COMMITTEE. [Progress, 12th June.]

HC Deb 13 June 1893 vol 13 cc908-79

[NINETEENTH NIGHT.]

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Legislative Authority.

Clause 3 (Exceptions from powers of Irish Legislatures.)

THE CHAIRMAN

The first Amendment in Order on the Paper is that standing in the name of the noble Lord the Member for West Edinburgh.

VISCOUNT WOLMER (Edinburgh, W.)

moved as a further exception to Clause 3 The granting protection or indemnity in respect of anything done contrary to the provisions of this section. He had, he said, intended to move the Amendment in a fuller form, but had found himself precluded from doing so at that particular point. It must be evident to the Committee that if there was any necessity for the restrictions the Committee had been discussing, this country must be protected from any infringement of them so far as possible, and he had to submit that unless some such Amendment, were inserted in the Bill it would be in the power of the Executive Government land Parliament of Ireland in the future, if unfortunately any friction between them and the Imperial Parliament should arise, to entirely frustrate the deliberate intentions of Parliament. When the Committee were debating the Amendment intended to preclude the Irish Legislature from passing Votes in Supply in respect of any of these restricted subjects, the Prime Minister observed that it would undoubtedly be in the power of an officer of the Executive Government in Ireland to act in contravention of this section if he were willing to adopt such a reprehensible line of conduct. It was, then, the duty of the Committee to prevent, if possible, any such reprehensible conduct. They were not legislating for the immediate future only. He understood that the Bill was intended by its framers to stand as a fundamental part of the Constitution of these Islands for many generations. If that was so, it was the duty of the Committee to look ahead, and he could not conceive any hon. Gentleman saying that it was outside the bounds of possibility that a time might come when the Government in Ireland and the Government of Great Britain—when the Irish Legislature and the Imperial Parliament might take totally divergent views on some questions which might be considered of great importance. He need only instance the question of bounties. The Prime Minister admitted that the Irish Paymaster General could connive at the frustration of the intentions of the Imperial Parliament so as to enable the Irish Legislature in practice to grant bounties. It was obvious that in the working of the Irish Constitution, as in the working of other Constitutions, there would be occasions in which the officers of the Executive Government in Ireland might overstep the bounds of legality without any intention to do wrong, and it was argued that it would be wrong to take away from the Legislature the power to indemnify them. In answer to that, he would adopt the arguments of the Home Secretary, and say that in this, as in all matters, it was the question of the balance of advantage, and that the balance was greatly in favour of reserving this question to the Imperial Parlia- ment. It might also be argued that if the Irish Legislature did attempt to indemnify any of its officers for acts wilfully done in contravention of this section, the Lord Lieutenant could be relied on to come forward and veto any such Bill. In reply to that, he would say that the work which the Lord Lieutenant would have to do in the future Constitution of Ireland was almost too much for human shoulders to bear. He would have to fulfil functions of delicacy and responsibility such as had seldom before been placed on the shoulders of any one man, and it was their bounden duty to settle all those delicate questions beforehand if they could, and to relieve the Lord Lieutenant of the difficulties which would be cast upon him. The Lord Lieutenant would have to join the persuasive powers of the Prime Minister with the dogmatic austerity of the Home Secretary, and he would have to conjoin the Constitutional knowledge of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster with the pliability of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and considering how difficult his task would be, he (Lord Wolmer) maintained that they were bound to relieve him in advance of this difficult and delicate duty. This country had had some experience of this question of indemnity. It was not many years since Lord Chief Justice Cockburn delivered his celebrated Charge to the Grand Jury, in which he went into the whole question of indemnity. In that Charge he said, speaking of the time of Grattan's Parliament at the end of the last century— As early as the year 1795 insurrections of a serious nature were occurring in various parts of the country; and it would seem that Magistrates and persons in authority took upon themselves to execute a species of Martial Law without any authority whatever. But they were the dominant Party; they had a large majority in the Parliament of Ireland; and it was thought expedient, in order to prevent open rebellion and all the serious consequences that it entails, to have recourse to means beyond the ordinary law; but they thought it equally necessary to obtain Acts of Indemnity. An Act of Indemnity was passed as early as 1796 (36 George III., c. 6, of the Irish Statutes) for excesses beyond the law committed in the year 1795. … An Act in similar terms was from this time passed periodically, I think every six months, by the Irish Legislature, till we arrive at the year 1798.

MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.)

Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to inform him that those Acts were denounced by Grattan, Curran, and every man of eminence in the Irish Parliament.

Viscount WOLMER

said, he had no doubt that if similar Acts were passed by a future Irish Legislature there would be many persons found to denounce them. But that was not the point. The point was, that the Party dominant in the Irish Parliament for their own purposes passed Acts of Indemnity, and that what one dominant Party in one Irish Parliament had done for their own purposes another dominant Party in another Irish Parliament might do for their own purposes. There had been a more recent and, perhaps, as an illustration of the dangers which lay ahead, a more important, example in the case of the Jamaica Indemnity. He need not remind the Committee of what took place in Jamaica, but he would read a short extract from the Act of Indemnity passed by the Jamaica Legislature to absolve Governor Eyre and those who had worked under him. The 1st section of that Act of Jamaica of the year 1865 laid down— That all personal actions and suits, indictments, informations, attachments, prosecutions, and proceedings, present or future, whatsoever against such authorities or officers, civil, military, or naval, or other persons acting as last aforesaid, or by reason of any matter or thing commanded, ordered, directed, or done. … shall be discharged and made void. The 2nd section said— That his Excellency Edward John Eyre, Esquire, and other persons who have acted under his authority, are hereby indemnified, and all acts so done are hereby made and declared to be lawful, and are confirmed. Now, it might be contended that that Act of the Jamaica Legislature would, so far as the Imperial Courts of England were concerned, be null and void. But such was not the case. In the year 1868 or 1869 there was the celebrated action of "Phillips v. Eyre" (reported in the 4th and 6th volumes of Queen's Bench Reports). The plaintiff brought in this country an action for assault and false imprisonment against Governor Eyre, founded on acts done for the suppression of rebellion in Jamaica. The Jamaica Indemnity Act was pleaded in bar of this action, and the plea was allowed. It was decided (1) that the Act of Indemnity was not repugnant, so far as it related to civil proceedings, to the British Act of 11 William III., c. 12, which provided for the trial and punishment in this country of all Governors, &c., of any plantation or colony who might— Be guilty of oppressing any of the King's subjects beyond the seas within their respective Governments or commands, or of any other crime or offence contrary to the laws of this realm, or in force within their respective Governments or commands. (2) That— Although the Act of Indemnity was retrospective in its nature, it had effect, beyond the limits of Jamaica, so as to prevent an action from being brought in England. Now, although there was an Act of the Imperial Parliament which expressly provided that the Colonial Governors should be brought to trial in this country—for acts of oppression live in these countries in their command—yet that Imperial Statute was rendered null and void by the Act of Indemnity passed by the Jamaica Legislature; and, in the second place, it was ruled that the Act had effect beyond the limits of Jamaica. That, he thought, was of importance. The Act of Indemnity was not only to bold good in the colony in which it had been passed, but it was practically to cover all proceedings in all Imperial Courts. He would submit to the Committee that if at any future time there should be unfortunately a collision of interest or of opinion between the Executive of the Imperial Parliament and the Parliament in Ireland as the Bill stood, it would be in the power of the Irish Legislature to entirely render null and void all the restrictions in Clause 3 by passing Acts of Indemnity. The Committee had only to look to the restrictions in Clause 3 to see the importance of the ground which the Amendment covered. And be would only repeat to the Committee his view that it was laying too great a burden on the shoulders of the future Lord Lieutenant to leave it to him, and to him only, to deal with this question of indemnity. He knew very well what would be said, if not by the Prime Minister by some other supporter of the measure. It would be said that this Amendment, like all others, was only a case of insolent distrust of the Irish people. He held that it was the bounden duty of every British Member to protest most emphatically against that answer and that view. They were in the position of a Trustee, and their attitude should be the attitude of a Trustee, and not of the donors of charity-money. The Prime Minister seemed to rely implicitly on the argument of the future gratitude of Ireland. That was an argument which should not he left out of the calculation altogether, but they had had an example within recent years of how much gratitude was worth in politics. Was there any country in the world which earned such a debt of gratitude to another as Russia did to Bulgaria? Russia won for Bulgaria her very existence at the cost of tens and hundreds of thousands of Russian lives. If ever there was a case for gratitude it was the action of Russia towards Bulgaria. Whore was that gratitude now?

