§ [sixteenth night.]
§ Considered in Committee.
§ (In the Committee.)
§ Legislative Authority.
§ Clause 3 (Exceptions from powers of Irish Legislature.)
§ * MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)said, he wished to move, in line 7, to leave out all after "trade," in order to insert "bounties to promote Irish industries." The Prime Minister, he thought, would acknowledge that this was a question of very great importance in connection with the Bill. It was impossible to conceive that it could be ignored. They had cleared away the question of Protection, because, as the Bill stood, the Irish Legislature would not be allowed to interfere with trade with any place out of Ireland. He supposed they might take it for granted that it was the intention of the Government that all idea of Protection from an outside source was to be prohibited by the Bill. But the question of bounties would be, for all practical purposes, the same as Protection in its influence, especially on Great Britain. It was clear, from the peculiar wording 542 of the clause, that the question of bounties was not excluded. The question of bounties to promote Irish industries would not be one affecting trade outside Ireland; but it would be one affecting trade in Ireland, and, therefore, would not be excluded from the scope of the power of the Irish Legislature. He took it that the Bill contemplated giving the Irish Legislature power to grant Government bounties for the promotion of Irish industries if they thought fit to do so. They might go a step farther in this respect, and claim that, in suggesting the possibility of the Irish Parliament doing this, they were not imputing to that Body any sinister or wicked intention. One might fairly conclude that oven if the Irish Legislature did think proper to do this they would be acting on what they considered to be a high patriotic motive. Therefore, he thought he should not in this instance, as he had done in the past, come under the censure of the Prime Minister as imputing wrong motives to the Irish Legislature. They must, he thought, argue this matter strictly on the ground that he had sketched out—namely, that the Irish Parliament, under the framing of the Bill, was to have the power of granting bounties, and that they could adopt that policy with the fair and proper idea of fulfilling their duty to their country and their constituents. As a Free Trader, he believed that if an Irish Legislature did adopt a system of bounties it would be making a mistake. But they should recognise the fact that there was another side to the question, and that persons of bonâ fide opinions and intentions might pass a measure to create bounties, really thinking that they were doing what was good for their country. The Committee was not ignorant of the statements Irish Nationalists had made on the subject of bounties. It might be taken for granted that a great number of Irish Members, not only Parnellites and Anti-Parnellites, but many others, had very often expressed the opinion that it would be for the benefit of Ireland if bounties were adopted. Mr. Parnell, as they knew, held a strong opinion to that effect, and Mr. Parnell's opinions would continue for years to come to be an important factor in forming public opinion in Ireland. Mr. 543 Parnell had said that the only solution of the Irish Question which would be satisfactory to the Irish people would be to allow the Irish Legislature to protect its own industries, either by bounties or in some other way. It was suggested that Mr. Parnell subsequently withdrew that statement, though he (Mr. Bartley) doubted the fact. But, even if he did, the fact remained that a large section of the Irish people still held the opinion that bounties would be beneficial. Well, if bounties were granted in Ireland the effect would be not only to protect Irish industries, but to protect them against the interests of the United Kingdom. They who were English and Scotch and Welsh Members must emphatically protest in every way against bounties being introduced which would tend to injure the trade of Great Britain. He did not think any Irish Member below the Gangway would get up and candidly say that he did not conceive it possible, or even probable, that the Irish Legislature would adopt a system of bounties. What was being done in Ireland at the present moment? Why, the Dublin Corporation, in purchasing paving sets for Dublin, preferred to pay for Irish granite 24s. a ton, when they could have got as good—some people said better—granite from Wales—[Cries of "No!"]—for 19s. a ton.
§ MR. HUNTERrose to Order. He wished to know whether contracts made by the Dublin Corporation were relevant to the Amendment on the Paper?
THE CHAIRMANIf the hon. Member is going into detail he will be out of Order. I cannot say that he is out of Order in giving an illustration.
§ * MR. BARTLEYheld that his illustration was a particularly apt one. He was showing that, even under the existing law, the Dublin people preferred to pay a larger price for Irish goods than they would have had to pay for British goods. [Cries of "No!"] He was not blaming the Dublin Corporation, or suggesting that it showed a tendency to corruption. All over Ireland, on Boards of Guardians and elsewhere, it was sought to procure an advantage for Irish goods over the goods of Great Britain; and if that was the case now, surely it would be infinitely more so when Ireland had this Legislature, and when it would have been put into express words that Ireland 544 should have the power of altering her trade relations, and, by implication, that she should have the power of granting bounties as against English goods. To quote precedents, practically all the Colonies took the view that it was to their advantage to grant bounties, or to adopt other means of fostering and promoting and increasing their own manufactures. He thought the Colonies were mistaken in their policy. Still, the fact remained that they honestly believed they were doing good to themselves by adopting these measures, and when the Irish people had a Legislature they would hold the same belief. In America, again, the fiscal system was based on Protection. It was urged that in the past England had adopted a protective policy against Ireland, and that England had done all she could to destroy Irish industries. Well, no one could regret that more than the Unionist Members did at present. They wore all agreed that the policy of this country years ago was wrong in every sense, and most unjustifiable; but the fact that England had been wrong in the past in no way excused the Committee in passing a measure which would enable the Irish to do the same thing. Retaliation could not be justified. Many useful comparisons might be made between this Bill and the Bill of 1886, which would tend to show the recklessness and growing callousness of the Government concerning the welfare of the United Kingdom as opposed to Ireland. The Bill of 1886 met the difficulty to which he was now drawing attention. It proposed that the Irish Legislature should in no way interfere with trade in the broadest and widest sense. The laws concerning trade in Ireland were to be Imperial laws. Therefore, in 1886 the Irish Legislature was to be prohibited from making laws concerning bounties, whereas there was no such limitation in the present Bill, the Irish Legislature being entitled to grant bounties if it thought proper to do so. They might fairly ask why had this important and vital change been made—why had the Government changed front so completely since 1886 on this most important point? He could not for a moment think that it was accidental. It was clear that the change had been made as a sort of compromise, judging from the remarks made by the Prime Minister 545 yesterday. There had evidently been a sort of bargain entered into—
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEWill the hon. Member give the reference to the Bill of 1886?
§ MR. BARTLEYYes; Clause 3, Sub-section 9. The word "trade" was used without qualification coming before "navigation;" but in the present Bill the words were "trade with any place out of Ireland". The word "trade," pure and simple, of course, included bounties; but the words "trade with any place out of Ireland" would not cover bounties. If the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said that he meant those words to include bounties he would accept the Amendment, and there would be no occasion for him (Mr. Bartley) to make any further observations. But it was clear, from the remarks made by the right hon. Gentleman yesterday, that he considered the people of Ireland had, in accepting the present clause, given up a great deal. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Irish people, by accepting the conditions laid down in the Bill, had given up what they might fairly and legitimately have claimed—namely, the right to legislate on all subjects in connection with trade. The right hon. Gentleman, presumably, had inserted these words, "trade with any place out of Ireland," as a sort of compromise to satisfy the Irish people. The argument would probably be used by some that, however willing the Irish people might be to give bounties, they would have no funds for the purpose. It had, in fact, been said more than once that the amount of funds at their disposal would not enable them to do this. That was altogether a mistake. They would be able to impose taxes to any amount, except as regarded Customs, Excise, and Postage. They might have a graduated Income Tax, and 1d. under Schedule D on incomes exceeding £500 a year would bring in £11,000. One shilling put on incomes of £1,000 a year under that Schedule alone would realise nearly £ 100,000 a year, which would be a considerable sum to grant in the shape of bounties. In addition to this, the Irish Legislature would be at liberty to impose taxes on landlords, or in any other way they thought proper; therefore it could not be said that they had no means of paying these bounties. They could bleed 546 the richer parts of Ulster, and they could use the money they would so raise to encourage and promote the trades of other parts of Ireland. He would go further, and say that they might do this, in the bonâ fide opinion of many persons, with a fair and reasonable amount of equity and justice. Within certain moderate rules, no doubt, the richer parts of a country were bound to assist in developing and improving the richer part; but the danger was that it might be done to an excessive extent, and this Bill would be a great temptation to the Irish people, because it would enable them to raise taxes in the loyal parts of Ireland to encourage and assist people who they (the Unionists) believed to be the reverse of loyal. But that was not all. In addition to the power of taxation the Irish people would receive £500,000 a year from this country—a payment which, so far as they could see, was going to be made in perpetuity. The working classes of the United Kingdom were going to be taxed, therefore, for the benefit of Ireland, and the money when paid over would be granted in the form of bounties to Irish manufacturers to destroy the trades of the working people in Great Britain. [Laughter.] There was no doubt the money would be used in that way. It was all very well for hon. Gentlemen to laugh, but he conceived the logic of his statement was absolute. If we were going to pay £500,000 a year to Ireland (as we were) and Ireland was going to grant bounties to promote their industries, Ireland was going to do it with British money. There was an old saying, "Thou shalt not seethe a kid in its mother's milk;" but here the Government were going to seethe a mother in her own milk. It seemed to him strange that at the end of the 19th century they should have come to this—that Conservative Members should have to be found pressing what was once called the Liberal Party to do nothing to injure Free Trade. In the old days the Liberal Party would have repudiated the idea of doing anything to encourage bounties; but here they were passing a Bill which would not only give Ireland power, but absolutely encourage her, to foster her industries by means of bounties. This was a matter which concerned Great Britain very keenly. He was not going to dwell on 547 the effect of these bounties in Ireland—Members from Ireland would be able to form a bettor idea of that matter than he possibly could. He believed, however, they would be used largely to interfere with the prosperity of Ulster. He could conceive them being used in such a way as to hamper and injure the prosperous parts of Ulster to the advantage of the other parts of Ireland. It might be urged on the other side that that might be a fair and legitimate work for the Irish Legislature; but the main point for them to consider was the effect of these bounties on British trade. Without doubt they would be used against us. There would be an effort made in every possible direction to foster the different industries of Ireland. In such English districts as that he represented—a district 1 1–3 miles square, with a population of 100,000—where work was scarce and competition was becoming keener and keener every year the effect of these bounties was certain to be felt. They were told that this Home Rule Bill merely meant that they were going to give Ireland the power to regulate its own affairs, but it now turned out that it would enable Ireland to foster industries against us, and to minimise still further the trade which our people now enjoyed. If hon. Members would read the recent speeches of the Lord Mayor of Dublin and others, they would see that the Irish people meant to foster all sorts of Irish industries. Agriculture in this country was bad enough at present; but if bounties were to be put on Irish butter, bacon, pork, horses, and so on, our condition would be infinitely worse, and, further, if we in England were to find the money to pay these bounties we should simply be paying for the rope that was to hang ourselves. In the United Kingdom it would not be tolerated for a moment that one part of the country should be able to grant bounties while the other should not. He could not do better, he thought, than read a few words the Prime Minister had made use of yesterday on this very subject. He said—
That main consideration was this: that the United Kingdom, from geographical circumstances as well as from circumstances which were social and moral, constituted one great and vast trade circle. If they departed from the principle of uniformity in trade matters, they might, perhaps, satisfy to a greater extent 548 the abstract idea of the right of local legislation; but by satisfying that abstract idea they might inflict an immense practical injury. It was necessary, in the interests of Ireland, herself, that this uniformity of Commercial Law should prevail throughout these Islands. His right hon. Friend had not noticed this all-important question—how the producers of this country, the men who regulated and carried on the distribution of the products of its enormous, its immeasurable industries, would be affected by the introduction of different Commercial Laws within the limits of the United Kingdom.That seemed to him (Mr. Bartley) as strong an argument as he could possibly use. The question he had ventured to raise was purely and simply whether the present Government really did or did not intend to allow Ireland to have bounties? If the Government did not intend Ireland to have the power of giving bounties to promote its industries against those of England let them say so distinctly, and let them adopt some such words as those he proposed. But if they did intend to give the power to Ireland let it be clearly stated, so that the public would know what was about to be done. He was sure no Irish Member would gainsay anything he had said as to the desire of Ireland for bounties. He did not hear any dissent. As an English Member he was bound to see that the industries of his own particular branch of the United Kingdom wore not interfered with by this system of bounties; and he thought they had a right to demand that the Government should put into the Bill such words as would make it absolutely certain that no bounties could be granted.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 7, to leave out the words "with any place out of Ireland," in order to insert the words "bounties to promote Irish industries."—(Mr. Bartley.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEThe hon. Gentleman who has just sat down asks for a distinct and explicit answer, in the shape of "yes" or "no," to his proposition. Well, I have been for some time panting for the opportunity to give the hon. Member a plain answer, but have not been able to do so owing to the length of the hon. Member's speech. There were some portions of the hon. Member's speech which I need not notice, the great case of the paving 549 stones in Dublin being one of them, because I am not aware that the Amendment can have the smallest effect upon paving stones; but I infer that the hon. Member has no sympathy with the movement constantly made, and sometimes decided in this House, to compel Public Departments always to accept English tenders against Irish or foreign tenders. The hon. Member can have no sympathy with that, and yet he attacks the Dublin Corporation for, as he says, doing that very thing.
