supposed the appointments will not take place in accordance with, the law as it existed before; but, still, that is a smaller matter. Under the proposed system of government the Irish Legislature will have full control as to the salaries that ought to be given to the Judges, and they would have, according to the noble Lord's view—though it is not mine—if this Amendment wore adopted in this form, the power of determining the numbers, and would have to semi over to Great Britain—to this country—to ascertain who were the persons to be appointed on the Irish Bench.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: That does not follow from my argument.
    SIR J. RIGBY: I do not think the noble Lord was quite accurate in his statement of fact. True it is that the Irish Judges are appointed, as a rule, under the Great Seal of Ireland.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: Are there any exceptions?
    SIR J. RIGBY: I will tell you of one; the Master of the Rolls, who is an important judicial officer in Ireland, is appointed under the Great Seal of Great Britain. True it is that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland now has a potential voice in the appointment of those Judges; but when we alter the state of things, the Irish Lord Chancellor, assuming there is such an officer, will not occupy the same position that he does now. He will be one of the Members of the Irish Executive, I presume, and the great principle the noble Lord is contending for is this; that a particular Member of the Irish Executive shall recommend the Judges, and have so fixed a position in that regard that the whole Legislature shall not alter it in one jot or particular. That system, if adopted, would not provide for what is properly an Imperial appointment of the Judges; it would only give an additional or Executive right of patronage to the Irish Lord Chancellor, instead of to the Irish Prime Minister or the Irish Cabinet.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: The appointments in England are not made by either.
    SIR J. RIGBY: It would not be of the slightest advantage to this Debate to attempt to correct the noble Lord; I am simply stating what the effect of this appointment would be. It comes to this, that you secure the recommendation of the Irish Judges from one Member of the
    270
    Irish Cabinet; that is to say, the Lord Chancellor instead of the Cabinet as a whole.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think it would greatly conduce to the brevity of the Debates if the Members of the Government, in dealing with Amendments, would go to the point instead of beating about the bush with verbal objections and totally irrelevant criticism. The hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down has talked about the number of Judges, about the Great Seal, about the Cabinet, and various points which he says he understands, and which the noble Lord does not understand, and what he has not talked about is the Amendment of the hon. Member. The speech in which my hon. Friend proposed the Amendment was perfectly clear. In his speech my hon. Friend says that, under the Parliamentary power you are giving this Irish Legislature, it would be competent for that Legislature to say that henceforth the appointment of all judicial functionaries in Ireland, be they Judges or be they Magistrates, shall not be vested, as at present, in the Crown, acting under the advice of the Lord Chancellor or otherwise, but shall be vested in popular Bodies elected through vote by Ballot. That is my hon. Friend's point, and he says that is not an extravagant proposition. It is the practice largely in force in many States in America at this moment, and why should not the Irish Legislature do it? The question has not been touched by the Government; they have not thought it worth while to answer a single argument. The Prime Minister has told us, and in that I entirely agree with him, that the number of Judges at the present moment in Ireland is excessive. It was certainly not my hon. Friend's intention to stereotype that number of Judges; and if his Amendment would have that result, the slightest verbal modification would put it right; and if it were made to read thus: "the mode of appointment of Judges and Magistrates," fully half of the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman would become irrelevant. Neither is it a question whether the appointment of the Irish Judges is to be vested in an Irish Executive or an Imperial Executive. That is a question of great importance; it is a question we shall have to discuss before this Committee closes; it is a question on which I hold a strong

    271
    opinion, but it is not a question raised by this Amendment. My hon. Friend does not propose to withdraw, by his Amendment, from the Irish Lord Chancellor, in concert with the Irish Lord Lieutenant, the power of appointing Judges; that system my hon. Friend not only does not propose to abolish, but proposes to maintain. His desire is that in the future, as in the past, the Irish Judges shall be appointed by the Crown on the advice of Ministers, and in this Amendment he does not say whether they are to be Irish or English Ministers; he leaves that open. What he says is, it shall not rest with the Irish Legislature to determine whether we shall substitute for the appointment of Irish Judges by the Crown a system of popular appointment. "But, then," says the Prime Minister, "why should we withdraw from the Irish Legislature powers given to Colonial Legislatures and given to American Legislatures; why should we violate the uniform practice of the civilised world in the case of the Irish Legislature?" I appeal to the practice of the civilised world; I appeal to the precedents to which the right hon. Gentleman attaches so much importance, and I would point out it is the general practice in America, and it is laid down in the Constitution the principle on which the Judges are to be appointed; and we, in framing our Colonial Legislatures, have not been unmindful of the example set us by America. The right hon. Gentleman quotes the Colonies; I will read him a section out of the British North American Act. It is called 30 & 31 Vict., c. 3, s. 93—
    "The Governor General shall appoint the Judges of the Superior, District, and County Courts in each Province, except those in the Court of Probate in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick."