MR. PHILIPPS (Lanark, Mid)

rose to Order. He wished to know if the question of Bulgaria was germane to this clause?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he understood the noble Lord to be illustrating his argument.

VISCOUNT WOLMER

said, he had not trespassed at any length on the time of the Committee, and he was as much within his right in giving an illustration as any hon. Member who supported the Bill. There was no country in Europe so disliked in Bulgaria as Russia. What was the opinion of Russia on that condition of affairs?—and that was the point of his argument. Russia considered that Bulgaria had been monstrously and atrociously ungrateful. But the question was not what Russia, thought, but what Bulgaria thought. In the future, when some unfortunate difference of opinion might have arisen between Ireland and the Imperial Executive, it would be of no use for the latter to plead the ingratitude of Ireland, and say, "We have not deserved this at the bands of the Irish Parliament." The point of view would be the Irish point of view. They would think that the Imperial Parliament had forfeited all claim to their gratitude, just as Bulgaria thought that Russia had forfeited all claim to her gratitude. The Prime Minister must be aware that it would not be his judgment in the future which would rule the Irish Parliament. The Irish Parliament, like all other Parliaments, would be actuated by only one motive—the motive of its own self-interest, and business calculations of what that interest was.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, after line 16, to insert "The granting protection or indemnity in respect of anything done contrary to the provisions of this section."—(Viscount Wolmer.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

* THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,) Forfar

There is no doubt that under some, of the words of this Amendment a question of great importance is raised; but I think I can show, very shortly, that the Amendment ought by no moans to be accepted, either in this form or in any other. What we are concerned with is that the clause prohibits any legislative act on the part of the Irish Legislature with regard to any of the subjects mentioned therein. That is the sole purpose of the clause, and, on the face of it, it would prohibit indemnity. The Amendment cannot have been carefully considered, because it contemplates indemnity in respect of—what? Why, acts done contrary to the provisions of the Bill. But if the Irish Legislature passes a law contrary to the provisions of this section it is, ipso facto, void. The only Body that could ask for protection or indemnity would be the Irish Legislature itself for doing an Act that is void. But there is a much more substantial reason against the Amendment. I apprehend that it is quite undoubted law that no Legislature other than, of course, a supreme Legislature like the Legislature of the United Kingdom, can make legal retrospectively what it could not have legalised antecedently. In the case referred to by the noble Lord that distinction was taken and pointed out again and again by the learned Judges, notably Mr. Justice Wills: and it was solely because the subject-matter of the legislation there was judged to be within the powers of the Jamaica Legislature that the Act of Indemnity was authorised. Now, to put into any Act of Parliament a clause which would throw the slightest doubt on that well-established principle of Constitutional Law would be in the highest degree objectionable. The Irish Legislature could no more legislate after the event with regard to matters excepted from their powers than they could legislate before the event. The Amendment is not only unnecessary, but it is positively objectionable from a Constitutional point of view.

Question put, and negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment—namely, line 16, after Sub-section (10), insert "(11) The law of evidence," is out of Order.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, he now moved the Amendment he had promised the hon. Member for Preston to insert.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 16, at end, to add, "Provided always that nothing in this section shall prevent the passing of any Irish Act for discharging any liabilities imposed by Act of Parliament."—(Mr. J. Morley.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

wished to call attention to the fact that the words proposed had a doubtful or, at all events, a double meaning. More than one meaning could be placed on the words "discharging liabilities." It would be better, he thought, to accept the word "fulfilling."

MR. HANBURY

said, he had an objection to the word "liabilities." In the ordinary sense, the word would meet the purpose of the Amendment; but the right hon. Gentleman would see that in the Bill the words "Imperial liabilities" had a special meaning. If he would look at Schedule 3 he would find that "Imperial liabilities" were a totally different matter from "Imperial expenditure." Imperial liabilities were distinctly limited to the Funded and Unfunded Debt of the United Kingdom, and to other charges on the Consolidated Fund. The addition of the words "and expenditure" after "liabilities" would meet the object they had in view, and be would suggest that those words should be inserted. The main object of the Amendment he had originally moved was that the Irish Parliament should be able to vote money towards extraordinary war expenditure. That was the object the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary wanted to meet in inserting the word "liabilities."

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

made some observations which failed to reach the reporters.

MR. GOSCHEN

understood that the words of the Amendment were intended to cover the case of those liabilities which might be imposed with reference to the particular matters dealt with in the section. It was not a question of general liability which might be imposed by Parliament for other purposes. It was desirable that there should be no misconstruction of the words of the Amendment.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

was understood to suggest that it might make the Amendment clearer if they wore to substitute for "discharging" the words "to provide for." He moved to substitute those words.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "discharging" in order to insert the words "to provide for."—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

also proposed to strike out the word "liabilities," in order to insert the word "charges."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "liabilities," in order to insert the word "charges."—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

* MR. GERALD BALFOUR (Leeds, Central)