§ MR. BARTLEYI did not attack the Dublin Corporation. I said there was a great deal to be said for the course they had taken.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEThe hon. Member did not say a great deal for that course. He appeared to me to condemn the Dublin Corporation. ["No!"] However, as the point is not material I will not waste time on it. The question of external trade is absolutely excluded from the purview of the present Bill. I quite agree that the hon. Member did not impute anything strange or monstrous in supposing that Irish Members would possibly develop protective tendencies if the opening were afforded; but I cannot agree with him when he goes on and says the certain effect of the passing of this Bill, if bounties are allowed, will be that the system of bounties will be used, not merely to promote Irish industries, but to damage English industries. In that suggestion the hon. Gentleman imputes to the Irish Legislature something which is in its nature dishonest and immoral. If the Irish Parliament should contemplate a system of laws with the deliberate intention of putting down the trade and industry of a portion of the United Kingdom, I must, say it would go far to prove that they were unworthy of these powers. In the Bill of 1886 we had the intention of reserving trade, though I must admit that that intention was insufficiently expressed. But that Bill was prepared hurriedly—after the accession to Office of the now Government—more with a view of obtaining the judgment of Parliament on the principle of Local Government for Ireland than of securing approval of details. We have now had time to re-consider those matters, and we have dealt with greater accuracy with many points which were contained in the Bill of 1886. The Government 550 cannot adopt the Amendment, because we are satisfied that in this Bill we have excluded the possibility of allowing bounties, inasmuch as we have withdrawn from the cognisance of the Irish Parliament all laws affecting trade with any place out of Ireland. Bounties, as is well known, are grants made upon an exported commodity. Under this Bill Ireland will not have the power to legislate in regard to external trade; and, not having the power to legislate, she cannot, by any possibility, pay a bounty. Do the supporters of the Amendment wish to go further, and say that Ireland should not have the power to give pecuniary encouragement, direct or indirect, to this or that particular trade within the limits of Ireland? That is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman (Baron H. de Worms), who has had a good deal of experience in negotiations which are pretty fresh in our recollection with regard to International trade. What, thou, do they mean to do with the Land Act of 1891? Is the right hon. Gentleman cognisant of its provisions, because, under that Act, a Body was constituted which was invested by direct authority of Parliament with the power of aiding and developing agriculture, forestry, the breeding of live stock and poultry, weaving, spinning, fishing—and a number of details are appended to the word giving it the largest application; to make sure that it includes fishing gear and other necessary matters—and this by money provided from Irish funds. These are premiums in the largest sense of the word, and they were established by the authority of the Imperial Parliament, not under the mischievous and revolutionary legislation of the Liberal Party, but by the safe, prudent, wise, and firm Conservative Government under which Ireland had the happiness to live until the mouth of July last. I have no great fondness for such provisions; but if I were asked whether Ireland had to be entirely free to do for herself what the Imperial Parliament had thought proper to do for her, I do not hesitate for a moment to accept that proposition. I feel that, even upon general grounds, we could not withhold these powers from the Irish Legislature, when the Imperial Legislature has set the example in a clear, unequivocal, and undeniable manner. The allocation of 551 money under the Act to which I have referred is going on, and in deference to the spirit and intention of the law the Chief Secretary for Ireland has thought it his duty to concur in these operations, and is working as honestly and as well as he can this system of premiums. As regards the question of external trade, the Bill as it stands, beyond all doubt, prevents any tampering with the subject by the Irish Legislature. Consequently, while the Government believe that as to the one subject the Bill is absolutely effective in its prohibition, we are not aware, as to the other, that anyone is disposed to maintain that the conditions and circumstances of Irish industry ought to be managed from Westminster instead of from Dublin. I am inclined to hope, if that be so, that there is no difference of opinion between the two sides of the House, and that, therefore, the discussion may come, if not to an immediate, to an early close.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURThere are some points in the speech of the hon. Member for North Islington to which I shall not refer. He has wisely called attention to the fact that whereas in 1886 the Prime Minister desired to exclude bounties, he has so altered the wording of the present Bill as not to carry out that object. The right hon. Gentleman who, is, after all, the greatest authority in this House upon the Bill of 1886, tells us that, however, the words might be interpreted, the intention of the Government was, as now, merely to deal with the external trade of Ireland. I will, therefore, not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of any change of front or inconsistency between the attitude he now adopts and the attitude he then adopted. What is the right hon. Gentleman's attitude now? He said he was determined to prevent bounties; but then it appears that by bounties he means simply a payment when goods are exported from Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman drew a distinction between a bounty and a premium. He said we have at this moment a system of premiums upon home production given under the Act of 1891, through the operation of the Congested Districts Board, who have the right to spend certain Irish funds, for the promotion, among other things, of fishing. But the fishermen so assisted compete with the 552 English fishermen, and 99–100ths, at all events, of the mackerel and other fish caught by them are not for Irish but for English consumption. Therefore, by the right hon. Gentleman's own definition of the words, it would not be possible for Gentlemen below the Gangway sitting in an Irish Legislature to touch the provisions of the Act of 1891. We have gone further by that Act, and out of Imperial money have constructed light railways in the congested districts for the purpose of conveying Irish products to the English markets. I will ask this question. Under the Bill, without this Amendment, would not the Irish Legislature have the right, by means of a premium or of a bounty upon some product manufactured in Ireland, to increase the amount of that product, and thus indirectly to stimulate foreign trade and indirectly to compete with the British manufacturer, and yet in such a manner that no Court would say the act was illegal? The right hon. Gentleman thinks he retorts upon us by saying that we were the authors of a system of premiums and bounties in Ireland, and asking how can we pretend that the Irish Parliament should not be permitted to exercise that liberty of legislation which the Imperial Parliament has exercised on behalf of Ireland. He says you have given these premiums, and how can you prevent the Irish Legislature dealing with premiums? It is quite true we have given them premiums, and there is no Act of legislation with which I have ever been connected of which I hope more from, and am more proud of having dealt with, than that very portion of the Land Act of 1891. But there is the very widest possible distinction between the Imperial Parliament, out of public funds, at the will of the Representatives of the English working man and the English manufacturer, doing something to benefit the poorer districts of Ireland, and an Irish Parliament, not with the consent of the English working man and not in harmony with the English manufacturer, giving premiums or bounties for the protection of some trade in Ireland which competes in a neutral market with the English working man. I wish the Committee and the country to understand that if the right hon. Gentleman, under cover of the 553 fact that the Irish Legislature may not deal with matters of foreign trade, refuses to accept the Amendment, he gives the Irish Legislature power, by spending Irish money in this way, to compete in the English market with the English workman and the English farmer. No tu quoque about the Act of 1891 and no subtleties about the distinction between premiums and bounties on manufactures will blind the eyes of those whose interests are so nearly affected by the refusal of the Government, in terror of the action of their hon. Friends below the Gangway.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEPermit me to say that it is not in terror of our hon. Friends below the Gangway, but it is in terror of public justice and public policy.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURWell, Sir, the refusal of the Government, for whatever reasons, to accept words to carry out, and which are required to carry out, the intention which they themselves declare they accept.
§ MR. WOLFF (Belfast, E.)said, that, representing as he did one of the largest manufacturing constituencies in Ireland, he should like to express his full concurrence with the Amendment. He strongly objected to bounties or premiums being given for trade or manufactures. He objected to them in general, because he did not think they would do any good at nil in the way of permanently increasing the manufactures in Ireland; and he further objected to their introduction because he did not believe there was any money with which to pay for those bounties. He was of opinion that no bounties were required to encourage manufactures in Ireland, and he was induced to that belief more especially by the experience of Ulster. How was it that they in the North of Ireland had been able to foster a large trade? How was it they were the largest flax manufacturers in the world? How was it they had become a large shipbuilding centre there; and how was it that in almost every other manufacture they had advanced by leaps and bounds without any bounties or premiums to assist them? They had no advantage over the rest of Ireland in the way of natural conditions. There was no coal nor iron in Ulster, and the greater part of the flax they span and wove was exported from abroad. If 554 they had got on in this way under the existing laws, he saw no reason why the rest of Ireland should not get on in the same way, provided the inhabitants showed the same determination and application which had been shown by the people of Ulster. But there was one difference, and one great difference, between the rest of Ireland and Ulster, and that was in the nationalities which inhabited these two parts of Ireland. It was the custom in that House to speak of the whole of the inhabitants of Ireland as the people of Ireland. They were as separate and different in Ulster from the rest of Ireland as they were from almost any other part of the world. Whatever merits the Celtic nation might have—and whatever might be said its favour—he did not think that a talent for mechanics or industry or trade was amongst them; and he did not think they could foster the industries which were requisite in Ireland by these small bounties, and, as he had said before, they had no money for any large bounties. The Parliament the Government were about to create would have five-sixths of its Members chosen by agricultural constituencies. These constituencies would know nothing about trade, manufacture, or industries in general such they understood in Ulster. There was a belief among the more ignorant portions of the population of the South and West of Ireland that the only reason why manufactures did not flourish there was because of the jealousy of the English Government. He had heard it said that everything that was made in England could be made in Ireland if it were not for the English Government, and that there was an abundance of coal in the centre and West of Ireland, only the English Government would not allow them to dig for it. A Parliament composed in that way would think all they had to do would be to start a few small shops and factories, and they would be almost certain to grant bounties or premiums to anyone who started an industry in the South. He thought a great deal of money would be thus wasted, which, instead of leading to any good, would cause an immense deal of disappointment. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said that a great deal of money would be spent so as to raise industries with a view to hamper them 555 in Ulster. He was not in the least afraid of any such thing. The industries and manufactures of Ulster were established on so permanent a footing that it would take more than the small sum the Irish Parliament could give to injure them. In starting on their new career — though he was of opinion they would never start on that career—he should like to guard the Irish Parliament or the Irish nation from wasting their money in so futile an effort as to start industries in the South of Ireland. He did not believe there was any money to pay for them. At all events, as the Financial Clauses at present stood, they would probably be lauded in bankruptcy in two or three years. The Financial Clauses had been postponed, and possibly the Prime Minister had some surprise in store for them, and perhaps he was going to give £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 to Ireland. If that was the case, and the Irish Legislature chose to waste money in an attempt to start industries, that was their own affair.
§ * SIR JOHN LUBBOCK (London University)observed, that there was another aspect of the question which had not yet been dealt with, and to which he wished to call the attention of the Government. We were very careful in our financial system, when similar articles were produced at home and imported from abroad, that the duties in the two cases—the Excise Duties in the one and Customs in the other—should be kept as nearly even as possible. Let them take the case of spirits. If the Irish Government gave a bounty on the production of whisky they would greatly stimulate the consumption of whisky as against that of imported spirits. But the Excise Duty on whisky went into the Irish Exchequer, while the Customs Duties on other spirits belonged to the Imperial Exchequer. The effect, therefore, would be to diminish the Imperial and increase the Irish Revenue. He hoped some Member of the Government would explain to the Committee how they proposed to meet such a case, which would manifestly be very unjust to the British taxpayer.
§ MR. SEXTONThe hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast is courageous in his inconsistency. He said the Irish people would waste their money on bounties and premiums, and, at the same time, declare they had no money to waste.
§ MR. WOLFFI said they would waste the money if the right hon. Gentleman was kind enough to give them another £2,000,000 or £3,000,000.