    So that we have clearly adopted the principle for the Colonies which my hon. Friend recommends us to adopt in this Bill, and which the right hon. Gentleman would have adopted if he had known of these Acts.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: If the Amendment was different from what it is.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must say I think the action of the Government in dealing with these Amendments is such as I have never seen in this House before. I will tell the right hon. Gentleman in
    272
    what it differs from the practice of every Government I have seen on that Bench.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman, whose memory goes back further than mine, may be able to quote precedents 20 or 30 years ago which may perhaps support his present practice. I only speak of the facts I have known. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman it generally conduces to shortening debate if, when an Amendment is made and the speech points out a real defect in the Bill, the Government did not rely on some verbal deficiency in the Amendment proposed. The Government have been in the habit of saying, "This does not carry out the object," and they have never suggested the substitution of such-and-such words when the Amendment could be accepted. Now, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is ready to accept an Amendment on this subject, but not the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and he thinks he has done his duty in conducting this Bill in simply pointing out certain verbal deficiencies without making any suggestion in return. The duty the right hon. Gentleman has failed to perform I will endeavour to perform for him, and I suggest to my hon. Friend to introduce before the words "appointment of Judges and Magistrates" the words "the mode of." By that he would avoid all the criticism passed by the right hon. Gentleman upon the present strength of the Judicial Bench; he would avoid all the criticism, so far as I was able to understand it, from the Solicitor General, and he would bring his Amendment into absolute conformity with those colonial precedents in which the right hon. Gentleman expresses such implicit confidence and belief when they agree with the character of his Bill, but which he brushes aside when they run counter to his own prejudices and the English practice. Really, I think the Government will see that the claim put forward by my hon. Friend is of the most important description. He does not desire to hamper the Irish Executive at all, or to throw into the hands of English Ministers the appointment of Irish Judges, but he desires that the practice of appointing judicial officers in Ireland shall conform to the practice which is universal in this country and which we

    273
    have imposed by Statute on the Colonies. This is a moderate request; and the Government would not only obey the dictates of reason, but they would save time, if they gave some consideration to this matter.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, he had no objection to the words suggested, though they in no way altered the sense of the Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Gentleman move?
    MR. GERALD BALFOURthen moved to insert, before the words "appointment of Judges or Magistrates" the words "mode of."
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, before the first word, "Appointment," to insert the words "the mode of."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the said proposed Amendment."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: On almost every occasion, including this, over and over again on Amendments, including that divided upon before dinner, it is admitted that the Amendment goes too far or it does not express its purpose, and we are invited to find ideas. ["No, no!"] At any rate, we are invited to put ideas into form. That is not the proper mode of conducting a Debate of this kind—that Amendments are to be put down, and then we are to be told, "We do not mean those, but something very different." ["No, no!"] I say it has been done over and over again. The words of an Amendment were not the proper words, and something else was suggested. I have made this reference not in any way of hostile criticism. We entirely differ from the right hon. Gentleman upon the construction of this Amendment. We have taken the best advice we could upon it, and we have applied to it a totally different construction to that put upon it now. We had no notice of the construction to be placed upon it.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It was the construction of the Mover of the Amendment.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It is totally contrary to our construction. When we saw the Amendment on the Votes we placed upon it the best construction we could. The speech of the
    274
    Mover does not fix the construction of the Amendment. If the right hon. Gentleman desires to raise the question whether it would be wise to vest these appointments in the Crown, that is a fair question to raise; but it ought to be raised, as it was raised in the only Colonial Statute referred to, by a positive enactment to that effect.