said, he wished to move— In page 2, after line 16. to insert:—"It is hereby declared that the exceptions from the powers of the Irish Legislature contained in this section are set forth and enumerated for greater certainty, and not so as to restrict the generality of the limitation imposed in the previous section on the powers of the Irish Legislature, whereby those powers are confined to making of laws in respect of such matters only as relate exclusively to Ireland or to some part thereof. The object of the Amendment was to obviate a danger which he did not think was altogether fanciful that the enumeration of the exceptions from the powers of the Irish Legislature contained in the clause might be construed as weakening the effect of the general limitation contained in Clause 2 on the powers of the Irish Legislature to the making of laws in respect of matters exclusively relating to Ireland or to some part thereof. He had listened with some attention to the Debate on Clause 3, in order to ascertain clearly what the exact view of the Government was as to the relation between exceptions from the powers of the Irish Legislature, and the powers conferred on it by Clause 2. So far he had not been able to form a clear idea on the matter. He could not help thinking that the statements they had had from the Treasury Bench had not been perfectly consistent one with another. The powers conferred on the Irish Legislature were in respect of matters which related exclusively to Ireland or to some part thereof. Now, what he wanted to know was this—did the exceptions from these powers refer to matters which, if these exceptions had not been specifically enumerated, would have lain outside or inside the range of the powers conferred on the Irish Legislature by Clause 2? If they looked merely at the nature of the exceptions contained in Clause 3, the natural answer to the question would be that the exceptions referred to matters which were outside the range of the powers conferred in Clause 2. He did not see how it was possible to interpret most of these exceptions as dealing with matters relating exclusively to the internal affairs of Ireland, and that was the view which had been expressed by some of those in charge of the measure. When the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Carson) moved to add to Sub-section 6 the words "procedure in criminal matters," the Home Secretary said in the course of the discussion— Clause 3 was only the application and development of the principle laid down in the preceding clauses—that the Irish Legislature should have power to legislate in relation to matters which exclusively concerned the peace, order, and good government of Ireland. In specifically enumerating matters which did not exclusively concern Ireland, and declaring that they should not be within the cognisance of the Irish Legislature, it was not showing distrust, but merely rendering more specific the limitation which had already been made. Therefore, according to the right Gentleman, Clause 3 contained enumeration of matters which did not exclusively concern Ireland. Now let them turn to the Solicitor General. When the Member for Dublin University moved another Amendment to include among the exceptions the execution and carrying out in Ireland of warrants issued in Great Britain, and the carrying out in Great Britain of warrants for criminal arrest issued in Ireland, the Solicitor General was reported to have Explained that there was no necessity for the Amendment, because the question of the execution of English warrants in Ireland and of Irish warrants in England was not a question relating exclusively to Ireland, and therefore it could not come within the jurisdiction of the Irish Parliament. Therefore, whereas the Home Secretary regarded Clause 3 as containing an enumeration of matters which did not exclusively concern Ireland, the Solicitor General, on the other hand, held that matters which did not concern Ireland did not require enumeration at all. On that very ground the hon. and learned Gentleman had resisted the insertion of many Amendments proposed from the Opposition side of the House. Similar language had been used by the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Prime Minister. If one looked at the language of Clause 2 the confusion appeared to become only worse confounded. That clause defined the power of the Irish Legislature, with certain exceptions and restrictions. He could not help thinking there had been a certain laxity of drafting with regard to Clause 2. Certain words had been inserted which were not in the corresponding clause of the Bill of 1886. Those words were— In respect of matters exclusively relating to Ireland or some part thereof. He could not help thinking that the draftsman had inserted those words without considering their effect when taken in connection with the words at the beginning of the clause. At any rate, the language employed had given rise to a great deal of confusion. The most plausible explanation of the view held by right hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to be that they had had in their minds three classes of subjects:—First, subjects which were unmistakably and undoubtedly outside the internal affairs of Ireland; secondly, matters unmistakably inside the range of the internal affairs of Ireland; and, thirdly, matters as to which some doubt could be raised whether they belonged to the former or to the latter class. The Debate had clearly shown the extreme difficulty of distinguishing between these three classes. That being so, they ought not to shut their eyes to the danger which enumeration brought with it. He was not a lawyer, but he had always understood it to be a well-known legal maxim that enumeration weakened, the force of the law in cases which were not enumerated, whereas exceptions strengthened the force of the law in cases which were not excepted. The Government had chosen in this Bill to define the powers of the Irish Legislature by exception; they had defined those powers negatively rather than affirmatively. In one respect, however, by the insertion of the words which he bad just quoted, they bad defined the powers affirmatively in so far as they dealt with subjects exclusively relating to Ireland or to some part of it. He was anxious that the force of this should not be weakened by any incomplete enumeration, and be might remind the Committee that any enumeration was almost certain to be incomplete. It was impossible to be sure that they had included everything. He was anxious that the force of the limitation placed on the powers of the Irish Legislature by Clause 2 should not be weakened by any imperfection in the enumeration. The Prime Minister himself had adverted to this danger. His hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) had moved to insert— The status, condition, or rights of any person not domiciled in Ireland. and the Prime Minister said— No doubt the Irish Government would have no power to touch the status or condition of anyone out of Ireland. It had no powers except those which were conferred. The introduction of assertions that the Irish Government did not possess powers, which no one thought it did possess would have a tendency to create kindred powers just beyond the line of prohibition. It was in order to avoid the danger suggested in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks that be moved the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, after line 16, insert—"It is hereby declared that the exceptions from the powers of the Irish Legislature contained in this section are set forth and enumerated for greater certainty, and not so as to restrict the generality of the limitation imposed in the previous section on the powers of the Irish Legislature, whereby those powers are confined to the making of laws in respect of such matters only as relate exclusively to Ireland or to some part thereof."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

I may begin by saying the advantages and the dangers of enumeration constitute a topic which we have endeavoured to impress on hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I am sorry to say they have not listened to us until now, when the hon. Gentleman appropriates our doctrine by moving this Amendment. I have listened to the arguments which he has brought forward in a somewhat subtle way, and I am willing to accept his Amendment, with the exception of the two last lines of it, these lines consisting, I think he will find, of unnecessary recitation. Although we see no difficulty ourselves, and no necessity for the introduction of any words at all, yet, as the change proposed by the hon. Member is absolutely unexceptionable, we think it is only a due act of respect to the views entertained by men of ability that we should accede to their wishes in such a matter. It appears to me that it is impossible to deal with the subject in the way of very strict definition. I do not sec that the 3rd clause throws the smallest doubt on the general provision of the 2nd clause, or tends, in any degree, to strengthen or weaken it. But if it is thought that it does so, I do not see any objection, and I make no objection to the insertion of the words proposed by the hon. Member, down to the word "Legislature."

MR. GERALD BALFOUR

I have no objection to altering the Amendment in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 16, to insert—"It is hereby declared that the exceptions from the powers of the Irish Legislature contained in this section are set forth and enumerated for greater certainty, and not so as to restrict the generality of the limitation imposed in the previous section on the powers of the Irish Legislature."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

THE CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment (Sir R. Temple's) is out of Order, as I do not think the Ordnance Survey is a matter material to the clause. The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Somerset (Mr. H. Hobhouse) ought properly to come upon Clause 5, Sub-section 3. The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Islington (Mr. Hartley), is out of Order, because it seeks to nullify the clause, and the proper course for anyone who wishes to do that is to vote against the clause. The next Amendment (Mr. W. Kenny's) is out of Order in this clause, and should come on Clause 23. The next Amendment, standing in the name of the noble Lord (Viscount Wolmer), is out of Order; and if there is any doubt about the subject it deals with, the proposal ought to come on the Definition Clause. The next Amendment (Mr. Darling's) is out of Order on this clause, and ought to come on Clause 23.

Question, "That Clause 3, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to."

Clause 4 (Restrictions on powers of Irish Legislature).

THE CHAIRMAN

The first Amendment on Clause 4 (Mr. Bartley's) ought to come properly on Clause 5. I think that is the case also with the next Amendment (Viscount Cranborne's). That standing in the name of the hon. Member for the Partick Division (Mr. Parker Smith) is out of its place, and would properly come after Sub-section 5. The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Somerset (Mr. H. Hobhouse), ought also to come after Sub-section 5, and the next (Mr. Kimber's) ought to come on Clause 33.

* MR. HARRY FOSTER (Suffolk, Lowestoft)

moved to insert after "law" the words— Nor the voting nor granting of any public money in aid of the following matters."' He said that if the Irish Parliament was to be restrained from making laws in respect of forbidden matters, they clearly ought not to be allowed to spend public money upon any of the matters they were thus restrained from legislating upon. Of course, circumstances might arise which would make it necessary for the Irish Legislature to raise money by Vote on subjects on which they could not legislate; but this had already been provided for by the Amendment which had been admitted that afternoon.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 19, after the word "law." to insert the words "nor the voting nor granting of any public money in aid of the following matters."—(Mr. Harry Foster.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

We considered the whole of this matter at the commencement of Clause 3, on the Amendment brought forward by the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh (Viscount Wolmer). There are two answers to the hon. Member. The first is that the Irish Legislature can vote no money whatever, according to the provisions of this Bill, except on the recommendation of the Viceroy. The second answer is that all money voted must be appropriated by an Irish Act, which must be an Act which applies to the Public Service of Ireland.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR (Manchester, E.)