§ MR. SEXTONThe hon. Gentleman having first prophesied that they would waste their money, then said that not only would they have no money to waste, but that they would be bankrupt in two or three years. My view is that we shall have no money. The most favourable scheme that we have heard of the future finances of Ireland would be a surplus of £500,000. If Ireland has only a surplus of £500,000, and if she will have to pay her own new police, as she will have to do, and to apply money to remedial measures which press for settlement, it is extremely obvious that out of her Revenue, upon the existing basis, she will have no money to apply to either premiums or bounties; and I think it would be a courageous speculation to suppose that the Irish Government would impose a new tax for the purpose of providing the means. The hon. Member for East Belfast is extremely courageous in denouncing the idea of premiums or bounties, because he ought to remember that the staple trade of Ulster—the linen trade—which is an export trade, did not reach to vigour, and probably never would have reached to vigour, except by a liberal system of bounties long continued. For many years, and I think for more than one generation, the trade of which Ulster is most proud, which is the staple and the guarantee of her prosperity, was nourished and fed from a condition of helpless infancy to a condition of vigour and security by the very system which the hon. Gentleman has the courage to condemn. Under the present Bill it would not be possible to have any such system of bounties applied, because that system was applied to the trade for the purpose of export, and such a system, so directly applied, would not be possible under the Bill. I will only add that I heard the speech of the Leader of the Opposition with very great surprise. He spoke of the Imperial Parliament applying Irish money for the purpose of developing certain Irish industries, and he quoted the Land Purchase Act of 1891. The discussion upon that Act up to the present moment has been limited to the Congested Districts part of it. 557 What was the main function of the Land Purchase Act of 1891? Will the Committee consider it for a moment? The Tory policy embodied and placed upon the Statute Book by the Land Purchase Act of 1891 is to apply £30,000,000, not of Irish money, but of Imperial credit—for what purpose? To enable the farmers in Ireland to purchase their farms, and by the purchase of their farms to secure a material reduction of their rents; and thereby, in the most direct and substantial manner, you have applied the Imperial Revenue on a vast scale to the production of meat and butter in Ireland, not for any local purpose, but for the purpose of the export of these two staple productions in Ireland to the English markets, where they would compete with the productions of the British farmer. That precedent having been set by the Tory Party two years ago, I will await with interest to see what hon. Members of the Torty Party will support an Amendment by which the Irish Legislature would be debarred from devoting, not Imperial money, but their own money, for the purpose, not of export trade, which would be in competition with the British farmer, but for the purpose of developing those local industries into which competition with the British farmer does not enter.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINIt may be my fault, but I confess I fail to see the applicability of the Act of 1891 to the point we are discussing, because the Act of 1891 was an Imperial Act; and there is no doubt—it is even admitted by this Bill—that there; are many things which the Imperial Parliament might do with perfect propriety, but which we do right to exclude from the operations of an Irish Parliament. For instance, some years ago there was a protective tariff instituted in this country by the Imperial Parliament, and is it to be said that sis the Imperial Parliament in past times sanctioned a Protective tariff it would be wrong to prevent the Irish Parliament imposing a similar tariff? The Government, for reasons which they have given, have thought proper to prevent the Irish Parliament from imposing Protective Duties; but they have gone furtner than that, because, as I understand my right hon. Friend, he makes a distinction between bounties when they are given in the shape of grants in aid 558 of export goods and premiums which would in some way or other be designed purely for goods of internal trade, and says that the Government are not willing to allow the Irish Legislature to set up a Protective tariff in the shape of bounties on export goods. But let me point out that bounties in aid of internal trade may also affect external trade. For instance, a manufacturer may be able to reduce his profits or his external trade in consequence of the bounties given in aid of his internal trade. But I will come to the point which I wish to bring home to the Government. Let me, in the first place, point out that if the Bill passes, the majority of the Irish people will desire to protect and stimulate by some means their own industries. Nobody denies that. My right hon. Friend does not suggest that that will not probably be the case.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEI passed that by.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEAs I am challenged, I will say that I do not believe in the universal participation of the Irish people in a crusade in favour of Protection.
MR. J. CHAMBEKLAINThen my right hon. Friend stands alone in his opinion. He is in direct opposition to any of his Colleagues on the Front Bench. Here is what the Chief Secretary for Ireland wrote upon the subject in The Nineteenth Century:—
There can be little doubt that, Liven the chance, Ireland would imitate the example of the United States, Canada, Victoria, and most other countries in the world, by erecting a Protective tariff against woollen cloth, shoes, and other manufactured articles.He goes on—Home Kale, therefore, in the shape that finds favour with the National Party means a Protective tariff and the introduction of bounties and other fiscal measures which to Englishmen, I say, are an abomination.I suppose that that was admitted on till sides. At all events, I need not press the question whether the Irish Legislature would or would not do these things, because my right hon. Friend has told us that, so far as the Government are concerned, they intend to prevent them. But I do not think he perceives that unless he carries the restrictions a little further, it will be possible for the Irish 559 Legislature to do those things. Take the articles referred to by the Chief Secretary—woollen cloths and shoes. I know that very large quantities of shoes and woollen cloths are sent from England to Ireland, but I do not know whether there are any considerable manufactures in Ireland itself. At all events, such as they are, they are insignificant compared with the manufactures in this country. Suppose the Irish Legislature desires—and it would be a very natural desire—to foster the woollen manufactures, for which the climate is suitable; or foster the manufacture of shoes and boots. Suppose the Irish Government say—"For every yard of woollen cloth made in Ireland, we will give so much, and for every pair of boots or shoes we will give so much." Well, though the Irish Government may say that they are not giving bounties to export manufacturers, the effect on the manufactures of this country would be precisely the same. The Irish industries would be fostered by these bounties and premiums, and the consequence would be that the boots and shoes and woollen goods sent from England to Ireland would be no longer sent, and we would be enabling the Irish Parliament to legislate to the detriment of our own people and our own trade. Undoubtedly, the practical effect of leaving it in the power of the Irish Legislature to grant premiums upon internal manufactures will be exactly the same as that of giving it the power of creating a Protective tariff. In either case it will be able to foster Irish trade to the detriment of English trade.
MR. JAMES LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)said, he found himself in the very unusual position, for him, of being compelled to support the Government in opposition to the views of his own political friends. He ventured to say that anyone who gave even the most cursory attention to Irish history should feel convinced, as he felt, that at the root of the Irish difficulty was the fact that by the action of England two centuries ago trade was practically stamped out in Ireland. That was not merely an historical Irish grievance, but it was a practical, pressing matter of the present time, which those who were responsible for the government of Ireland, whether it was an Irish Government or an English Government, would be compelled to face and deal with. The hon. Member for 560 North Islington and the right hon. Baronet the Member for London University, very naturally, being Free Traders, were opposed to bounties, or premiums, or Protective Duties for the encouragement of local trade. As a Protectionist he did not hesitate to pronounce in favour of these remedies, and he thought that, as the British Government of the past had stamped out the manufactures of Ireland, some assistance was due from the State in support of the existing manufactures of the country. Some hon. Gentlemen might think that Ireland ought to realise that she was a pastoral and agricultural country, and that she ought not to go further afield for the means of subsistence for her people. He challenged any Irish Member to rise in his place and say that the Irish Legislature would venture to adopt a policy of that kind. He believed that no Irish Government would stand a chance of obtaining a renewal of the confidence of the Irish electors that would boldly proclaim that no encouragement whatever ought to be given to Irish trade. If the House prevented the future Legislature of Ireland from taking steps to remedy the grave injustice inflicted on Ireland two centuries ago by the English Government, they would tie behind its back the hands of the Irish Legislature they were asked to create, and inflict on Ireland a great and irreparable wrong. The first act of the Irish Legislature should be to devote funds for the development of Irish manufactures, which everyone, with any pretensions to statesmanship, who had studied the Irish question considered was necessary for the restoration of Irish prosperity. He thought it was their duty to empower the Irish Legislature to impose bounties and premiums. He had no desire to assist in the creation of an Irish Legislature; but if they were to have such a Legislature, they should not debar it from discharging what should be its primary duty to the people of Ireland. On these grounds, if the Amendment were passed to a Division, he would feel bound with regret—a regret which he was sure the Prime Minister would feel was unfeigned —to vote against the Amendment.
§ MR. HORACE PLUNKETT (Dublin County, S.)said, that as he had a very peculiar interest in the industrial and economic prosperity of Ireland, he desired to address the Committee briefly 561 on the subject of the Amendment. He was not in a position to absolutely and entirely condemn bounties, because he was a member of the Congested Districts Board, which had been partly instrumental in putting the system of premiums into operation, and he heartily approved of premiums with proper limits. But he believed that these bounties, which, so far as they were justifiable, could be allowed in Ireland through the medium of the Imperial Parliament, as at present, would, under the proposed Irish Constitution, and if left to the uncontrolled management of the Irish people, be disastrous measures. He came to that conclusion because of his very thorough knowledge of the feelings of the great majority of the people of Ireland. Take the case of the Irish woollen industry. Every Irishman's blood boiled—and even the blood of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet boiled—at the thought of the iniquitous destruction by England of the Irish woollen industry. The history of that industry was very peculiar. It arose chiefly from the fact that the English Parliament put restrictions on the importation into England of Irish cattle, and so drove the Irish people to take up the woollen industry. The industry was carried on with groat success until, at the request of the English Parliament, which had then come to be controlled by the middle classes, induced William III. to declare, in a Message from the Throne, that he would do anything he could do to discourage the woollen trade of Ireland and promote the trade of England. He, as a South of Ireland Member, therefore made some reduction in the glory, piety, and immortality of that otherwise great Sovereign on account of the injury he had thus done to Ireland. That industry was quite natural to Ireland, and ought to be its chief industry at the present time. When the restrictions on the trade were withdrawn, however, the trade did not restore itself. That was because it had been carried on in Ireland as a home industry; and the industrial revolution which took place about the time that the restrictions were withdrawn made it necessary to conduct the manufacture on a large scale in great centres. For this the temperament of the Irish people was unsuited. So long as an industry could be conducted in their own homes, the Irish could compete successfully in the 562 industrial race; but it was different when they were asked to submit themselves to the discipline and restrictions of the factory, which was altogether unsuitable to the temperament of the people. Besides, the Irish had acquired evil industrial habits, as was shown by the Preamble of an Act of Charles II. That Preamble ran—
Whereas there is a complaint in England, France, and other parts beyond the seas whither the woollen cloths and other commodities made of wool in this (His Majesty's) Kingdom of Ireland are transported, of the false, uneven, deceitful, and uncertain making thereof, which cometh to pass by reason that the clothiers and makers thereof do not observe any certain assize for length, breadth, and weight for making their clothes and other commodities aforesaid in this Kingdom as they do in the realm of England, and as they also ought to do here, by which means the merchants, buyers, and other users of the said cloth and other commodities are much abused and deceived; and the credit, esteem, and sale of the said cloth and other commodities is thereby much impaired and, undervalued to the great and general hurt and hindrance of the trade of clothing in this whole realm.One of the greatest dangers of fostering this illusion as to the powers of legislation with respect to industry was that those powers would be used instead of sound industrial methods. For that reason he should support the Amendment; and also because he believed that these bounties would be the constant source of friction between England and Ireland. Past bounties in Ireland had almost invariably given rise to fraud and dishonesty in trade.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURI have no desire of prolonging this Debate, but I must point out to the Committee that we have respectfully urged upon the Prime Minister that by his own showing under the Bill there would be—under whatever name you please—subventions by the Irish Parliament which would undoubtedly have the effect of enabling Irish manufactures to compete injuriously with English manufactures in the English markets. To that contention of ours no reply of any sort, kind, or description has been made by the Government. The right hon. Gentleman uses as an illustration the Congested Districts Act of 1891, and asks us would we refuse the Irish Parliament power to deal with it? We have pointed out that if the right hon. Gentleman's construction of his Bill is correct, the Irish Parliament cannot deal with it, because the 563 bounties granted under that Act applies to articles for export purposes. There was a further point made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, and to that also the Government neither made nor attempted to make the slightest answer. If they believe it to be to their interest to leave these important arguments wholly undealt with, it is not for us to complain, and we are ready to go to a Division.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEIn my opinion the assertions of the right hon. Gentleman are totally unwarranted and unsustained by the facts. I am of opinion that the Irish Parliament will have the power of dealing with these premiums. If not, and if it can be proved that they are of the nature of bounties, there will be an opportunity for dealing with them on the ground that the Irish Parliament is precluded from touching what belongs to foreign trade. My conviction is, that they do not belong to foreign trade, and that they will be legitimately within the cognisance of the Irish Parliament, and, in my opinion, they ought to be within that cognisance.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLrose—
§ 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 288; Noes 256.—(Division List, No. 126.)