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: I would submit to the right hon. Gentleman, with all respect, that he places the Opposition in a very difficult position. If we move Amendments, raising very grave Constitutional questions, the right hon. Gentleman censures us because, he says, we are raising points that have been raised over and over again; if we really try to amend the Bill on subjects that cannot well excite Party opinion to any high pitch, then the right hon. Gentleman says that we do not know our own mind—that we have not drafted our Amendments properly. Does the right hon. Gentleman, on many of these points under Clauses 3 and 4, want the Opposition—whom I utterly deny are Parliamentary idiots—to suggest Amendments without their being met, or will he meet them on argumentative grounds, and be prepared to make concessions in the drafting of the Amendments? If the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to make us those concessions in the drafting of Amendments we are prepared to make similar concessions to him. How can you make it a matter of charge against the Opposition that when you do not agree with our Amendments you have really no discussion? Why do you blame us when we endeavour to obtain your assistance in settling a form of words that will meet the case? I appeal to the First Lord of the Treasury to do his best to secure that the progress of the Committee may be perfectly quiet and harmonious. [A laugh.] What is there to laugh at in that? Do hon. Gentlemen want the reverse of quiet, because there are hon. Members in this House who will gratify them. When we endeavour to meet the Government by altering the terms of our Amendments, it is very hard to bring against us the charge that we do not understand our position, or the position of the Bill, or the position of the Government, and that the terms of our Amendments are altogether impossible. I only ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will insert in the

    275
    Bill any word which will vest in the most restrictive manner the appointment of Irish Judges in the Crown? All we want is that the actual nomination and selection of the Judges shall be vested in the Crown, the Irish Parliament retaining full power of criticising the appointment, if a bad one.
    MR. BLAKEsaid, it seemed to him that if the question was really the substitution, for the existing method, of popular election there was little difference of opinion in the Committee. There was practically no difference of opinion on the point that the method of appointing Judges which existed here and in all our Colonies, so far as he knew, was the most advisable method; and he was quite sure that those who constructed the Bill and those who were supporting it had no desire that any other method should replace it. They did not share the opinion of the hon. Member who had suggested that the appointments should be on the advice of the English Executive. Upon the general question of the method of the appointment of Judges, he doubted whether any single Member of the House dissented from the view that the appointments ought to be made by the Crown on the advice of the responsible Executive. If it was proposed to prescribe the method of appointing Judges, let it be done in the proper place in connection with the tenure of the office of Judges in the 26th clause. They might have a sentence analogous to the sentence which the hon. Gentleman read out of a Colonial Constitution providing that the Judges should be appointed by the Crown on the advice of the Irish Executive. But it was somewhat of a disabling change to provide that they should not alter the mode of appointment as was provided by the Amendment, and they did not know how far it would reach. To an Amendment in the proper place vesting the appointments in the Crown on the advice of the Irish Executive there would not in his view be the slightest objection.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down has materially assisted us in coming to a conclusion, because from what he has said it appears there is very little difference of opinion between him and the Mover of the Amendment. The only difference appears to be as to the
    276
    place the Amendment should occupy. As to that, I shall only say that, as we are dealing now with restrictions upon the legislative capacity of the Irish Legislature, I should certainly have thought this, which will be a legislative restriction in restraint of legislation, would properly come in the place in which it has been moved. Although I have said there would appear to be very little difference between the hon. Member opposite and those who support the Amendment, I cannot say as much for the Government in the position they have taken up. They made objections of two kinds to the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite. Their first was an objection of detail, and their, second was an objection of principle. The objection of detail was that this Amendment was so wide that it would preclude the Irish Legislature reducing the number of Judges, or interfering in any way with the character of the appointments. Suppose it did, would not that he a matter which would be perfectly safe in the hands of the Imperial Parliament? It was said the number of Judges in Ireland was a scandal, and it might be that that scandal was originally due to the action of preceding British Governments; but that scandal might have been removed long ago if it had not been for the