I concur with what has fallen from the Prime Minister, so far as he says that the Committee did discuss on another clause points very analogous to the points raised in this Amendment; and, under these circumstances, I do not know that much can be gained by repeating the arguments which we used before—though, unhappily, with small effect—on the Government. And though, of course, I think we ought to accept words in this clause, and have accepted words in the last clause, carrying out the intention proposed first by my noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Viscount Wolmer), and now proposed by my hon. Friend behind me, I do not know that it is worth while again travelling over ground so nearly analogous to that which we travelled before.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 234; Noes 269.—(Division List, No. 136.)

THE CHAIRMAN

ruled the next two Amendments, as under, out of Order, they being appropriate; to another and not to the present clause— MR. Hanbury—Clause 4, page 2, line 19,after "law," insert—"(1) Imposing any liability or conferring any privilege upon any subject of the Crown on account of parentage or nationality, or residence or non-residence in Ireland. MR. Barton—Clause 4, page 2, line 19, at end, insert—"Suspending or prejudicially affecting the right of any person to the writ of habeas corpus.

* MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

rose to move an Amendment to leave out of the clause the first sub-section, providing that the powers of the Irish Legislature shall not extend to the making of any law— (1) Respecting the establishment or endowment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or. The hon. Member said, as there was a second Amendment on the Paper, he would move to leave out of the subsection the first part which read "respecting the endowment of religion." As the question of the establishment and endowment of religion in Ireland must form an essential part of the work of an Irish Legislature, it seemed to him an extraordinary position for them to think they were going to reconcile the Irish by taking away from them the very power which they all knew would form one of the main features and wishes of the Irish people. ["No, no!"] Possibly a certain number of Irish Members in that House might say they had no wish to do that; but it seemed to him obvious when they recognised that an Irish Parliament was being established absolutely by the influence of the priesthood in Ireland—or practically established by that priesthood, and maintained by it—it seemed to him they were quibbling with the absolute facts when they ignored that fact. He himself did not see any great evil in allowing the Irish Legislature to do this. It was true, there was an idea that it would cut against certain interests in Ireland; but still, if they did prohibit this, they would be laying up for themselves a certain amount of difficulty in dealing with the Irish Question. The Irish difficulties were twofold. There was, no doubt, the Land Question, but there was also the very large and perhaps even more permanently great question of religion; and it seemed to him in these days they could not and should not ignore the fact that the religious feeling was very strong in Ireland. He was convinced that if they did restrict the Irish Legislature from in any way touching the establishment or endowment of religion, the result must follow that it would be done in an indirect manner. They had heard that this was quite possible by a system of endowing education, and paying teachers, and indirectly giving grants, not technically and absolutely for religion, but, still, in such a way as that it could be, and would be, made a system of indirect establishment of that particular form of religion to which the majority of the Irish people belonged; and, therefore, he thought when they were going to give the Irish people a Legislature—to which he objected very strongly—it was an absurdity to take away from that Legislature the very thing which, next to the land, was certainly the one to which they would devote most attention as soon as they had got into power in Dublin. If this restriction was not taken out of the clause directly this Legislature was passed, there would be an amount of irritation and agitation against the Imperial Parliament in order to make alterations in this particular clause. He thought it would be wiser and better to face this great question at once. If there was one thing more than another which showed the hollowness and mockery of the whole measure it was that of the Irish people acquiescing and silently agreeing to a clause which, practically, everyone of them knew in his heart he objected to and would do his utmost to upset. ["No, no!"] An hon. Member said "no, no;" but if he went to Ireland and said the same thing, he would not be returned the same as at present. In order to test the sincerity of the whole thing, he ventured to move that the first part of the sub-section respecting the establishment and endowment of religion be omitted. He did not expect a great number of the Irish Members would support it; still, he thought it would be an indication and evidence of their bona fides if they really put on record their view of this great question. He begged to move the omission of the words "Respecting the establishment or endowment of religion."

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 20, to leave out the words "Respecting the establishment or endowment of religion."—(Mr. Bartley.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

thought this was a clause which was entitled to the very particular attention of the Government. The Government were under the impression that they had proposed nothing in this Bill with regard to the restrictions as to the establishment and endowment of religion which was not matched and bettered by other countries, notably by the United States of America. The Chief Secretary, for instance, was of opinion that the restrictions in this case were not so great as those placed in the United States of America by the United States Constitution. [Mr. J. MORLEY was understood to dissent.] He was going to point out that the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in this view; and as the right hon. Gentleman now admitted it, he would simply quote in corroboration of that admission a statement, of a Judge who was an acknowledged authority on the subject. He would not trouble the Committee but for the importance of the Amendment.

MR. W. REDMOND (Clare, E.)

We are agreed.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, they were not all agreed; and, although the Government had not shown a disposition to question the justice of the view he was placing before the House, he might refer them to the authority he was a moment ago about to cite—he meant, Judge Cooley. He wished to point out that, while they were professing to legislate on the ground of the American Constitution and on its lines, they were presenting in the Bill the American Constitution with all the goodness knocked out. of it—with all its brains gone—and without its best parts, which were those parts that were borrowed from England. So far from the United States, as a whole, prohibiting the endowment of religion, the fact was that the law in various States showed the greatest possible diversity in regard to the profession of religious belief. In some States there was an article that a man could not hold office who entertained any doubt as to the existence of the Deity. He did not know whether the Irish Secretary (Mr. J. Morley) would care to adapt that to the case of Irishmen. [Cries of "Oh!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order!

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, the provisions of this Bill were exactly the contrary of those contained in the American Constitution, and the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill) was right when he said that in no country in the world were there so many and such great restrictions as the Bill proposed to impose upon Ireland. They had the provisions of distrust in various places. They had them in the case of the Judges, who were to have a special official to carry out the laws lest they should not care to do it or did not want to do it. But in no part of the Bill was the distrust so strong as in the clauses dealing with the establishment and endowment of religion. It had been said that religion was an affair of latitude. He admitted that climate did have some influence on the beliefs of a people; but the previous history of a country contributed to them. They knew that a special form of religion—a form of which he would not say one word in derogation, for he respected all religions, except that belief which was called Atheism, and which was of no good whatever—had prevailed in Ireland as a result of the condition of her social state. Was not that a special reason why considerable liberty should be given to the Irish Legislature? Why should that country (Ireland) not have an equality of liberty with the American States, where such power was given to the Legislatures? [Mr. J. MORLEY was about to leave the House as the hon. Member was speaking.] Before the Chief Secretary quite left the House—[Mr. J. MORLEY here returned]—he would like to ask him whether he was prepared to give this amount of liberty in the Bill? As he had said, the noble Lord had described the Bill as having more restrictions in it than any Bill or Act in the world or any measure raising a Constitution that had ever been produced—

LORD R. CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.)

I was not arguing in favour of an Amendment of this kind.