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 288; Noes 252.—(Division List, No. 127.)
THE CHAIRMANThe next three Amendments, as follows, are out of Order, the matters having already been decided by the Committee:—
Clause 3, page 2, line 7, after "Ireland," insert "or the imposing or levying of any duty whether in the nature of octroi or otherwise upon goods of any kind imported into Ireland or received at any harbour or port in Ireland.Clause 3, page 2, line 7, after "Ireland," insert "or the giving of any preference or advantage directly or indirectly, and whether by bounties or differential duties to any goods produced or manufactured in Ireland over similar goods or manufactures produced or manufactured elsewhere."—(Mr, Tomlinson.)564Clause 3, page 2, line 7, after "Ireland," insert "bounties in favour of Irish products."— (Sir Ellis Ashmead-Bartlett.)
§ MR. BOUSFIELD (Hackney, N.)moved the following Amendment:—In Clause 3, page 2, line 7, after "Ireland," insert "or merchant shipping." He said the object of the Amendment was to make it clear that matters regulating the navigation and control of merchant shipping and seamen were matters reserved exclusively for the Imperial Legislature. If one could rely implicitly on the expressions which had fallen from the supporters of the Government in making this Amendment he was only endeavouring to effect that which was already the intention of the Government. He ventured to think that what the Prime Minister said the previous day in reference to the great trade circle of which this United Kingdom was the centre, and other expressions which had fallen from him, tended to show it was the object of the promoters of the Bill to reserve this question of the control and regulation of merchant shipping as a matter exclusively within the cognisance of the Imperial Legislature. It would save the time of the House to a large extent, and would save him from saying a good deal if at that early stage one might know whether such was the intention of the Government, and also whether they contended that the clauses which were to be found in the Bill sufficiently dealt with this subject? Did they say that it was their intention and desire to exclude the question of the regulation of merchant shipping from the Irish Parliament, and reserve it exclusively for the Imperial Parliament; and did they contend that that intention was sufficiently carried out by the words of the Bill as they stood? One would have thought there would have been some response to an appeal of that kind, but the result showed that even in a matter of this importance the Government were playing a waiting game, and that according to the exigencies of the situation they would be prepared to contend or not, as suited them best, that certain vague and ambiguous words which were to be found in this Bill did sufficiently deal with the subject. It might be suggested, for instance, that "trade with any place out of Ireland" sufficiently covered the question of merchant shipping. If it was contended 565 that these words did sufficiently deal with this subject of merchant shipping, he had to say that unfortunately right hon. Gentlemen who were sitting on the Government Bench were not in the position of judges in this matter, but only in the part of those who expressed an opinion as to the meaning of the Bill, which not only would bind no Court, but could not even be brought before a Court in any mode or form. They had the words "trade…or navigation" in the Bill with the contention possibly that they dealt with the subject. Though a ship was an instrument of trade, the exclusion of "trade with any place out of Ireland" would not exclude ships, the registration of ships, tonnage, inspection and control of ships in harbour, and all other matters which were matters of internal government, although they related to ships used for the purposes of external trade. It was plain that the words "trade with any place out of Ireland," although they covered the use to which the ships might be put, could not cover the ships themselves, and the way they were to be dealt with in Ireland. The harm which these vague words would do was not at present sufficiently apprehended by right hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they had already had a remarkable interpretation put upon them by the Prime Minister, which, if valid, would prevent the Irish Legislature from touching those matters which were referred to in the Land Act of 1886. Surely, if this Bill was intended to be passed and practically worked, the right hon. Gentleman would give some plainer indication to the Judges of Ireland as to what his intentions were. They must be gathered from the words, and he ventured to think the Government ought not to object to the addition of some words to the Bill which would make it clear it was not intended that this matter of merchant shipping should be dealt with by the Irish Legislature. In the Index of Statutes under the head of the "Merchant Shipping," there was a list of 71 Acts. The Merchant Shipping Act of 1854 repealed and amended the Acts of previous legislation, and under that Act the Board of Trade were entrusted with very important powers with reference to merchant shipping. The Board of Trade were to have power in the United Kingdom to exercise a general superintendence over 566 all matters relating to merchant ships and seamen. Of course, as far as these matters wore included in the words "trade with any place out of Ireland," they were already excepted in the Bill. So far as they had to do with navigation, they also were already excepted; but, so far as these matters had to do simply with the regulations which the Irish Government might make with regard to ships in Irish harbours, and all the various matters appertaining thereto, they were not at present in any way provided for in the Bill. It was intended, he presumed, that the Board of Trade should still be the Central Authority for dealing with matters relating to merchant ships—such as Returns in relation to ships, the powers of Board of Trade and Customs officers to inspect ships, documents, logs, &c., for the United Kingdom. But he would point out that those were things to be dealt with on the shores of Ireland, and did not necessarily affect trade with any place out of Ireland, or navigation. It was a remarkable feature of this Bill that, while they did hear, some time ago, that it was the desire of the Government to give Ireland certain local powers in a distinctly subordinate Legislature, which should be under the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, yet, as a matter of fact, this Bill gave to them far wider powers than had been given to any self-governing Colony in relation to this matter. The second part of the Merchant Shipping Act was prefaced by this clause—
The second part of this Act shall apply to the whole of Her Majesty's dominions.
§ There, therefore, was an illustration of the way in which Parliament still was supreme throughout the British dominions. There was a provision which applied to the whole of Her Majesty's dominions, which no single Colony had the power to touch, yet, under the Bill they were now discussing, the Irish Legislature would have a power which no Colonial Legislature would have—namely, the power of repealing certain provisions of that Act. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE dissented.] Ships were to be used, no doubt, in trading with places out of Ireland; but the building, the registration, and the putting a ship into water and preparing it for use abroad was not a matter of trade with any place out of Ireland, or a matter of navigation, but it was a matter relating so far exclusively to Ireland. Here were 567 provisions in the Merchant Shipping Act, applying to every part of Her Majesty's dominions, stating that British ships must belong to British subjects, who who must be British subjects by birth or naturalisation, the ships must be registered, and there were regulations as to tonnage, certificates of registration, transfer of mortgages, and constituting certain offences for breaches of the Act. None of these were within the purview of any Colonial Legislature, and what words were there in the Bill excluding them from the purview of the Irish Legislature? He contended that before they went any further they were entitled to know whether the matter was supposed to be dealt with, and if it was, he submitted it was imperfectly dealt with indeed; and if it was imperfectly dealt with, the Government could surely offer no objection whatever to the introduction of the words he proposed. He begged to move the Amendment.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 7, after the word "Ireland," to insert the words "or merchant shipping."—(Mr. Bousfield.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.
§ SIR J. RIGBYThe hon, and learned Member who proposed this Amendment says we have only vague words for dealing with this matter. Can it be doubted that under the word "navigation" is included legislation as regards ships?
§ MR. BOUSFIELDPerhaps the lion, and learned Gentleman will allow me to say what I meant to have said upon that point? If he will look in the Index relating to the Statutes dealing with Merchant Shipping, he will find one distinct set of Acts—74—under the head of "Merchant Shipping," and another relating to tidal waters, and so on, under the head of "Navigation."
§ * SIR J. RIGBYThe hon, and learned Gentleman, I think, might have spared me that interruption. It does not follow, because "navigation" would include ships, that therefore it would be a convenient way to classify all Shipping Acts under the word "navigation" But I venture to say that common sense is enough here. If you exclude from the powers of the Legislature the right to deal with navigation, it would be the idlest suggestion 568 really to say that they are not excluded from dealing with the ships which are the sole instruments of navigation. I do not know how navigation can be carried on without ships. At any rate, the ships are the main instruments of navigation. I should almost say they are the sole instruments. Now, what is the subject of merchant shipping? It is the subject of what shall be a British ship. Registration and all those matters which were spoken of by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and matters dealing with shipping in Ireland, are really the conditions that we have imposed upon a ship being entitled to carry the British flag over the world, the conditions which make it possible that the privileges given to British shipping shall be claimed by a British ship. You cannot omit any of them without endangering the position of a ship as a British ship. We think it so intimately connected with navigation, and it forms so important a part of navigation, that a general prohibition against, making laws in respect of navigation of necessity involves a prohibition against making laws as to shipping. It is again and again asked why not introduce words? Because where you have a general description and then you cut that and put in a particular one at once the argument arises the word "navigation" must be used in the narrower sense because, we are told, by your own confession, it did not include merchant shipping. For my part, I should not be able to say with the slightest degree of confidence what was included, or that any single matter was included, under what is called the "vague" term navigation, if we tried to cut that down by inserting definite matters such as is now proposed.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINI always listen to the hon. and learned Solicitor General with the respect which is due to his legal reputation. But, he must be aware that on the matter on which he has just addressed us, as on a good many other previous matters, he is at variance with other legal luminaries; and accordingly we are left to the light of common sense in which I suppose a non-legal Member of the House may indulge as well as the most learned Member of the profession. The lion, and learned Gentleman says that navigation includes all merchant shipping legislation. I say that is absolutely opposed to common 569 sense, and I will say why. Does navigation include the registering of ships? Is a part of navigation ships? I say my common sense differs from the common sense of my hon. and learned Friend. Again, take the load line. A load line is fixed in the harbour. Is that connected with, or an essential part of, a navigation scheme? The fittings which it is necessary a ship should carry may be useful in navigation; but they are not covered by the word navigation. They are all matters, it seems to me, which are distinguished from that part of the life of a ship which is included in the term navigation. I can quite understand the action of a ship when it is navigating is one thing; the action of a ship before is quite different. I will say, in making these observations, that I have looked into the matter before, because this is a subject in which I take a special and particular interest. When I was at the Board of Trade I had to do with administering existing legislation, and I, therefore, made special inquiries on this point; and I find, at all events, there are legal gentlemen of authority who differ entirely from the hon. and learned Gentleman, and who say that if you want to exclude from the competence of the Irish Parliament all questions of marine shipping legislation you must specially exclude them. If you want to include merchant shipping in the term "navigation," do you intend to exclude the Irish Legislature from dealing with that portion of merchant shipping which requires greatcare—questions of food, sanitation, prevention of scurvy, and other such questions? Does the Solicitor General say those questions are included in the term?
§ SIR J. RIGBYNo, no!
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINvery well. I was going to say, when I was interrupted—and since then I have had the benefit of the opinion of my right hon. and learned Friend behind me (Sir H. James)—that you cannot include such questions under the head of "navigation." I must protest against the way in which this Debate has been carried on by the Government. When the question was brought forward my hon. Friend opposite asked the Government whether they intended that these questions should be excluded from the oversight of the Irish Legislature? The Government absolutely refused to say. 570 I do not believe they knew. If they had said what their intention was, the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman might have been spared. But the Government had not made up their minds. We saw the consultation that took place, and the result was that the Solicitor General was put up to tell us that "navigation" covers and includes ordinary questions in relation to shipping. Well, in my opinion, the Government would do well to accept the words of the Amendment, in order to make their meaning clear and beyond doubt. If they do not accept the Amendment they will have done a pretty night's work. By their conduct on the last Amendment they went far enough; but I think they ought, in a matter of this kind, to make it clear that this Parliament has reserved to itself the control of merchant shipping and seamen.