opposition of the Irish Members. If they now wished to reduce the number, there would not be the slightest difficulty in insuring attention to their wishes in the Imperial Parliament. The objection of the Prime Minister has been fully met by the Amendment to the Amendment. If the Amendment were limited to the "mode" of appointment, that would leave absolutely to the Irish Legislature the power of dealing with the number of Judges. The matter of detail is a small question, but the matter of principle is of much greater importance; and this is only one of several Amendments which the Opposition have on the Paper, some of which go much further than the Amendment under discussion. The Solicitor General said that where the responsibility was, there should be the power, and that as the Government proposed to make the Irish Legislature responsible for peace and order that Legislature should be given the right to appoint the Judges. But there must be some fallacy here, for the Government expressly reserves the power

    277
    of appointing Judges for six years, and by Sub-section 5 of Clause 4 they lay down that the powers of the new Legislature shall not extend to the making of any law whereby any person might be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or whereby private property might be taken without just compensation. The Government are well aware that they are now approaching one of the most important questions arising under this Bill. It is one of the three or four great questions which separate the Government from those hon. Members who are prepared to give a large measure of self-government to Ireland—[Ironical Ministerial cheers and laughter]—but who are not prepared to accept this Bill. Some hon. Members cheer ironically. If I were going to write an article for The Daily News, I should, no doubt, refer to the "malignant and insulting interruptions" of hon. Members. It appears to be thought by some hon. Members that there is no one in this House who is prepared to grant Ireland a large scheme of local self-government, whilst not being ready to grant the right of appointing the Judges. To show these hon. Members that they are in error, I would point to an hon. Member of this House who is in that position. I do not see him. It is a most singular thing, at the very moment when this point comes on for discussion, the Secretary for Scotland is absent. The right hon. Gentleman declared as late as May, 1887, that he would never be willing to hand over the appointment of the Judges and Magistrates to a Party represented by hon. Members below the Gangway opposite. Everyone in this House knows that we have not to deal in Ireland with the same state of things with which we had to deal when granting Constitutions to the great self-governing Colonies. In the case of Ireland we have to deal with a country which is divided, in which there are two religions and two Parties which have been separated by bitter controversies for a great number of years. The Government themselves admitted that in view of this fact it was necessary to provide certain safeguards, in order that these differences might be covered by the protecting ægis of Imperial authority. But these are not the only difficulties in the case. There has been a bitter feud between Ireland and this country, and,
    278
    consequently, the Government feel, as we do, that it would not do to trust absolutely the new Irish Legislature with unlimited powers respecting questions that might arise between Ireland and England. How do they propose to protect themselves? By keeping in their own hands the appointment of Judges. They provide for the appointment of two Exchequer Judges, before whom questions in which England is concerned will go. I am treating this as an admission on the part of the Government that it is necessary to protect interests which are threatened by these serious differences of opinion. It is proposed that we should protect the pecuniary interests of England by reserving in our own hands the appointment of Judges. Would it, then, not be selfish to limit our protection of the minority in Ireland by enacting that after six years the appointment of the Judges, who would decide questions affecting the lives and property of that minority should pass into the hands of the Irish Government? This will be one of the most critical and important divisions on the whole Bill. I cannot understand why, although we are referred again and again by the Government to Colonial Constitutions, our arguments are always put aside when we, in our turn, refer to Colonial Constitutions.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We are perfectly ready to consider the question whether we should adopt a provision such as that which has been read.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not understand my right hon. Friend before to say even as much as he has said now; but, at all events, that is not enough. I will prove that, I think, to the satisfaction of himself. Does he admit that we have a point here, and does he pledge himself at a future stage of the Bill to endeavour to give us satisfaction? That would be something to tell us.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I said the point was an entirely new point to us. We construed the Amendment in a totally different manner; but the point now raised, being new to us, we are quite willing to consider it.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I confess I really find myself unable to understand how the point can be new to the Government. I do wish my right hon. Friend would consult with his Colleague, the Secretary for Scotland, about