* MR. GIBSON BOWLES

said, he was quite aware of that, and he had not quoted the noble Lord as supporting an Amendment in the terms and of the character of that introduced by his hon. Friend. The Irish Secretary had said that the countries upon which restrictions were imposed were satisfied with them; and he (Mr. Bowles) was not replying to the argument of the noble Lord, nor showing that he was advocating the policy of the Amendment; but he was endeavouring to show the difficulties by which the Bill was surrounded, and to point out to the Chief Secretary that, if they were to have Home Rule in Ireland, they should not follow the policy which it was the evident object of the Government to adhere to.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, he could not vote for the Amendment, and he hoped it would not be pressed to a Division; but the Mover of the Amendment had at least one of those points, which they were always meeting in their Deflates on the Bill, which placed before them the alternative whether this Bill would be a working measure or whether they were to endeavour to restrict the power which it was sought to impose on the Irish Legislature. Those who went in for Home Rule—those who were in favour of it—on the ground that it would give the people of Ireland liberty to manage their own business were, he thought, bound to vote for an Amendment of this kind. He was unable to conceive that an Irish Legislature, restricted as this. Bill restricted that which it was proposed to set up, would be contented with its position. As his hon. Friend bad pointed out, if they withdrew a power of this kind from the Irish Legislature, Irish feeling would be excited, and it was difficult to understand how there could be any belief or hope that the measure could become permanent. If he were a Home Ruler he should certainly vote for the Amendment, and he thought hon. Gentlemen who believed in Home Rule would act inconsistently if they did not vote for it, or, if it were not pressed, support it. Their not doing so, he thought, was calculated to raise a new phase of the Irish Question.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

No, no.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

said, the supporters of the Government would render the Bill innocuous. For his part, he could not, as he had said, vote for the Amendment, which would be not only opposed to the principle of his Party, but which would be also opposed to the sentiment of the British people. If the Bill was to be a lasting one, according to the principle advocated by the Government, it should be amended in the direction that had been suggested; but he was not anxious to add to the very large powers for evil which the Government proposed to confer upon Ireland.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

I shall not attempt to go into the argument against the Bill or the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made in respect of this Bill. My reason for not intervening sooner is that I was anxious to give an opportunity—as this Amendment would affect the power of the Irish Legislature—for the views of any Nationalist Member from Ireland who might feel it his duty to speak on the Amendment. For my own part, I confess I would not have the smallest fear in entrusting the Irish people with this power, dealing with the establishment or endowment of a particular religion or a particular Church, because I believe that the day for founding establishments of religion is gone by. Establishments of religion have always appeared to me to be accompanied by—not religious unity, but religious disunity—disunity of religious feeling, and that might result in a country where there is such a diversity of belief as there is in Ireland. But I do not believe that the Irish Members have any desire—not the smallest desire—to ask for, or to secure, the establishment of any religion. Complaint has been made that the Government did not in 1886 make any provision of this kind in the Bill of that year. But it was felt in many quarters since then that the great majority in Ireland who were attached to a particular religion might possibly be attracted to an idea of this kind in conformity with the form of their religion; and the Government were encouraged to consult the Irish Members in relation to the matter. Well, we now recognise—I, for one, do—that a concession has been made by Ireland—a generous concession—in surrendering the right to deal with this subject. I think the decision is a wise decision, and we desire to give effect to it and to support it. I do not know, but I think we may assume that, even if the Irish Legislature had the power, it would be most unlikely to exercise it. Therefore, we are not disposed to entertain the Amendment. If there is a restriction of Irish liberty, it is a restriction that is freely and voluntarily accepted by Ireland, and it is a restriction that will disarm apprehension from those who may have been disposed to think that an Irish Legislature would establish religion in Ireland.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

said, the use of such an Amendment as this was an educational one. It was intended to show 1o the country the inconsistency of the Government proposals. As had just been stated, the restriction now introduced was to disarm apprehension—it was to be a sop to the British people to convince them that the Irish minority would not be oppressed. But it seemed absurd to him that, after setting up an Irish Legislature and an Irish Government and Executive dependent upon it, they should exclude from its cognisance such things as religion and education. It should require very little talk to enable them to come to a conclusion on that point. The right hon. Gentleman would not give at present that which would be demanded in the future, and the granting of which this Parliament would be unable to resist. He would like to ask the Liberals whether, if in the future the Irish Parliament and the independent Executive of Ireland came to them and demanded the right to deal with religion and education, would they, or could they, oppose the justice of the demand? If these two matters were not matters of purely domestic interest he did not know what matters were to come under that description. The Prime Minister had spoken of the Irish Members as consenting to the restriction; but they could not give consent to it on behalf of Irish people at all times, and he thought British Members should feel humiliated at hearing from the Prime Minister that the Irish had surrendered as an act of generosity towards this country. If the Irish Members had conquered the British Government, it was to be remembered that they had not yet conquered the British people. The Government spoke of the Irish Nationalist Members and their followers as the Irish people; but there was, at any rate, one-fourth of the population in Ireland who were Irishmen, constituting the Protestant minority, left out of account by the Government. He would like to know if the Government were not prepared—they had not hitherto done so—to discuss the apprehensions of the Protestant minority? If they did, they would see that there was a fear that the Irish Legislature would establish and endow religion. The minority could only come to the conclusion now that the provision in the Bill was a mere paper safeguard. The Irish majority would have secured their object; and if they were to have Home Rule he was not going to dispute their right to secure that object; but the discussion on the matter would show to the friends of liberty in England and to the Protestants in Ireland that there was nothing but a paper safeguard to disarm those who had apprehensions, and that the power, if not granted now, would be granted at a future lime—when this Parliament would have no power to prevent the establishment of a Church in Ireland—supposing the Irish people desired it—an establishment for the support of which the Irish Protestant minority would be taxed, without any law existing to prevent the injustice.

MR. T. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour)

said, they had just listened to a very extraordinary speech from the right hon. Gentleman, and which might be taken in conjunction with the calumnies burled against Ireland by himself and the Party he was associated with for the past seven years. And this attitude was assumed at a moment when, as a concession to the feeling of the Irish Protestant minority, the Irish Members were willing that the power of establishing religion or education should be removed from the purview of the Irish Legislature. It was not true that there would be any demand for an amendment of the Bill in this respect. He believed that if the Government had introduced a Bill with this provision, as proposed by the Amendment, not only the Irish Nationalists, but every section of opinion in Ireland, would have insisted that it should be removed from the Bill. They had agreed to the concession, their wish being to maintain the principle in the Bill. The Irish people were quite fitted to look after their various religious, and they did not want any law which would give them the power the Amendment sought to impose.

MR. BARTLEY

said, as the Irish Members appeared to be satisfied that the Legislature should be subject to restriction, he would be content that the Amendment should be negatived.

Amendment negatived.

THE CHAIRMAN

The next Amendment in Order stands in the name of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Butcher).

MR. BUTCHER

said, he rose to move— In page 2, line 21, after "thereof," insert; "or the disestablishment or disendowment of any Religious Body. The object of the Amendment was to prevent the Irish Legislature from taking away or appropriating the property of any Religious Body. There was, for instance, the property of the Irish Church. They were aware that a good deal of that property was taken away under an Act of Parliament, whether rightly or wrongly he was not going to say. He thought he would be borne out by the Prime Minister, subject to whose correction he spoke, that the Church was allowed to retain the property acquired within a period of 80 years prior to the passing of the Act. It was not improbable, or at any rate impossible, that the Irish Legislature might assume that this property was of a semi-public character, and might wish to devote it to secular uses. The Legislature might say that the funds were semi-public, and should be used for what it might consider a better purpose. He took it that, on no side of the House would there be any desire to aprropriate any such funds as these. The only question was, was there any provision in the Bill preventing the Irish Parliament from acting in this way? He had looked through the restrictions in the Bill, and the only section he could find which it could be suggested would prevent such an act was Sub-section 3 of this clause; but he ventured to think even if it was intended that Sub-section 3 should apply to such a case as this, that intention was not carried out. Subsection 3 said the powers of the Irish Legislature should not extend to the making of any law Abrogating or prejudicially affecting the right to establish or maintain any place of denominational education or any denominational institution or charity. It occurred to him that those words were not intended to cover the case of the funds of a Religious Body at all, but were intended to cover denominational education, or a denominational institution or charity. But supposing these words "denominational institution" could be so extended as to cover a Religious Body, then he said the words of the Bill as they stood did not prevent the Irish Parliament from depriving such a Body as the Irish Church of the Church funds. The words only affected the right to maintain the Irish Church. Could it be said that to take away a portion of the funds would affect the right to maintain the Irish Church? If so, the words were extremely inapt; and if the Government did really intend that the right of the Irish Church to maintain and keep their present endowments should not be affected, then he would ask them to introduce some words into the clause which would give effect to that object. As the matter stood at present, no layman reading the Bill would suppose the case he put was met by the words in Sub-section 3. He would ask the Government to introduce words to carry out the purpose intended. He moved, instead of the words in the Amendment, to insert after the word "or," the words "appropriating or diverting the property of any Religious Body."