§ * SIR M. HICKS-BEACH (Bristol, W.)said, both sides of the House were absolutely agreed in principle on this matter. He believed that the Government intended, as they on that (the Opposition) side desired, that the whole code of merchant shipping should remain, as now, in the hands of the Imperial Parliament. He would refer the Government to Stephen's Commentaries, chap, viii., in order to show that the classification adopted in that authority used the term "navigation" as meaning only one out of a variety of subjects, including under other headings matters relating to the mercantile marine, to merchant seamen, to pilotage, to lighthouses, and other questions. He was at a loss, therefore, to understand how the word "navigation" in the Bill could be made to cover all the branches given in this work. It was clear from the Schedule of the Bill that it was intended that these laws should be administered throughout the United Kingdom in the future, as they now, by officials of the Board of Trade, are responsible to the Imperial Parliament; but if they allowed the Irish Legislature to deal with any part of the code of legislation relating to these subjects, they would practically allow the control of those important questions to pass out of their hands. He hoped the Government would agree to the Amendment.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEIf we were to agree to the insertion of the words it would not be in consequence of the classification under the head of 571 navigation which the right hon. Gentleman has read. When the Government resist the introduction of words which I have not the slightest doubt are proposed in good faith, I desire to tell hon. Gentlemen that they do so also in good faith and through fear of their limiting effects. There might be reasons, as hon. Gentlemen will see, why, by those effects, serious mischief might be done. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has threatened us with a night's discussion, or a penalty for not at once accepting this Amendment.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNo, no!
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEHe said it was in consequence—
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNo, no!
SIR W. HART-DYKE (Kent, Dartford)He did not say that.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEWill you allow me liberty of speech?
SIR W. HART-DYKEWhat the right hon. Gentleman said was, that if you did not accept the Amendment you would have done a pretty night's work.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEI am sorry, then; I must have misunderstood him. Even had he threatened us, however, I should not have the least hesitation in accepting the doctrine of the Solicitor General. But the question is:—"Can we meet the hon. and learned Gentleman in doing anything to regulate the language of this clause?" I may say at once that if, without serious detriment to the Bill, the Government can meet the hon. and learned Gentleman they are anxious to do so. Though the Government do not like the form of the Amendment, they think it would be likely to avert danger and to remove doubts if they agree to the words "navigation, including merchant shipping."
* MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he wished to point out that the meaning of "navigation" was the art of conducting a ship from one part of the earth to another by nautical astronomy. Navigation could not include crimping, the measurement of tonnage, and a variety of other questions; and they would only make the Act ridiculous if they included the words suggested.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEremarked that if an Act of Parliament said that "merchant shipping" was included in the term "navigation" it would be impossible to carry the argument further.
§ SIR H. JAMESsaid, of course, he agreed with the Prime Minister. He was anxious to inform the hon. Member for King's Lynn that an Act of Parliament could do anything. On one occasion Lord Palmerston said that an Act of Parliament could do anything except change the sexes, and that was impossible.
§ SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)Does it include "merchant seamen?"
§ MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, the words "merchant seamen" ought to be added.
§ MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)Or canal boats.
§ SIR R. TEMPLEmoved the addition of the words "merchant seamen."
§ Question proposed, "That those words be added."
§ MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, these words were necessary in accordance with the classification in existing Statutes.
§ MR. MACARTNEYsaid, there was another Amendment on the Paper relating to the question of navigation.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.)said, there could not be a shadow of a doubt that seamen were included in "merchant shipping."
§ SIR R. TEMPLEasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. BOUSFIELDasked liberty to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ SIR J. RIGBYmoved that the words "including merchant shipping" be inserted after the word "Ireland."
§ Question put, and agreed to.
THE CHAIRMANThe Amendment standing next on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Whiteley) relating to factories, workshops, and regulation of hours of labour, is not in Order here. I will tell the hon. Member the place at which it would be proper to move it. The next Amendment in Order is in the name of Sir Thomas Lea.
§ SIR T. LEA (Londonderry, S.)moved, in page 2, line 8, after "navigation," to insert "or harbour regulations." He said his object was to put the Bill on this point in the same position as that of 1886. The present Bill exempted trade, navigation, and quarantine from the powers of the Irish Legislature, but did not, like the Bill of 1886, exempt har- 573 bour regulations. The Amendment closely interested such ports as Belfast, Londonderry, and Kingstown.
§ Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
§ SIR T. LEAwent on to say that those who were interested in ports like Londonderry and Belfast were afraid that unless some such Amendment were inserted the Irish Legislature would be able to deal with Harbour Boards, to control harbour dues, and to interfere with mercantile business. Why should not the Board of Trade continue to exercise the same powers as at present with regard to harbour regulations? Shipping and navigation were very closely akin to harbour regulations. It was certainly impossible to draw a very distinct line showing where the difference between them began and where it ended. Unless the Amendment were adopted, the Board of Trade Regulations to which ships would be subject outside a harbour might clash with those which were made by the Irish Legislature for the inside of the harbour. The hon. Member for North Belfast (Sir E. Harland), who had undertaken to represent the case of the Belfast Harbour Board to the House, was, unfortunately, notable to be present; but he had told him that the Board had borrowed between £1,000,000 and £2,000,000. The rate of interest on that money controlled the dues which ships had to pay. If that rate were increased through the action of an Irish Parliament, undoubtedly the dues would have to be increased and the trade of the port would suffer. If through the establishment of an Irish Legislature the credit of Belfast and Deny were lessened people would not lend so readily to the Harbour Boards as if they remained under the Board of Trade. It might be asked what the Irish Legislature would do. That was one of the general questions often debated in the House. It would certainly be within the power of the Irish Legislature to tax harbour dues. If they did they would certainly damage the interests of Irish ports. In order to show what were the interests at stake he would quote the case of Belfast. Belfast imported all the iron and material for its great shipbuilding industry, all the coal for its manufacturing industries, and two-thirds 574 of the raw material for its spinning mills. It was necessary that all these things should be imported at the lowest possible rate, and that for this purpose the harbour dues should be kept low. Belfast alone had 55 per cent, of the total Irish registered shipping tonnage, which amounted in the aggregate to 256,439 tons. Surely, under these circumstances, Parliament ought to be very careful how it touched such a very important industry. What he desired was that the harbour regulations should remain under the Board of Trade, and should not be liable to be interfered with by the Irish Legislature. It might be said that the Irish Legislature would not interfere with them. Why not, then, state in the Bill that it should not interfere with them?
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, after the word "navigation," to insert the words "or harbour regulations."—(Sir Thomas Lea.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. RENTOUL (Down, E.)said, that was a subject of far more importance than appeared at first sight, and it was very intimately connected with the whole question of shipping navigation, which had been taken out of the hands of the Irish Legislature. The Harbour Boards had the power of levying rates and harbour dues and of borrowing money to any extent, and they had to keep up tide and weather gauges as well as harbours. Bearing in mind the amount of public money spent upon some of the harbours in Ireland, especially the Kingstown Harbour, it would seem very strange if it were left in the power of the Irish Legislature to neglect such harbours. One of the duties of the Harbour Boards was to provide accommodation for Custom House officers. As the Customs pertained to Imperial legislation, it was very important that the Imperial Parliament should have power of dealing with the question of accommodation for these officers. Unless the Amendment were accepted, it was possible that laws might be made to the disadvantage of certain harbours and to the advantage of others. The Government professed its willingness to safeguard the interests of Ulster. Those interests were very largely centred in the City of Belfast, and the trade of 575 Belfast was largely dependent for its existence and prosperity on its shipping. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
§ * SIR J. RIGBYThe suggestion of the hon. Member is that, whilst Belfast and Londonderry are now very prosperous, opportunity will be given, if the Irish Legislature has anything to do with harbours, for crippling their prosperity. That is one of the arguments which we have always repudiated; and I venture to express an opinion that this section has been drawn on the right lines. Under the Merchant Shipping and other Acts in connection with general navigation, certain powers are given to the Commissioners of Irish Lights in regard to harbours, and the Board of Trade has a general supervision with regard to those powers. As we have excluded from the power of the Irish Parliament everything relating to navigation, including shipping, we do not consider that the Irish Legislature could in any way interfere with the authority of the Commissioners of Irish Lights or the Board of Trade. There are, of course, certain local Harbour Boards, and it may happen, as time goes on, that it will be desirable to have legislation in regard to those Boards. I put aside entirely the idea that legislation would be introduced for the purpose of crippling industry. The only legislation that would have a chance of passing the Irish Legislature would be directed to improving industry, and I think the Irish Legislature would have a better chance of knowing what would be proper regulations to apply to the Harbour Boards than anyone in England. If we are to pass an Act of this kind, surely it would be idle to make Harbour Boards come to England and say—"We want regulations respecting those portions of our harbours which are not under the control of the Commissioners of Lights or the Board of Trade." I say that with regard to these matters the Irish Legislature ought to be entitled to make such alterations in the law as may from time to time appear expedient.
§ MR. H. PLUNKETT (Dublin Co., S.)said, it was important to consider the position of those harbours which had an Imperial value and importance in connection with the Naval, Military, and Postal Services. The Harbour of Kingstown was one of these. Some weeks ago he was asked by his constituents to put a 576 question to the Chief Secretary as to whether Kingstown Harbour, in the event of the Bill becoming law, would be maintained and controlled by the Irish or the Imperial Government? The answer he received was that all the information he required would be found in Section 25 of the Bill. Well, Section 25 dealt with the use of Crown lands by the Irish Government, and merely provided that Crown lands in Ireland might be placed under the control of the Irish Government, subject to such restrictions as might seem expedient. This did not seem to deal with the question at all. It was quite certain that the Irish Government would refuse to be at the large annual expenditure which the Imperial Government at present incurred in respect of Kingstown Harbour, and he should like to ask the Government how the question was to be dealt with?
§ MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)said, the point raised by his hon. Friend was an important one. He (Mr. Macartney) had been glad to hear the general view expressed by the Solicitor General that the supreme control of the Commissioners of Irish Lights was not to be in the slightest degree interfered with. Those Commissioners, however, had nothing to do with the harbour lights in Dublin, Belfast, or other ports. He presumed that any legislation of the Irish Legislature on the subject would be in the direction of improving the regulations for the harbours. He presumed, also, that if the Harbour Lights Commissioners had reason to differ from any regulation that passed the Legislative Assembly they would have power, as now, to disapprove it. The Solicitor General, however, had not made any defininte statement on the point raised by his hon. Friend (Mr. Plunkett). An enormous amount of Imperial money had been spent on Kingstown Harbour, which was almost exclusively used for Imperial purposes; and he wished to know where there were any words in the Bill which would safeguard Imperial interests in that harbour?
MR. J. MORLEYThe hon. Member seems to anticipate some remarkable change in the social and commercial relations between England and Ireland.
§ MR. T. W. RUSSELLSo there will be.
MR. J. MORLEYDoes the hon. Member think that all social relations will 577 cease after this Bill has been passed? The contents of the ledgers may differ, but the communications between people in England and their friends in Ireland will remain as now. Commercial correspondence also will go on just as it does now. It is not practical to talk of the cessation of those conditions which make it desirable that there should be a mail service between England and Kingstown. The harbour at Kingstown is, no doubt, not a commercial harbour, like Belfast or Cork or Waterford, but an Imperial harbour. It is under the control of the Board of Works, and so it will remain.
§ MR. MACARTNEYpointed out that not long ago an effort was made in the House of Commons to transfer the Post Service from Kingstown to Dublin. Therefore, it was not altogether unpractical to suggest that the present mail service at Kingstown might at some time or other cease to exist. He wished to know what clause of the Bill provided that the harbour should remain under Imperial control?
MR. J. MORLEYWe do not want any reservation in the Bill. Whatever the conditions subsisting now will continue to exist as far as they are not affected by the Bill.
§ SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)I must really ask for a little further explanation. I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that, inasmuch as Kingstown Harbour is at present under the Board of Works of Ireland, it will remain under that Board. The Board of Works is a Department of the Irish Government which is specially under the Treasury; but will it remain under the Treasury? Will the Commissioners of the Board of Works and their secretaries and staff remain under the Imperial Government after the Bill is passed?
MR. J. MORLEYMy answer is, yes. In Kingstown Harbour certain authority belongs to the Local Body. That, of course, will remain; but as long as the harbour remains a port for Imperial purposes, so long will the Board of Works have the same authority with regard to it as it has now.
§ MR. GOSCHEN (St, George's, Hanover Square)Will the Board of Works be an Irish or an Imperial Authority, or will it be in the same position as the Lord Lieutenant—that is to say, for certain 578 purposes an Imperial Authority, and for other purposes an Irish Authority?
MR. J. MORLEYThe Board of Works is a Department of the Imperial Treasury. The Local Board of Kingstown will maintain its rights; and as far as Kingstown continues to be used for Imperial purposes, so far will the Board of Works, as representing the Treasury, retain its present functions.