    279
    it. It is not new to him. His speeches in 1886–7 were full of this point. His chief objections were based upon this matter, and I confess I cannot understand how a matter of this cardinal importance can have failed to come under my right hon. Friend's notice, and have been discussed from every point of view. My right hon. Friend has stated that he misunderstood this particular Amendment. [Cries of "No, no!"] Well, that he had misconstrued it; but to what extent has he done so? [Mr. ROBY: No, no!] Let my right hon. Friend contradict me if I am wrong. I really cannot accept the hon. Member for Eccles as the interpreter-in-ordinary to the Prime Minister. How can it be that the right hon. Gentleman misconstrued the Amendment? The Amendment, at any rate, included the mode of appointment; it raised the whole question of the mode of appointment, which the Committee are now discussing, as well as the appointments. If, therefore, my right hon. Friend had regarded the Amendment beforehand with a view to this Debate, he surely must have contemplated this question as well as the larger one in which it was included. We are again and again confronted with the Canadian and other Colonial Constitutions. But it must be borne in mind that in the case of Canada, it was not with the Constitution of the Dominion Parliament we were dealing, but with the Inter-provincial Constitutions of Parliament, the position of the Central or Dominion Parliament in regard to the Provincial Parliament, and in the case of Canada, for the same reasons which should govern and control our action—the sharp division of opinion between two religions in the country—the Criminal Law and procedure, the appointment of Judges, and the mode of appointment, were reserved to the Dominion Parliament. Now, Sir, if that is the analogy to which we are referred, we claim that that should be observed in the present Bill. In these circumstances, I will again ask my right hon. Friend whether he will, at some future stage, insert words to prevent the Irish Legislature from dealing with the mode of appointment of Judges? I think that it is a reasonable request, and if my right hon. Friend will say the Government will undertake to bring up some proposal to give effect
    280
    at a subsequent stage to what is contemplated by the Amendment, I think it will tend to facilitate the progress of the discussion.
    MR. BRYCE: My right hon. Friend who has just sat down cannot, I think, have heard, or must have misunderstood, the interpretation put upon the Amendment by the Leader of the Opposition. We had been discussing words which had been at first taken in different senses by the Government and by the Mover of the Amendment, and the Government had only subsequently gathered the sense in which the Amendment is now pressed, which, up to the present, was really nonexistent. I do not think there is any substantial difference between the two sides of the House regarding the particular point on which the Leader of the Opposition had dwelt. When the Amendment was first put down, we placed a totally different construction upon it from which it is now explained the Mover intended to attach to it. We understood it to mean that the Irish Legislature were to have no power to deal with the number of the Judges or the conditions affecting their offices; but that everything relating to the Judges was to be left to the Imperial Parliament. As soon as the point was put to the Government that what was meant was the mode of the appointment of Irish Judges, which it was desired should not be left in the future to popular election, we admitted that this point was fair matter for consideration. We are still willing to consider it, but we submit that this is not the time. In the first place, the form of words in the amended Amendment, would tend to stereotype the existing method of appointment in every case; and it might probably be found that there were possible improvements in the methods of appointment which it would be advisable to allow the Irish Legislature to effect. For instance, the Irish Master of the Rolls is appointed in a different way from the other Irish Judges, though there is no reason, in the nature of things, why that should be. The Government cannot, therefore, accept the Amendment, even in its amended form, because we do not think that the Irish Legislature ought necessarily to be disabled from making any change whatever, small or great, in the present modes of appointment. But what we feel is this: If there be any real danger that the Irish Legislature would lend itself to dangerous changes—such as, for

    281
    instance, appointment by popular vote, a method which has been adopted with most unfortunate results in many of the United States—the Government are quite ready to consider the propriety of preventing such a step. But it has never occurred to us—certainly not to myself, though I am pretty familiar with the subject—for a moment that that was the precise object which the Mover of the Amendment had in view. Clause 26, relating to the tenure of the Judges, would seem to be the fitting place to raise this question. We cannot raise it here; but when we come to that clause we shall be perfectly willing to consider it, and in these circumstances I submit that the proper course would be for the Amendment now to be withdrawn.