Amendment proposed, after the word "or," to insert the words "appropriating or diverting the property of any Religious Body."—(Mr. Butcher.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. J. MORLEY

A word almost, I think, will be sufficient to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman; in fact, he has himself anticipated what the answer would be. We contend that this point is entirely met by Sub-sections 3 and 6. Sub-section 3 says they may not abrogate or prejudicially affect any denominational institution, and Sub-section 6 meets the case raised by the hon. Gentleman, for it saves any existing Corporal ion incorporated by Royal Charter or Act of Parliament, and the Episcopal Church is incorporated by Act of Parliament.

MR. A.J. BALFOUR

The object of my hon. and learned Friend who moved the Amendment is to prevent the appropriation of the funds of a religious denomination. The right hon. Gentleman, in reply, says the point is good enough in itself; but it will be met by Sub-section 3 of the Bill as it stands. [MR. J. MORLEY: And Sub-section 6.] Sub-section 3 refuses the Legislature power to abrogate or prejudicially affect—what? Not a religious establishment or place of denominational education, or denominational institution or charity; but the right to establish such institution. [Mr. J. MORLEY: Or maintain.] Yes; but the word "right" governs the word "maintain." But taking away the funds of the late Established Irish Church does not prejudicially affect its right to maintain. I really cannot conceive, if legal language has the slightest analogy to the English language as ordinarily spoken, how anyone can really believe that Sub-section 3 can really cover the whole point raised by my hon. Friend; and I hope if the Government are in favour of his view, they will, at all events, modify the language of the Bill, and make it perfectly clear that such funds as are left at present to the Church of Ireland or other institution shall not be at the mercy of the Legislature they propose to set up.

MR. V. GIBBS (Herts, St. Albans)

asked what was the objection of the Government to accepting the words of the proposed Amendment? They said they desired to produce the same effect as the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, who desired to put in plain words, whereas those of the Government only expressed what was intended very loosely and vaguely—if, indeed, they expressed it at all. He would point out that the Amendment would give satisfaction to those who were apprehensive of risk, and would in no way interfere with the object of the Bill.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

A lapse of memory prevented me dealing with Subsection 6, on which the Chief Secretary says he relies as supplementing Subsection 3. Sub-section 6 says the power of the Irish Legislature shall not extend to making any laws. Whereby any existing Corporation incorporated by Royal Charter, or by any local or general Act of Parliament … be deprived of its rights. Are we to suppose that every Religious Body is incorporated either by Act of Parliament or Royal Charter? We all know that is not the fact, and Subsection 6, as it stands, is as powerless to cover the intention of the Government as I think I have shown that Sub-section 3 is. There is really no point of substantial difference between the two sides of the House, the only point being as to legal draftsmanship. I would, therefore, ask the Solicitor General to consent to the Amendment of my hon. Friend, or introduce words equivalent to it, or show in some more satisfactory manner than has been shown up to the present that the words of the Bill carry out the intention which the Government agree with my hon. Friend should be covered.

* SIR J. LUBBOCK (London University)

pointed out that though the 6th sub-section forbid the Irish Parliament to make a law, it permitted the object to be effected on an Address, which came to the same thing. Therefore, as he read the sub-section, if both Houses combined to present such an Address, what it was intended to prevent by the Amendment could be done. Neither Sub-section 3 nor Sub-section 6 really effected the object of the Government, and he hoped they would receive some assurance from the Government that they would either accept the Amendment or introduce other suitable words.

MR. KNOX (Cavan, W.)

said, that no Irish Member wished to disendow or disestablish further than had already been done any Religious Body in Ireland. So far as the Church of Ireland was concerned—that was the Protestant Episcopalian Church—it was fully met by Clause 6, because it was a Corporation, having been incorporated by Act of Parliament. There were other Religious Bodies which were not Corporations, or incorporated by Act of Parliament; but in that case Sub-section 5 fully dealt with the matter, because in those cases the property of these Religious Bodies was vested in trustees, and those trustees could not be deprived of their property without due process of law. He maintained that the matter was fully dealt with by the Bill as it stood.

MR. RENTOUL (Down, E.)

said, the hon. Member who moved this Amendment had before his mind the Irish Church. But there was another Church in Ireland, the Presbyterian Church, which was very materially affected by this matter. The Presbyterian Church was, to a certain extent, an endowed Church. It was disendowed at the same time that the Irish Episcopal Church was disendowed and disestablished; but there was a grant of commutation money given to that Church which amounted to considerably over half its entire previous income. That money, received directly from the Government, was invested by the leaders of the Irish Presbyterian Church, and was still so invested; and consequently that Church was at the present time in an indirect way an endowed Church, receiving income from money which came directly from the Imperial resources of this country. That being so, it would be perfectly natural that the Irish Legislature might say that they would carry out to its fullest extent the principle of disendowment which was passed by that Parliament in 1869, and take away the money given to the Irish Presbyterian Church at that time, and which constituted, in point of fact, an endowment of that Church at the present moment. The point with regard to incorporation which had been referred to as regarded the Protestant Episcopal Church did not, in the slightest degree, apply to the Presbyterian Church; and it seemed to him that from that point of view there did need to be put into this Act something clearly safeguarding the Irish Presbyterian Church in this matter, especially as it probably would have very few Representatives in the Irish Parliament. It should, therefore, have every protection not only as regarded the endowment it had received from the Treasury, but also as regarded the great funds it had established for itself, so that the Irish Legislature in the future could not possibly lay its hands on any of these funds. It might be contended there was no danger of this, but the Irish Legislature could not claim to be more honest than the English Legislature; and if the Imperial Parliament, according to the opinion of many of them in 1869, laid its hands on the funds of the Church of Ireland, it was possible the Irish Legislature, following the example thus set, might interfere in connection with these funds of the Irish Presbyterian Church, and he earnestly appealed to the Prime Minister to accept the Amendment, or similar words to carry out the object aimed at, and safeguard a very large amount of valuable property connected with the Churches in Ireland.

MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)

urged the Government to agree to the Amendment, or insert words to safeguard the property of the Churches. No one had answered the contention of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London that even supposing the Church to which allusion was made was covered by the definition of a Corporation in the sub-section and the words in the same sub-section "without due process of law," there still remained the fact that the Irish Houses of Parliament could deprive them of their property upon an Address. What was the difference between depriving them of it by Address or by law? If that point was unsound, let the Government point out where the unsoundness lay?

LORD R. CHURCHILL

I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether Prejudicially affecting the right to establish or maintain any denominational institution would cover the case of the Protestant Church Synod or the case of the Presbyterian Endowments?

MR. J. MORLEY

thought the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition was not an unjust one, and said that, in order to meet that and other objections raised, the Government would propose to add at the end of Sub-section 3, when it came on in due course, these words, "diverting the property of any Religious Body."

