COMMITTEE. [Progress, 2nd June.]

HC Deb 05 June 1893 vol 13 cc224-86

[THIRTEENTH NIGHT.]

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Legislative Authority.

Clause 3 (Exceptions from powers of Irish Legislature).

* ADMIRAL FIELD (Sussex, Eastbourne)

moved to amend the clause by inserting at the end of line 1, page 2, 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. 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 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, 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 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 (Middlesex, Ealing)

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 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 FIELD

said, 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. HOBHOUSE

said, 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 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— 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,) Aberdeen, S.

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. HOBHOUSE

said, 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. HEALY

asked 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. HOBHOUSE

remarked 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. TOMLINSON (Preston)

said, 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 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 LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

observed, 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 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. HEALY

desired 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 CHAIRMAN

thought it would not, on this clause, be in Order to discuss such a topic.

MR. JAMES LOWTHER

said, 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,) Forfar

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. HANBURY (Preston)

said, 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 the words "treaties and other" been inserted?

MR. R. G. WEBSTER (St. Pancras, E.)

said, 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. BYRNE (Essex, Walthamstow)

was 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. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)

asked 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. RIGBY

considered 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 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 (Manchester, E.)

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 (Cornwall, Bodmin)

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. HEALY

said, 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. HOBHOUSE

said, 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 conciliate the Opposition, was not the wisest course for the Government to adopt. He begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.

MR. T. M. HEALY

objected 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. JAMES (Bury, Lancashire)

rose 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 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. HEALY

said 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 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. TOMLINSON (Preston)

rose 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 (Birmingham, E.)

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 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 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 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. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

said, 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. WEBSTER

said, 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. COURTNEY

said, 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? 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 (Paddington, S.)

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 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 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. 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. TOMLINSON

was 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. ROBY (Lancashire, S.E., Eccles)

rose—

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. YERBURGH (Chester)

said, 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 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 (Dublin University)

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 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 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 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. RENTOUL (Down, E.)

said, 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 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 BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)

thought 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 governed by our Merchant Shipping Act,

MR. RENTOUL

said, 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. JAMES

thought 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 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 CARMARTHEN (Lambeth, Brixton)

said, 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. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, he was surprised to hear that the Go- 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. YERBURGH (Chester)

said, 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. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)

pointed 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 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. BARTLEY

then 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 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 BOWLES

supported 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 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 BALFOUR (Leeds, Central)

moved 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 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 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- 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 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 BALFOUR

said, 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 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 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 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 (Paddington, S.)

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- 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 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 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 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 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 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 BALFOUR

said, 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 BALFOUR

then 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 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 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. BLAKE (Longford, S.)

said, 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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. JAMES

observed 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. BRYCE

replied 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. JAMES

said, 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 BALFOUR

said, 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 BALFOUR

said, the construction his right hon. Friend put upon 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. BALFOUR

said, he only dealt with the matter very briefly, and not as suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, 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. BALFOUR

said, the Government should not only meet the prejudices of his hon. Friends, but carry out their wishes.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, 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- 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. CHAMBERLAIN

said, the Municipality in question did not appoint one of its Magistrates, Stipendiaries, or Recorders, who administered the law.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, 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 (Armagh, N.)

(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 SAUNDERSON

said, 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. GLADSTONE

said, 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 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. CLANCY

rose.

MR. SPEAKER

called 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- 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. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

said, 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. HEALY

said, 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.