    SIR H. JAMESobserved that the Chancellor of the Duchy had placed the question in a most remarkable position. It was a question of legislation, and the right hon. Gentleman had just said that the Irish Legislature ought not to be prevented from dealing with the mode of appointment in any way it pleased.
    MR. BRYCEreplied that he had said nothing of the kind. What he did say was that he did not think it right to withdraw from the Irish Legislature all power of making Amendments, great or small, in the present modes of appointment.
    SIR H. JAMESsaid, that this was the Legislative Clause, and Clause 26 had no relation whatever to the subject of legislation. It was perfectly foreign to that subject, and if they now were to draw this Bill symmetrically and follow the wishes of the distinguished draughtsman of the Bill, this subject must be left out of the Bill altogether, or inserted in the clause under discussion. He could not conceive that anyone would put upon the Amendment the construction that it was to deal only with the diminution or increase of numbers. It must include the mode of appointment, and that question must have been considered by the Government.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, the Chancellor of the Duchy had stated that his right hon. Friend below him (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had put an entirely new construction on the Amendment.
    MR. BRYCE: A construction we did not put upon it.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, the construction his right hon. Friend put upon
    282
    it was the construction he himself explained in his speech in moving the Amendment. He could not congratulate the Government upon their power of interpreting plain English words. Such perversity of interpretation was only to be explained in one way. The Government did not wish to put the natural interpretation on the words, in order that they might have an easier case to answer, and that alone was the explanation of the attitude they had taken up. He should certainly go to a Division on the question.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I really cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman should have thought fit to import a new tone into the discussion by saying we did not wish to understand or did not care rightly to interpret his words because we did not wish to understand them. The hon. Gentleman must know very well that that is not the explanation. What happened? The hon. Member made his speech and moved his Amendment, and then the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had to explain and annul the meaning of the Amendment. It was at the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman that the new form for the Amendment was pressed upon the House.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he only dealt with the matter very briefly, and not as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, at all events the right hon. Gentleman would admit that the real intention of the Amendment had been conveyed to hon. Members.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the Government should not only meet the prejudices of his hon. Friends, but carry out their wishes.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, coming to Clause 3, they found themselves in an extraordinary position. They had done their best to meet and reconcile prejudices; but the right hon. Gentleman did not seem to be satisfied. Might he be allowed to point out that this clause was a clause excepting from the jurisdiction of the Irish Legislature certain large-fields of legislation? The Amendment, however, proposed to except a specific detail in a specific manner—namely, the subject-matter relating to the appointment of Judges. He quite agreed himself it was a most important de-

    283
    tail. He did not want to underrate or minimise the importance of this Amendment; but, as he had said, there was a large branch of legislation which would come under the limitation of powers, and the Government contended that the matter should be dealt with on Clause 26. They were about, by this Bill, to give the Irish Legislature power to make laws for securing the good order and government of their country; and it was absurd to say that that Legislature, who were fit to make those laws, were not fit to appoint the Judges who were to administer the laws they might impose. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, who had been responsible for the order and the good government of that great Municipality, would scarcely undertake to say that he would care to be responsible for that order and that good government if the Municipal Body had no Executive power over those entrusted with the carrying out of the laws that Body might make.