MR. BUTCHER

I am much obliged to the Chief Secretary. I certainly assent to that, and it meets the object I have in view.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

moved to add to the end of the sub-section the words "whether directly or indirectly." In a Second Reading speech the noble Lord the Member for Paddington pointed out with unanswerable force that though it might be impossible under this Bill directly to endow religion it was perfectly easy to indirectly endow religion; and he showed how in connection with national or industrial schools or otherwise, it might be possible to give something which could not be defined by law as endowment of religion, but which would, in effect, turn the Roman Catholic clergy in Ireland into a State-supported Body. He thought it was, therefore, important these words should be introduced.

Amendment proposed, to add to the end of the sub-section the words "whether directly or indirectly."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. J. MORLEY

did not think the words would add very much to what was already intended and provided for in the Bill. He would also point out that the words would come in very awkwardly at the end of the clause. The Government had no objection in principle to the insertion of the words.

MR. COURTNEY

suggested that the words should come immediately after the word "religion."

LORD R. CHURCHILL

Do I understand the Chief Secretary will accept these words "directly or indirectly"?

MR. J. MORLEY

Yes.

MR. KNOX

said, that he did not say that any Irishman wished to endow religion directly or indirectly, so that on the merits of the matter he did not think they had any objection. At the same time, as a matter of drafting, he could not conceive anything more unhappy than the insertion of these words in this particular place. If these special words were to be put in after the sub-section similar words ought to be put in after every sub-section in all the various clauses. For instance, Sub-section 2 prevented the Irish Legislature from imposing any disability, or conferring any privilege, on account of religious belief. He would take it that they were not to be allowed to do that directly or indirectly.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

But this is going in after the word "religion."

MR. KNOX

said, he was referring to Sub-section 2, to show that, if it was necessary to insert it in the 1st sub-section, it was necessary to insert it in the other. In the same way, he might go through every sub-section of the clause to illustrate the same principle. While he had no objection to the insertion of the words, he must say the only effect they would have would be to imply that they might indirectly, by other sections, do the things they were prevented from doing by this section.

MR. JOHN DILLON (Mayo, E.)

Whilst I join with the hon. Member who has just spoken in saying there is not the slightest desire on the part of any hon. Members from Ireland to retain in the Bill any power to endow religion in Ireland, either directly or indirectly, still I think, before these words are accepted by the Government, we ought to have some opportunity of considering, with legal advice, what the full effect of these words would be. I would point out that we have only considered them for a very short time, and on the moment I am not prepared to say to what extent the insertion of such words as those would affect the endowment of certain Charities which are at present largely endowed by this House, and which, I think, every Member on both sides would admit, it would be very undesirable to interfere with in the slightest degree. If I knew, or if we knew, that the acceptance of these words would not interfere with such Charities, I should not have the least objection to them; but, before the words are actually accepted, we are entitled to know to what extent they might possibly interfere with industrial schools and other institutions in Ireland, which no hon. Member would desire to see interfered with.

* SIR J. RIGBY

It may very well be that the hon. Member who has just spoken is right with respect to endowments of Charities. I take it it is not intended by either side to say that any thing that is now being done in Ireland shall be illegal for the Parliament of Ireland in respect of these Charities. If there be Charities or institutions now receiving State aid, it would be a very strange thing if this Bill, by a side wind, were to take away from them those rights to receive such aid. There may be schools which are in one sense denominational, but which are perfectly qualified for receiving, as they actually now receive, grants throughout Ireland. I presume the greater part of the schools are denominational—that is, under the control of one Religious Body or another. I believe also that a vast number of schools are only attended by scholars of one particular denomination, nevertheless they comply with the requirements of the Education Code by having a Conscience Clause. It would be a very unfortunate thing if all such grants given in aid of education now were to be put an end to by the force of these words, and I am sure no one would desire that. These words "directly or indirectly" are not apt words. Of course, if you prohibit in a general way a thing being done, you prohibit its being done, whether directly or indirectly, and the words proposed would not render more sure of prohibition the endowment of religion.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

It appears to me that the learned Gentleman is labouring under a mistake. He appears to think that we propose to take away existing endowments or subventions from various Charitable Bodies. It is evident that that is not the case. By introducing these words we do not affect for good or for evil any existing system. I am bound to say that I think the hon. Member for Mayo was perfectly right in saying that this matter requires more consideration than we have given it. The hon. Member desires that the Irish Parliament should be left ample power to increase to any extent subventions to Denominational Institutions when they are Catholic, and to reduce the subventions when they are Protestant.

MR. DILLON

said, he thought the denominational system, both of Protestants and Catholics in Ireland, was a system which had been selected for industrial schools, and he would expect the same justice to be shown to them.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I am quite aware that the hon. Gentleman did not say a single word indicating that his policy would be to disendow the Protestant schools. That is not the point. The point is what may or may not be done by the new Irish Legislature if the power which the hon. Member desires it should have were given to it. There are in Ireland hospitals under purely Catholic management, and hospitals under purely Protestant management, and the endowments and funds of these Institutions have, unhappily, given rise to the most bitter controversies. I want to know whether the Government think that the Irish Parliament ought to have the power of dealing with Denominational Institutions of that kind? If the Irish Parliament is given that power it may use it for sectarian purposes to the disadvantage of the Protestant community. Nothing can be plainer than that the Irish Government will have the power of turning the legislative authority which you are giving them to a use as purely sectarian as possible.

* THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,) Fife, E.

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman is twofold. In the first place, I say that if the Irish Legislature used their power for the purpose indicated, such action would come within the prohibition, and would be a violation of the prohibition. My second answer is that, if that is not sufficient, the matter which the right hon. Gentleman regards with apprehension as a possibility is equally prohibited by Subsection 2 of this same clause, because undoubtedly such legislation would, in effect, amount to the conferring of a privilege on account of religious belief.

LORD R. CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.)

I am inclined to agree with the right hon. Gentleman, that in no case can endowed schools of either creed be interfered with by the Irish Legislature; but taking two great endowments—May-nooth College, which is Roman Catholic, and Magee College, which is Protestant-Nonconformist—it is quite clear that any preference given to one or the other would be a violation of Sub-section 3.

* MR. GERALD BALFOUR (Leeds, Central)

said, he thought the words proposed to be inserted would hardly be grammatical. He would suggest that they should be "direct or indirect."

MR. V. GIBBS

thought the Government had not quite made up their minds what course to take.

SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)

said, it seemed to be thought that if a grant were given to a school it might be construed as an endowment of religion. He would remind the Committee that in England Roman Catholic schools received grants, and so did infant schools. In no case could grants made under this authority be construed as an endowment of religion. But it might be an indirect endowment of religion if the Irish Legislature were to determine that all the masters of certain schools should be priests.

MR. KNOX (Cavan, W.)

thought it a pity that an Amendment which had been described by the Law Officer of the Government as inept should be accepted.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

As I understand our present system, the Training Colleges are provided with sums from the annual Vote, which is made effective by an Appropriation Bill that comes to an end every year. As I understand the restrictions in this clause, the Irish Government could not bring in a new Vote in Supply, covered by a new Appropriation Bill continuing the old endowment to these Religious or Denominational Bodies. We are all anxious that the Training Colleges should not be dealt with by this Bill, and I am of opinion that you will destroy Training Colleges.

MR. T. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour)

said, he thought it was clear that the words proposed increased the difficulty pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman, and the Government should not, therefore, accept them.

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

suggested that a Proviso should be inserted that the prohibition should not apply to existing Institutions.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

We agree with the right hon. Gentleman in what he desires, but we do not agree with him as to what the effect of the Act will be. There is no doubt whatever that the cases of Training Colleges fall exactly in the same category as the cases of ordinary schools.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

While the system of primary education in Ireland is avowedly undenominational that of the Training Colleges is avowedly denominational.