§ MR. GOSCHENThen do I understand that the Board of Works will continue to be an Imperial Authority? The Board is concerned with many Imperial interests. It collects for the Treasury. It is connected with drainage, and it governs the harbours. I am, therefore, glad to learn, if I understand the right hon. Gentleman rightly, that it will be an Imperial Authority to which we may look for the defence of Imperial interests.
§ MR. SEXTONexpressed the opinion that the discussion about the position of the Board of Works and the Government had been sprung upon the Chief Secretary, not for the purpose of enlightening the minds of those who had raised the discussion, but to embarrass, mystify, and bewilder. They all knew what the present functions of the Board of Works were, and by the Bill those functions would pass to the Irish Legislature, except, possibly, such as related to certain limited Imperial matters. These latter would include the matters administered by the Board of Works in harbours like Kingstown and Howth in their Imperial aspect, In so far as Imperial interests required Imperial authority to be maintained in regard to Kingstown some Imperial Department would exercise that authority. There would be no practical difficulty whatever in regard to the protection of Imperial interests or the control of those interests by Imperial authority.
§ MR. GOSCHENcould assure the hon. Member that he did not ask this question for the purpose of embarrassing the Irish Secretary—and it was very difficult to embarrass the right hon. Gentleman— but he asked in order to obtain information, and because he thought a misunderstanding might easily arise. They were told the Board of Works would be responsible for Kingstown Harbour as an Imperial harbour. The Board would be acting in a double capacity, and would be responsible to the Imperial Parliament for the Imperial 579 work, and to the Irish Authorities for its Irish works. He understood the same view was taken by the hon. Member for North Kerry, who thought that the Board of Works would be an Irish Authority, and have charge over most of the work.
§ MR. SEXTONIf it continues to exist.
§ MR. GOSCHENIf it does not, then we have lost authority even over the Board of Works. ["No, no!"] The Chief Secretary had referred them to the Board of Works. The position of the right hon. Gentleman was that the Board of Works was to be responsible as regarded Kingstown Harbour. If so, would the Board of Works be responsible to that House? Would the officials of the Board of Works be in any way amenable to the Imperial Parliament, or under the Bill would it be practically amenable to the Irish Legislature? He simply wished to probe this matter to the bottom, and he thought the Chief Secretary would agree with him that the Committee were entitled to the information for which he now asked.
MR. J. MORLEYperfectly assented to the view that this matter should be probed to the bottom. The bottom, however, was very near, and the matter was very simple. It was true that he mentioned the Board of Works. He did not mean the Board of Works as it now existed, but he meant a Department representing the Treasury. Kingstown Harbour would remain, as it was now, under the Local Authority in reference to such local regulations as that Local Authority thought fit to make. It would remain (as would the other harbours which were practically non-commercial) under some officer or some Department of the Treasury so far as it was used in respect of what might be called Imperial services. He thought that was a quite simple answer.
§ SIR J. GORSTadmitted that the right hon. Gentleman had made a perfectly clear explanation. He wanted, however, to put this further question: Would all the harbours and public works in Ireland now under the jurisdiction of the Treasury remain, like Kingstown Harbour, under the jurisdiction of the Treasury, not through the intermediary of the existing Board of Works, but through the intermediary of any local Treasury officer whom the Imperial 580 Government might think proper to appoint.
* MR. GIBSON BOWLESpointed out that the harbour regulations were enforced by harbour masters, and inquired whether these officers at Kingstown and the various other places would be under the control of the Imperial Authority or of the Irish Legislature?
§ DR. KENNY (Dublin, College Green)observed that one of the subjects of harbour regulations would be the subject of quarantine. He should like to hear from the Chief Secretary an interpretation of the saving words at the end of the clause with reference to this Amendment. Could the Irish Parliament deal with the subject of quarantine so far as it related to the public health? This was a most important matter, and it was no answer, to his mind, that the English people did not desire quarantine if they in Ireland desired to protect themselves from infectious disease. Cholera, for a long time, had been stoutly denied by scientists in the interests of trade to be an infectious disease—
§ CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND (Colchester)Is the hon. Member in Order in discussing the question of quarantine?
§ DR. KENNYsaid, he would simply ask how far the saving words at the end of the clause would affect the Irish Legislature in dealing with the subject of quarantine when it cropped up?
§ MR. MACARTNEYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman told them there was no necessity to introduce these words into the section, because they were reserved for some future Imperial Authority which was not affected by the Bill. If that were so, then the Government had not proceeded on the same lines in Sub-sections 7 and 8, because the Solicitor General had just told the Committee that the Commissioners of Irish Lights would be regarded as an Imperial Authority, and would not be interfered with by this Bill. If that were the case, why should they in Sub-section 8, immediately except from the authority of the Parliament in Ireland lighthouses or sea marks, because the jurisdiction of the Commissioners of Irish Lights was entirely confined to lighthouses and sea marks? If their authority was untouched by the 581 Bill it was not necessary to mention them. It seemed to him from the line of argument adopted by the Chief Secretary with regard to the reservation of Imperial harbours to be unnecessary to put in lighthouses and sea marks.
MR. Macfarlane rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question he now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
Debate resumed.
MR. JAMES LOWTHERasked for a distinct statement as to who was to be the authority responsible in future with regard to harbour regulations in Ireland? Could the Local Authorities in Ireland under this Bill impose whatever harbour dues they thought fit? That was to say, could the authorities amenable to the Irish Legislature and Executive impose such dues as they thought fit in the various harbours of Ireland? He was not mentioning Kingstown, which stood in an exceptional position. Of course, the Chief Secretary would see that if the Local Authorities had power to settle dues as they thought fit, without reference to this somewhat nebulous authority which the right hon. Gentleman's own imagination had conjured up—namely, the Board of Works, which the hon. Member for North Kerry said was to be abolished.
MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Member for North Kerry had told them that, for all practical purposes, the control of the Treasury officer was to cease. That was to say that hereafter authorities which were to be subject to the Irish Legislature and Executive were to supersede this Imperial Authority, and in regard to the future dues were to do as they pleased. That was the hon. Member for North Kerry's opinion, which, for the moment, he was bound to rely upon. —
§ MR. SEXTONI prefer to state my views myself, although I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for acting as my interpreter on this occasion.
MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, the hon. Gentleman stated his opinion very clearly in a manner that was in direct conflict with the statement of the Chief Secretary. The Chief Secretary distinctly left upon the mind of the Committee the impression that in future there would be 582 an Imperial official who would be responsible to the Imperial Parliament for the purposes connected with harbour administration in Ireland—and who would not, of course, be responsible to the Irish Legislature—so far as these purposes were Imperial. What purposes were Imperial, and what were not? That was a question they were entitled to ask, and he put it in no controversial spirit. Was it the opinion of the Government that the Irish Legislature ought to have control over harbours so far as dues were concerned? If the levying of dues was to remain in the hands of the Irish Executive and Legislature it would reopen a good many questions which the Government thought were decided an hour or two ago. If dues could be settled by an Authority which was not subject to the Imperial Parliament, but subject only to the Irish Executive and Legislature, a good many of those somewhat delicate fiscal matters which had occupied the attention of the Committee that afternoon would have to be re-considered before long. Would it be in the power of the Irish Authority, independent of the Imperial Legislature, to settle the dues at the Irish ports in the future, and, if not, who would be the Authority?
MR. J. MOBLEYquite accepted the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, that he did not make these remarks in any controversial spirit. In reply to the light hon. Gentleman, he had to say that if the Harbour Authority imposed dues for the purpose of interfering with the access of British ships or making the access of these ships a matter of heavier charge—if, in short, they imposed dues, in the slightest degree with a Protective object, then, of course, these regulations would be contravening the exceptions of this clause they were now discussing, which took trade and navigation out of their power. If, on the other hand, the Harbour Authority increased its dues to meet expenses in connection with harbour administration, it would, of course, have full power to regulate the whole of the dues for this purpose.
MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that provided the dues were not differential, the Local Authority had complete power. But take this case. Suppose the Irish Legislature and Executive desired to prevent any commodity which they produced 583 themselves from coming in. He understood the Chief Secretary to say they could not place English goods at a disadvantage, but what about goods coming from coastwise or any other country?
MR. JAMES LOWTHERasked who was to be the judge of whether the dues were framed with a Protective object? He took it it would be in the competence of the Irish Habour Authorities to impose dues all round upon all ships that entered the port, and if they wanted to keep out foreign produce they would have the power to do so.
MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he had already explained that the Harbour Authorities could not impose any dues for fiscal purposes.
MR. J. MORLEYOf course they may not. I have said that several times. They may impose dues for harbour administration, but they may not for any purpose which would bring them within the prohibition affecting trade and navigation.
Mr. Sexton 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 232; Noes 187.—(Division List, No. 128.)
§ Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
§ The Committee divided:—Ayes 214; Noes 2.59.—(Division List, No. 129.)
§ MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he rose for the purpose of asking the Solicitor General what the expression "inland waters" meant. Did the words only include waters entirely surrounded by land, or did they include territorial waters, whether tidal or non-tidal? If the words had the larger meaning he would move their omission from the clause.
§ * SIR J. RIGBYBy "inland waters" I understand waters that are outside the jurisdiction of the Admiralty. Tidal waters below bridge over which ships come and go are not inland waters as I understand them. Inland waters are waters above bridge, though they may be tidal.
§ MR. MACARTNEYthen moved to leave out the words "inland waters." He took it that the words applied to waters to which there was access from the sea, and, therefore, having regard to the position they occupied in the section, they became of great importance. This very question had been raised in the United States. One of the State Legislatures attempted to give the exclusive rights of navigation of waters to which the words would apply to certain persons, and he wished to ask the Solicitor General whether it would be competent for the Irish Legislature to give to certain persons the exclusive right of navigation in inland waters, and whether it would also have the power to give exclusive rights to persons whose vessels or boats were registered in connection with these waters? Having regard to what had taken place in America, it was desirable to have this question distinctly cleared up. So far as he understood the Solicitor General, the definition was extremely vague as to whether it included bays, estuaries, and every type of river. The Committee would see this would affect very seriously the commercial navigation rights in connection with many inland waters in Ireland. He had no objection to the words standing as they were if limited to waters surrounded by land in Ireland; but if it was not to be admitted in this specially direct manner, he thought the Committee could not rest satisfied with leaving the very large powers that must be handed over under this exception to the Irish Legislature, when those powers might be administered and directed towards large stretches of water as to which they had no kind of idea.
§ Amendment proposed, in line 9, after the last Amendment, to leave out the words "inland waters."—(Mr. Macartney.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words stand part of the Clause."
§ * SIR J. RIGBYI am sorry I did not make my meaning clear, because there should be no vagueness at all. All bays, creeks, and navigable rivers are included. Everything above bridges, though the river be connected with the sea, is inland water. If great ships, by reason of the shallowness of the water or any other reason, or because there is a bridge, cannot get up the river, then the Admiralty 585 jurisdiction stops, and where that stops inland waters begin. With respect to the cases that have taken place in America, they have been with regard to great rivers, immense creeks, or inland seas, and I am not aware there is anything of the kind in Ireland.
§ MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he was obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for his explanation, which he thought satisfactory. He apologised for having troubled him again, but he had not understood that his definition went so far. He begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMANThe next two Amendments on the Paper are out of Order. That of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton) and that of the hon. Member for Wigan (Sir F. S. Powell) ought to be brought on upon Clause 20.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURNot in the view of disputing your ruling, but for the satisfaction of the Committee, may I ask the grounds on which you have ruled out of Order these Amendments?
§ MR. SEXTONAs a question of Order, Sir, I wish to ask you whether it is in accordance with the Rules of the House, or whether it is usual for the Chair to be called on to give reasons?
THE CHAIRMANTo that extent I believe it is. For a similar reason the two next Amendments are out of Order; they come properly under Clause 35. The first Amendment in Order is in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for the Holderness Division of York (Commander Bethell).
§ MR. AMBROSE (Middlesex, Harrow)On a point of Order, may I venture to say that I consulted von when my Amendment stood in another place, and that you yourself, with the assistance of Mr. Milman, the Clerk—
§ THE CHAIRMAN rose to reply, when—
§ MR. AMBROSEsaid: Sir, I cannot hear you for these men talking—
THE CHAIRMANThe time for the Chair to rule whether Amendments are in Order or not is when the Amendment comes on, and, having considered a somewhat difficult matter, I have come to the 586 conclusion that the Amendment standing upon the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member is out of Order. The next Amendment in Order is that standing in the name of Commander Bethell.