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the Municipality in question did not appoint one of its Magistrates, Stipendiaries, or Recorders, who administered the law.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, the Municipality did not make the laws which the Magistrates, the Stipendiaries, or the Recorders administered, whereas the Irish Legislature would make those laws. He, however, had been referring to the other Municipal officers, and not to Judges. If the Legislature was capable of making laws it was surely capable of having them carried out. He thought the Chancellor of the Duchy had very clearly defined the position, and he need say no more with regard to it.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSON(who was received with cries of "Divide!") said, he would only occupy a minute or two's time, and he thought no man had a better right to speak on this question than he had, because he represented that body of the Irish population who would be presided over by these Judges. He must say that he was entirely in the dark as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government with regard to this question. If the Judges were appointed by the Irish Executive they would be appointed, as they now were, by the Independent Irish Lord Chancellor, who, if they might credit newspaper reports, would be the hon. and learned Member for North Louth.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: As good as Ashbourne, anyhow.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, when they had a Land League Government the object of that Government would be to bring the law into harmony with the feelings of the majority of the Irish people. He would not look upon it as a concession to allow the Judges to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland under a Home Rule Government. The Party he belonged to would look upon a concession of that kind as absolutely fatal to their liberty, their freedom, and their safety. They knew that the future Irish Judges would bring the law into harmony with the wishes of the Irish people, which was to make the law of the land synonymous with the law of the League. They did not care whether the law was so brought into harmony by Judges chosen one way, or elected as in various other places. He would support the Amendment, because he looked upon it as a foundation-stone for further proposals. [Cries of "Oh!"] There was only one possibility of establishing anything like justice under Home Rule, and that was that the Judges should be appointed by the Imperial Parliament. To vest that power in any other authority would be absolutely rejected by him and his friends. The Government, however, appeared to refuse any concession in this direction.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid, that concessions had been made over and over again. The hon. and gallant Gentleman spread the question over a wide field; but the right hon. Member for West Birmingham brought it to a point; and he wished to make sure that the position of the Government, and of himself, was appreciated. With reference to the appointment of the Judges by the Crown, they had made a promise during the Debate. In principle they had no objection to that course; but in practice it might be found objectionable. If they remained of the same mind, they would give effect to that proposition; but if they saw the expediency of altering their intention, then others would have an opportunity of expressing their views. Their objection to the present proposal was that it was a disabling measure. In their view, this should be done by a positive proposal. He would point to the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy with regard to this matter. He

    285
    said that there might be particular matters as to which there ought to be legislation, and with which the Irish Legislature should have power to deal. He could see no reason why the appointment of the Master of the Rolls should stand on a different footing to that of other Judges. They must, otherwise, refuse to shut out the Irish Legislature from interfering with matters in which it might be in their power to make very important improvements. The Government were not aware of any objection to the insertion of such a provision in the Bill; but it would be necessary to consider in what form and where it ought to be inserted.
    Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN and Mr. J. J. CLANCYrose.