§ MR. AMBROSEMr. Mellor—
§ MR. AMBROSEMr. Mellor—
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEI rise to Order. I hold that when you have distinctly called upon a particular hon. Member to move an Amendment and another hon. Member persistently interrupts and presents himself to the Committee after he has been ruled out of Order, if he persists in that line of conduct I think you should be called upon to name that Member.
§ MR. AMBROSEMr. Mellor—
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! I can only say I think the conduct of the hon. and learned Member is most disorderly.
§ MR. AMBROSESir, I claim the right to be heard upon a question of Order.
THE CHAIRMANOrder, order! If the hon. and learned Member persists in his conduct I shall have to exercise the powers provided by the Standing Order.
§ MR. AMBROSEYou may, Mr. Mellor.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURIt is greatly to be regretted, I am sure, that this heat should take place. The hon. and learned Member, I am sure, intended no disrespect to the Chair. I understood him to say that he rose to a point of Order, which I suppose is not an improper position to take up.
THE CHAIRMANI did not understand the hon. and learned Gentleman rose to a point of Order. If he did so that is different.
§ MR. AMBROSEThat is exactly what I did, Mr. Mellor.
THE CHAIRMANI wish to explain. I think that the hon. and learned Member does not understand what the position is. He rose to a point of Order, and I gave my answer to it, and I explained to him the grounds upon which I gave it, and he now persists in rising because, I think, he cannot have understood the position in which he is. Let me say this: that the persisting in rising to Order in these circumstances is dis- 587 tinctly disorderly, and if he persists in doing so I shall be obliged to exercise the powers given me by the Standing Orders and to name him.
§ MR. AMBROSE,again rising, was received with cries of "Name, name!"
THE CHAIRMANI think it possible the hon. and learned Gentleman is going to apologise to the Committee.
§ MR. AMBROSEI desire to explain that I rose to Order, and I had not the opportunity of putting what my point of Order was.
§ MR. AMBROSEI ask this question: —[Interruption.]
§ MR. AMBROSEI desire to say that I have only claimed, and am only claiming, the right to put my point on the question of Order.
§ COMMANDER BETHELL (York, E.R., Holderness)said, he imagined the Government would hardly reject his Amendment, as it had found a place in the Bill of 1886. The Amendment, he owned, was of a very complex character, and one more fit to be argued by learned Gentlemen than by himself; but he had placed it before the Committee in order that he might get an explanation from the Government in regard to it. The matter, as he understood it, tended in this way: The question of "prize or booty of war" was under the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court, and he wished the Solicitor General and the Chief Secretary to understand that his Amendment did not propose to interfere with the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court, but to interfere with the power of the Irish Legislature to vary the law under which the jurisdiction of the Admiralty Court was exercised. He might, perhaps, be exposed to the criticism that the present Bill did not contemplate giving the Irish Legislature power to vary the laws under which that jurisdiction was exercised; and it might be said, as it had been before, that this was exclusively an Irish matter. He did not know whether that would be the line taken by the Government; but if it was, he thought the learned Solicitor General would be prepated to agree with him that after sitting 588 for 14 days listening to hon. and legal Gentlemen disputing whether a subject was or was not exclusively an Irish affair, that a layman might be excused for asking that any doubt as to the exercise of that jurisdiction might be made quite clear. Moreover, it seemed to him a difficulty arose from the fact that an Amendment on this particular subject had already been rejected. He would invite the Solicitor General in his reply to state as clearly as might be whether he relied on the words in the Bill, which declared that the Bill was only intended to apply exclusively to Irish affairs. He begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 9, after the word "or," to insert the words "prize or booty of war, or offences committed on the high seas; or."—(Commander Bethell.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. SEXTONI wish to ask you, Sir, a question with regard to the second paragraph of this Amendment. As to the first part, "prize or booty of war," I ask whether that is not already covered by the words "the making of peace or war, or matters arising from a state of war." That is one point; but there is another point with regard to the words "offences committed on the high seas."
§ COMMANDER BETHELLI do not propose to move that.
THE CHAIRMANSo much of the Amendment as is comprised in the words "prize or booty of war" is in Order.
§ * SIR J. RIGBYThe Court of Admiralty discharge double functions; in time of peace they administer our Municipal Law, and in time of war they sit to administer the Law of Nations. It is only in time of war questions can arise as to prizes, and that is a matter that does not depend on Irish or English law, except in the sense that we have adopted the rule of law amongst nations as that which ought to govern our course. There cannot be a case in which a question of "prize or booty of war," would be interfered with by any Irish law, or, speaking properly, by any British law; we leave that to the accepted Code amongst nations. If one thing is clearer than another it is that this is a matter that does not exclusively relate to Irish affairs. 589 This is an Amendment that would positively exclude the subsequent clause. As to "prize or booty of war," that is altogether excluded from the Municipal Law, and the words would be misleading.
§ COMMANDER BETHELLasked if the Irish Legislature would have power to vary the procedure of the Court or had we the power to vary the procedure of our law in the matter?
* MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked if it was not the fact that prizes of war came to the Sovereign, who was in possession of the prize when brought into port, and that it was by virtue of some Act of Parliament that the distribution of the proceeds of the prize was made? He would further ask how the matter would be affected by leaving the matter open to be dealt with by the Irish Legislature?
§ MR. VICARY GIBBS (Herts, St. Albans)Are we not going to hear from the Solicitor General?
SIR J. BIGBYI thought I had shown that, whatever else it was, it was not exclusively Irish, and that "prize and booty of war" could not be. I do not believe there are any such Acts of Parliament as those to which the hon. Member refers. The Crown is entitled to the prize and booty of war; and as regards the distribution, I do not know there are any Acts, but, if so, we could not make this a matter appertaining exclusively to Ireland.
§ Amendment negatived.
THE CHAIRMANThe next Amendment in Order is that in the name of the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley).
§ MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)said, he would not say much about the Amendment he now moved. He agreed that beacons and lighthouses, which were a very great advantage, should remain under the Imperial control as at present intended; but the next portion, "sea marks (except so far as they can consistently with any general Act of Parliament be constructed or maintained by a local Harbour Authority)," it appeared to him would lead to an immense amount of litigation and friction between the Irish Legislature and the Imperial Parliament; therefore it was hardly desirable to leave it in its present form.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out sub-section "(8)".—(Mr. Bartley.)
590§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the I Clause."
MR. J. MORLEYI think the object I of the sub-section is one with which the hon. Member will have no cause to quarrel when I tell him what it is. I must admit there is a verbal Amendment to make, which I shall move at the proper time, in order to bring this subsection into conformity with the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854. The state of things in respect of lights in Ireland is this. The authority in Ireland is the Commissioner of Lights; that is the general Irish authority, but the general supervision of the work of those Commissioners of Lights is in the Board of Trade. The Local Authorities have their own local lights; they have the arrangement of business and so forth, and in that part of their work they are under the supervision of the general Irish Authority under the Commissioner of Lights, who, again, is under the Board of Trade. Undoubtedly, so far as the lights affect the general navigation, they will remain, as they are now, under the Board of Trade. The object of this subsection is to leave power to the Irish Legislature to entrust local harbour authorities with the power of putting lighthouses subject to the supervision and sanction of the principal authority. I think, with that explanation, the hon. Gentleman may be satisfied.
MR. T. M. HEALYThe matter now under the discussion of the House deals with a subject of some importance to us—namely, the composition of the Irish Lights Board. Under the Bill of 1886, we had control over the Irish Lights Board; and, in my judgment, the proper course to pursue would be to extinguish the Irish Lights Board, and to put the matter over which they have charge under a body constituted in a different manner. At present the Irish Lights Board spend thousands of pounds every year upon a series of yachting expeditions, in the course of which an enormous amount of whisky and champagne is consumed, and by which the public money is simply thrown away. Originally, this Irish Lights Board was under some sort of popular control; but in the early fifties this House proposed—and this is an instance of the way these things have been done—about 4 o'clock 591 in the morning, this House passed an Act capturing about £50,000 that belonged to us, and handed it over to the Trinity Board, for which we have never got a single penny in the way of a return since there has been constituted a body of local gentlemen, some of them generally connected with the illuminating interest with whom the right hon. Member for West Birmingham at one time had considerable friction, but of whom he now takes a more friendly view, as they are of the Unionist persuasion. These gentlemen co-opt one another, and a more corrupt body—[Cries of "Question!"]—I use the word in the useless sense—a more corrupt body than the Irish Lights Board it would be impossible to conceive. And my suggestion to the Government is this: that the entire of the Irish Lights Board should be disbanded and got rid of, and that the Board should then be put under the control of the Board of Trade Department, and that we should have a proper and Imperial Department to look to in regard to those lights. The present constitution of the Irish Lights Board in Dublin is one of the subjects upon which the people are extremely bitter; and although, of course, they are Orangemen to a man, the hon. Member for Belfast has had to complain of the manner in which they performed their functions in regard to the lighthouses and the providing for the persons in those lighthouses of the means of getting education, the consolations of religion, and other matters of that kind. Their contracts are given and jobbed away in a most unsatisfactory manner. ["Question!"] I am arguing in favour of the extinction of the Irish Lights Board, and the putting of it under a proper Imperial Authority, which I say it will be impossible to do under this present section as it is drawn. As to the latest performance of these gentlemen, it was admitted by the President of the Board of Trade that the contracts they have recently made, so far from being an improvement upon previous contracts in the matter of expense, have led enormously to the expense of lighthouses, because the contracts have been jobbed and given away among their cronies and friends. The control of these lights is, in my opinion, one rather for Imperial supervision; and I must say that if a reform of that Board is to be allowed to 592 wait until it can be dealt with by this House, I am afraid that, unless some Government is stimulated more than at present, this scandal—and it is a scandal in every sense of the word to have this waste of money—is likely to continue.
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINWe have, indeed, Mr. Mellor, listened to a characteristic speech made by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth. I think the Committee will bear me out in saying that no hon. Member has taken so much part in interrupting and calling them to Order as the hon. and learned Member for North Louth, and no Member has been stronger in his denunciation of what he has been pleased to call the obstruction of the Opposition. I will, however, submit that the speech of the hon. and learned Member has been the most obstructive and disorderly that we have yet listened to. We are considering in the Irish Home Rule Bill whether the Irish Lights Board should not be entrusted to the control of the Irish Legislature, and the hon. and learned Gentleman thought he saw an opportunity of lugging into that discussion, withot rhyme or reason, an attack upon the Irish Lights Board, which has absolutely nothing to do with the present Debate, and he accompanied that attack with a statement about me which was unjustifiable. When I was President of the Board of Trade I had no contact of any kind with the Irish Board of Lights. I had only to review their financial proposals, and I did not interfere at all with the details of their work. There was a certain difference of opinion between the Board of Trade and an Irish inventor as to the best form of light. I do not say whether I was right or wrong; but, so far from this being a political matter, to this day I have no idea of the political opinions of the inventor. But as there has been a reference to champagne and whisky, I feel bound to say, having had control over the Irish, Scotch, and English Boards of Lights, that I have come to the conclusion that the Irish Board and the other Boards discharge an extremely useful and valuable work, and that they could not be absorbed by any Public Department without great disadvantage to the Public Service. I feel compelled to take notice of the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman, which appear to me to be absolutely irrelevant to our discussion, and intro- 593 duced simply to serve the personal feelings of the hon. and learned Member.