    MR. SPEAKERcalled upon
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN, who said, he would not stand between the hon. and learned Gentleman on the opposite Bench for more than a moment. He merely rose because of the reference that bad been made to him by his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. His right hon. Friend wished his own position and that of the Government to be well understood in regard to this matter. He (Mr. J. Chamberlain) certainly did think he understood his right hon. Friend perfectly; but he could not say that, his statement was consistent with the extraordinarily rigid speech of the Chief Secretary, because, after his right hon. Friend had expressed his willingness to give a favourable consideration to the principle of the Amendment, the Chief Secretary got up and renewed, in the strongest possible terms, the protest, of the Solicitor General, and said that where responsibility was given there power must also be given, so that if power were given by this Bill to the Irish Legislature to elect Judges, they must, à fortiori, be trusted as to the mode of election. Although he thought the popular mode of election of Judges was inadvisable, yet if the majority of the Representatives of the people in Ireland should in the future desire that the election should be popular instead of the Judges being appointed by the Crown, he did not see on what ground, accord-
    286
    ing to the principle of the Chief Secretary, there could be any objection. He thought, therefore, the Unionists were bound to take a Division by way of asserting the principle they desired to have accepted—that with regard to those matters as to which they had reason to believe the lives or property of the minority would be in danger they wore entitled to have safeguards in the Bill.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, he would not detain the Committee. He desired to say, on behalf of those with whom he acted, that they did not hind themselves beforehand to vote for any Amendment of the character that was suggested by the Prime Minister. They were entirely in accord with the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) as to the expediency of vesting the appointment of the Judges in the Crown, acting on the advice of the responsible Executive. He had never heard any Irish Member express his preference for any other mode, and he did not believe that an Irish Parliament would propose any other kind of appointment. This, however, was an exclusively Irish matter, and the Irish Legislature ought, therefore, to have the power to deal with the subject as it liked. He desired to safeguard the position of his Party, not only with regard to this concession, but also with regard to some other concessions, or promised concessions, as to which they must not he taken beforehand as assenting to them.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, it would spare a Division, and so save time, if the Amendment were amended as proposed, and a Division taken upon it in its amended form.
    Question, "That the words 'mode of' be inserted before the word 'appointment,'" put, and agreed to.
    Question put, "That the words '(6) The mode of appointment of Judges or Magistrates or,' be there inserted."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 255; Noes 291.—(Division List, No. 116.)
    And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.—(No. 342.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 4) BILL.—(No. 354.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  NEW WRIT.
  For Linlithgowshire, v. Peter M'Lagan, esquire, Manor of Northstead.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to amend the Law relating to the Madras and Bombay Armies." [Madras and Bombay Armies Bill [Lords].
  Also, a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Education Department under 'The Elementary Education Act, 1870,' to enable the School Boards for Chiswick, Haworth, and West Ham to put in force 'The Lands Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845;' and the Acts amending the same." [Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Chiswick, &c.) Bill [Lords].
  Railway Rates and Charges,—That they do give leave to the Lord Balfour of Burleigh to attend in order to his being examined as a Witness before the Select Committee appointed by this House on Railway Rates and Charges, his Lordship (in his place) consenting.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
  On Motion of Sir John Hibbert, Bill to grant money for the purpose of certain local loans, ordered to be brought in by Sir John Hibbert and Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 383.]

  COUNTY OF THE CITY OF GLASGOW BILL.
  Select Committee on the County of the City of Glasgow Bill nominated of,—Dr. Cameron, Mr. Donald Crawford, and Sir Herbert Maxwell, with two Members to be added by the Committee of Selection.—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)

  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS' NAMES BILL—(No. 164.)
  Read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.
  Ordered, That the Members for Counties do prepare lists of the Christian and surnames of Commissioners for executing the Land Tax Acts for their respective Counties.
  Ordered, That Members for Boroughs and Places having Commissioners executing exclusive jurisdiction within the same under the said Acts do prepare similar lists of Commissioners for executing the said Acts within such Boroughs and Places respectively.
  Ordered, That Members for other Boroughs and Places do prepare similar lists of Commissioners for executing the said Acts for the Counties in which such last-mentioned Boroughs and Places are situate.—(Sir John Hibbert.)

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL. (No. 35.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  FIRMS REGISTRATION BILL.—(No. 119.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS BILL.—(No. 65.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS (No. 2) BILL. (No. 248.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Herbert Gardner, Bill to amend the Law with respect to the sale of Agricultural Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Herbert Gardner, Mr. John Morley and the Lord Advocate.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 384.]

  IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Herbert Gardner, Bill to extend the operation of "The Improvement of Land Act, 1864," so far as regards Scotland, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Herbert Gardner and Sir George Trevelyan.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 385.]
  House adjourned at twenty minutes after Twelve o'clock.