§ MR. SEXTONI do not think that, in the opinion of anyone whose opinion is a matter of concern to my hon. and learned Friend, he will suffer in consequence of the attack made upon him by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. Sir, notwithstanding the deservedly high position which is held by the right hon. Gentleman, especially as a censor on the question of taste, I cannot admit that the speech of my hon. and learned Friend was either disorderly or obstructive. My respect for the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman does not lead me so far as to admit that, at any rate upon questions of Order, he is as good a judge as the Chairman of Committees. If the speech of my hon. and learned Friend had been disorderly he need not have waited to be informed of it by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. Neither was the speech of my hon. Friend obstructive, but it was perfectly relevant to the case. What is the case before us? The proposition that beacons, lighthouses, and sea marks should continue to be matters of Imperial jurisdiction, and should be excluded from the purview of the Irish Parliament. My hon. Friend assents to that; but he thinks that this is the time for raising the question as to whether eventually these matters should be left to be administered under the direct authority of the Imperial Parliament, or whether this secondary jurisdiction of the Irish Lights Board should continue. I have had the honour to be a member of the Irish Lights Board for two years, so that I have some experience of its constitution. I may say I was there against the will of the Board, and ex officio as the Lord Mayor of Dublin. The constitution of the Board is anomalous, it is discreditable, and it ought to be discontinued. Although this Board levies and administers a large amount of public money, and discharges functions of great public importance, its constitution is in this wise: it is partly elected upon an extremely narrow franchise which is absolutely prohibitive; it allows no public opinion to penetrate it; it is partly nominated by the Lord Lieutenant and partly co-opted; and out of its 25 members only four are appointed by any elective influence. The proceedings of the Board are conducted in 594 private; they allow no representatives of the Press to attend; they publish no satisfactory statement of their affairs, so that the public have no means whatever of judging how their functions are discharged. That is an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs, and when questions are put in this House we are told that the Board of Trade are not responsible. If I remember aright, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bristol (Sir M. H. Beach), in reply to a question put by myself, declared that the Board of Trade had no power; that the discretion rested in the Commissioners of Irish Lights; and that, however much he regretted the exercise of that discretion, he had no power to interfere. I say that in a case of this kind of a Board discharging public functions, it is not desirable—it is extremely undesirable—with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chamberlain), that such a Board should be allowed to continue, and we do say that while assenting to the reservation of this matter as an Imperial question, we do not think it satisfactory that such functions should be discharged by a Body which would not be responsible either to the Irish Legislature or the Imperial Parliament. We say it should be responsible either to one Body or the other; and whilst we do not claim it for the Irish Legislature, we say that the functions should be discharged by some authority responsible to the Imperial Parliament.
§ MR. A. J. BALFOURBy some strange lapse of memory, hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway appear to think they are still in Opposition. Let me remind them that they are supporters of the Government; let me remind the Government that we look with some astonishment and surprise, not only at the scene which is going on, so far as Members below the Gangway are concerned, but at the action or inaction which the Government have maintained. The hon. and learned Member for Louth and the hon. Member for Kerry claim the right upon this sub-section, each of which said that certain matters should be reserved to the Imperial Parliament, to discuss the machinery by which the Imperial Parliament carries out its will. On that broad and general principle, it would have been in Order for us, on Subsection 3, to discuss the constitution of the 595 Admiralty, on Sub-section 4 the constitution of the Foreign Office, on Sub-section 6 the constitution of the Courts of Appeal, on Sub-section 7 the constitution of the Board of Trade, and on Subsection 9 the constitution of the Mint. The hon. Members have not only dragged in a wholly irrelevant discussion, but the hon. and learned Gentleman who opened the discussion has made offensive attacks upon individuals who are not here to answer for themselves. The Government, who would not allow the House to discuss for an hour the question of intimidation yesterday, and who would not permit us to discuss for an hour and a quarter the question of bounties to-day, without on both occasions moving the Closure, have sat silent and patient under the obstruction of their Irish friends. I hope the Government will in future deal fairly between the different sections of the House; and if they allow half-an-hour for a discussion utterly irregular and wholly trivial and useless, they will, at least, give the Opposition a reasonable time to discuss the great questions to which we desire to call the attention of the country.
MR. J. MORLEYI confess that I have heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman with surprise. I think this topic, which was started by the hon. and learned Member for North Louth, has occupied something like 20 minutes. I wonder how much of that time has been taken up by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. If the hon. and learned Member introduced an irrelevant topic, why was it continued?
§ MR. J. CHAMBERLAINBecause the hon. and learned Member made an attack upon people who are not in this House—an offensive and an inaccurate attack which it was necessary to answer.
MR. J. MORLEYIn any case, it was not the fault of the Government that the hon. and learned Member was not interrupted if he introduced an irrelevant topic. I am not, however, going to prolong this part of the discussion. It is certainly clear that the constitution of the Irish Board of Lights is not a topic which can be dealt with in this Bill.
§ MR. BARTLEYasked leave to withdraw his Amendment after the explanation which had been given.
MR. T. M. HEALYI desire to say that every word I used was perfectly in 596 Order, and I am absolutely indifferent to the sneers of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham.
§ * SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHI hoped when the hon. and learned Member for North Louth rose again that he was about to qualify in some measure what I must characterise as the hon. and learned Member's vulgar and inaccurate denunciation of a body of gentlemen in Ireland of whose work I know a great deal more than the hon. and learned Member. I paid great attention to the subject during the four years I presided at the Board of Trade, and I know that these gentlemen did their work admirably, and they did it without payment or reward. I have risen, not with the hope of extracting anything that was fair to these gentlemen from the hon. and learned Member, but to express my regret that we have not had from Members of the Government, who ought to defend absent persons from such an attack, a statement of their opinion as to the services of these gentlemen, and a reply to the attacks of the hon. and learned Member.
§ * SIR JOHN LUBBOCKdesired to say that while he was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee the question of the expenditure of the officials alluded to came before that Committee, and they came to the same conclusion as that expressed by the right hon. Baronet. He thought it only fair to bear testimony to the fact that he did not think them in any way open to the charges brought against them.
MR. T. M. HEALYdesired to repeat that he adhered to every word he had said with regard to this body—[Cries of "Order!" in which the remainder of the sentence was lost.]
§ MR. MUNDELLAThere was no occasion for the right hon. Baronet opposite to impart any heat into the matter. The incident has arisen within the last half-hour, and it was impossible for me to interpose before, nor do I think it was necessary for me to do so. But I am bound to say that, so far as I have come in contact with the Irish Lights Commissioners and examined their work, I believe them to be a body of gentlemen who discharge honourably and conscientiously the work they have to do, and that there can be no such corruption as that to which the hon. and learned Member has alluded.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. J. MORLEYmoved to leave out the words "beacons, lighthouses, or sea marks," for the purpose of inserting "lighthouses, buoys, or beacons within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854." The object of the Amendment, he explained, was to bring the matter into agreement with the difinition in the Merchant Shipping Act.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 10, to leave out the words "beacons, lighthouses, or sea marks." in order to insert the words "lighthouses, buoys, or beacons within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1854."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
§ MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he would like the right hon. Gentleman to explain whether "lighthouses" covered "lightships," or were they to understand that a distinction was to be drawn?
* MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the House must be very much disappointed that the Solicitor General had not explained how the words were to be interpreted. He could not conceive any construction of an Act of Parliament by which a "lighthouse" could be made a "lightship," or a "lightship" a "lighthouse." Acts of Parliament, no doubt, could be construed in many ways; but he did not think they should pass this clause without specifically including "lightships" within its ambit. He hoped the Government would consult to the inclusion of the provision in the words.
§ * SIR J. RIGBYsaid, "lighthouse" was defined so as, in addition to the ordinary meaning of the word, to include all other lights for the guidance of ships, and "buoys and beacons" to include all other signs and marks tit sea for the same purpose.
ADMIRAL FIELD (Sussex, Eastbourne)moved, after "harbour authority," to insert "Commissioners of Irish Lights." He said he moved this Amendment on the ground that those who controlled the authority would control the lights. He would press the Amendment unless it could be shown that provision had been made in the matter in some other way.
§ Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 12, after the words "harbour authority," to insert the words "or Commissioners of Irish Lights."—(Admiral Field.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he would just point out that the effect of the hon. and gallant Admiral's Amendment would be the very opposite to that which he intended, for it would place the Commissioners of Irish Lights under the Irish Legislature. [Laughter.]
MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he understood from the observations of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) a short time ago that this Amendment was perfectly disorderly, for, as the right hon. Gentleman had told them, the Irish Lights Board had nothing to do with the section, and he hoped he would ask his hon. Friends not to expend their energy in obstruction. [Cries of "Order!"]
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. WHITELEY (Stockport)said, he rose to propose the Amendment standing in his name—
In page 2, line 12, after the word "or," to insert as a new sub-section the words:—" Factories, workshops, and mines, or the regulation of the hours of labour of men, women, and children in factories, workshops, and mines.The object of the Amendment was to prohibit the Irish Legislature from abrogating a law for the protection of men, women, and children working in factories, workshops, and mines. His desire was to extend and maintain as a whole, and to apply to Ireland, all that factory legislation which was at present in force in the United Kingdom. He was of opinion that there should be uniformity of legislation throughout the United Kingdom on factory and workshop matters. The Amendment was not inferior in importance to any that had preceded it, for it concerned the health and welfare of every man, woman, and child engaged in the factories and workshops of Ireland. It was impossible to regard this matter as of a purely Irish character. They might be told that the 599 matter was covered by that Will-o'-the-Wisp provision in the Bill as to peace, order, and good government; but that could not be maintained at the present time, for trade and factory legislation was a subject of importance to the whole United Kingdom. He believed that the time was coming when this class of legislation would become of International importance, and when the working day would be fixed internationally between all the manufacturing nations of the world. He appealed, first of all, to hon. Members from Lancashire, and then to the Party which was known in that House as the Labour Party, to support the Amendment. His first object in moving it was to insure to the Irish people the great advantages which this country had derived from factory and trade legislation, so that the British and Irish workpeople might in the future compete with one another on fair and equal terms. The Government seemed to whittle down English interests wherever they came into antagonism with Irish interests. At the present time there were five Inspectors, with assistants—two in Belfast, one in Dublin, one in Cork, and one in Limerick—carrying out the provisions of the Factory Acts in Ireland. There were 263 textile factories in Ireland, employing 71,700 workpeople; there were 1,500 people employed in the mines; and there were a number of other industries which came within the scope of the Factory Acts. His contention was, that these people should be safeguarded in the enjoyment of the benefits of existing legislation, and in the continued enjoyment of the benefits that they enjoyed at the present time. Much had been done towards the diminution of the hours of labour of women and young persons, and he was glad that a Conservative Home Secretary was associated with reforms of that character. The House should bear in mind that the Irish Members had frankly declared their intention of fostering as much as possible industrial life in Ireland; but that object, laudable in itself, ought not to be attained at the expense of the workers in factories. There was no law in the Statute Book more valuable and necessary than that which limited the labour in factories. He thought the House would see that there were very valuable provisions in the law as it stood, and that there was 600 ample ground for asking the House, as he ventured to ask it, to adopt this Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed,
In page 2, line 12, after the word "or," to insert as a new sub-section the words:—"Factories, workshops, and mines, or the regulation of the hours of labour of men, women, and children in factories, workshops, and mines."—(Mr. Whiteley.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick's)said, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had taken upon himself to interpret the action the Irish Members would take in the Irish Legislature on these questions of factory employment. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be unaware that the Irish Members had in the past supported all useful measures affecting labour. What the Irish people wanted was to be treated in labour matters on equal terms with the people of England. He might tell the Committee that the Fair Wages Resolution which had been passed by that Assembly was ignored by the Irish Board of Works. If they proceeded with legislation on the lines now suggested the Home Rule Bill would be restrictive, and the Irish Parliament would be unable to help Irish labour. He did not know what the Bill would be like, and whether it would be worth accepting it, if the Government yielded on these questions to hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches. Those hon. Gentlemen, who were so anxious in regard to the proceedings of the Irish Parliament, should remember what had been the action of English legislation, as entrusted to Bodies like the Irish Board of Works, in the past. He could inform the Committee that, at the present time, he was in communication with the Secretary to the Treasury—["Order!"] He thought he ought to be allowed to proceed. He understood that hon. Members usually extended a little indulgence to a Member addressing them for the first time. He always understood that there was a spirit of fair play in that House; at any rate, he could tell the House that he had something to say that would be worth listening to, and that he would not sit down under clamour. He did not want to obstruct the Business of the House. The House would, he thought, admit that, as one of the few Labour 601 Members from Ireland, he bad a right to be heard. He saw, however, that it was 12 o'clock, and be did not desire to detain the House further than was absolutely necessary. He would reserve what he had to say further upon the subject until to-morrow.
§ It being midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
§ Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.