* MR. MATTHEWS (Birmingham, E.)

It results from what has fallen from the Prime Minister, that the sub-section does not give any protection whatever against the evils which it is acknowledged might be created; it will not prevent the Irish Legislature from endowing places of education in which the principles of one denomination are taught.

Amendment agreed to.

* SIR H. JAMES (Bury, Lancashire)

moved to insert the following words at the end of the 1st sub-section: "Respecting the disposition of property for charitable, pious, or religious uses, or." He hoped he might be permitted to remind the Committee of the very great importance of the subject. On our Statute Books, from the very first, and all through the Middle Ages, was to be found the records of the contest waged between the State and the ecclesiastical ingenuity with regard to the bequests of property. The object of the State was to prevent property passing into the dead hands of Corporations through ecclesiastical influence over persons in their dying moments. The contest was long and severe, and displayed great ingenuity and erudition on the part of the Ecclesiastical Bodies; but the influence of the State prevailed, and no one could deny that this was for the public benefit. They hail prevented real property being disposed of under any circumstances by will for religious, charitable, or pious purposes. They had also laid down exceptions in favour of some charitable uses which were purely charitable. The result had been very satisfactory. It was shown by a Consolidation Act passed in 1888, which controlled dispositions in favour of charitable uses. But that Act did not apply to Ireland or to Scotland. The Irish legislation on this subject was the legislation of an Irish Parliament which existed under different conditions from which an Irish Parliament could ever exist in the future. Restrictions applying to Ireland were also passed by the Imperial Parliament, and the question was, whether the future Irish Legislature was to have the power to alter this wise legislation adopted in the general interest? He did not desire to introduce questions of religious controversy into the discussion, but they could not disguise from themselves the enormous powers exercised by Ecclesiastical Authorities in Ireland; and if it were wise to prohibit in Great Britain ecclesiastical influence being used on a person on his deathbed to acquire property for Ecclesiastical Corporations, was it not still more necessary to see that this legislative prohibition prevailed in Ireland? They had examples recently of the enormous force of the ecclesiastical power in Ireland when exercised in elections. That meant an influence on legislation, for if ecclesiastics in Ireland could return Members they could induce these Members to legislate as they desired. Therefore, there was a greater necessity in Ireland for these populations than in Great Britain. The Statutes of Mortmain were directed against the influence of the priests; the priests naturally would be desirous to repeal them, and there was no doubt that they would be repealed if the power were left to the Irish Legislature. It might be said that in such a case the veto would come into operation. But the veto meant nothing but friction, and disastrous friction. It was better for the Imperial Parliament to interfere now, before the Bill had passed, than after the Irish Legislature was established. The Imperial Parliament should now see that while a gener- ous freedom was allowed in Ireland for the exercise of charity, there should be some restrictions to prevent bequests of land to the injury of the general public. He begged to move his Amendment, adding the word "charitable" to it, as it stood on the Paper.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 21, after the word "or," to insert the words "respecting the disposition of property for charitable, pious, or religious uses, or.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

* SIR J. RIGBY

This Amendment is greatly extended by adding the word "charitable," and I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has given us sufficient reason why we should adopt it. It must be remembered that Ireland and England are not on the same footing as regards the Law of Mortmain, regulating the leaving of land for charitable purposes. The law that applies to England does not apply to Ireland, and the effect of this Amendment would literally be to prevent the Irish Legislature from making the law exactly the same as it is in England now. There are differences of considerable importance between Ireland and England in the matter of charitable bequests. For instance, a bequest of money for the payment of Masses is illegal in England and is legal in Ireland. The Imperial Parliament has always recognised that it is not good policy to attempt to apply to Ireland the same law as to charitable bequests which applies in this country. If we adopted this Amendment it would be a retrograde step instead of a step forward. We ought, I think, to leave the existing system to the Irish Legislature to deal with as they think fit.

DR. KENNY (Dublin, College Green)

said, he was glad the Government did not intend to accept the Amendment; for if it were accepted, it would withdraw from the Irish Parliament the very important power of inquiring into the disposition of charitable funds in Ireland. He was strongly convinced that it was a subject which the Irish Parliament would have to inquire into in the near future, in order to secure that charitable funds were disposed to the best advantage of the country; but if the Amendment were adopted such an inquiry would be rendered abortive, as the Irish Parliament would be unable to legislate in accordance with the result of the inquiry.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

I do not say whether the argument is very important or not, but it appears to me that the argument which the Solicitor General has advanced against it has very little weight. I cannot make out whether his view is that the law of Ireland ought to be assimilated to the law of England or not. No one disputes that the law of the two countries is different. But whether the Solicitor General objects to this Amendment because it would prevent the assimilation of the law, or whether he objects to it because it would lead to the assimilation of the law, I cannot for the life of me make out. I say that if it were desired by a majority of the Irish Representatives to assimilate the Irish law with the English law, there would be no difficulty whatever in obtaining that assimilation in the Imperial Parliament, in which there would be at least 80 Irish Representatives. On the other hand, it is not likely that the Imperial Parliament would ever be desirous to alter the existing Irish law against the will of the Irish people in order to assimilate it with the law of this country. But as the law exists at present in Ireland it applies great restrictions to those testamentary bequests. It is quite true that the restrictions are not the same as under the English law; but the restrictions are there, and, on the whole, those restrictions are thought necessary and advisable. That being so, why not leave the law as it is; and if a proposal is made to alter it, why not require that it shall be considered by the wisdom of the Imperial Parliament? There can be no question as to the necessity for these restrictions. In Canada, where there are no such restrictions, the consequences have been, as I consider, most disastrous, because an immense amount of the land of the country has fallen into the hands of the priesthood, and in the hands of the priesthood it has not been utilised to the greatest advantage to the welfare of the country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite tell us that, so far as they are concerned, they do not desire anything in the nature of an endowment of religion, or an increase of the power of the priesthood, and that they would be the first to resist it. Well, but would not this Amendment strengthen their hands? Would it not be much easier for them to resist the encroachments of the priesthood if they could say to the priests—It is no use your pressing this; we would have to go to the Imperial Parliament for it, and in the Imperial Parliament we would be in a minority on this point." If the Irish Parliament has the power of dealing with it, it is perfectly certain that whatever hon. Members opposite may say or do, the priesthood will make a demand for it, [Cries of "No!"] The thing is perfectly certain. We know enough of the history of the Catholic priesthood to be perfectly certain that this demand will be made. They have never accepted as satisfactory, just, or wise the provisions against testamentary bequests, and it is perfectly certain that when a Legislature exists by which they will have some chance of having their views accepted they are sure to put pressure on that Legislature.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

The right hon. Gentleman in his speech has overlooked a consideration which I think is most material to this Debate. On Clause 3 we considered a number of subjects, many of them of very great weight, others of more or less importance, with respect to which we recognised that the Irish Legislature should have no power of making laws, and which should be entirely reserved to the Imperial Parliament. But we have now passed, on Clause 4, to a totally different field of subjects. We have just prohibited the Irish Legislature from endowing or establishing a religion; but by so doing we do not mean to reserve that subject to the discretion of the Imperial Parliament. It would be a strange and startling announcement to the world if people were to understand—if our Nonconformist friends were to understand—that we did not prohibit legislation for the establishment and endowment of a Church in Ireland, but only declared that it was not a matter for the Irish Parliament, but for the Imperial Parliament. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman has overlooked this important fact: that on this clause we are dealing with matters which we intend not merely to take out of the hands of the Irish Parliament, but which we think should be excluded altogether from the field and purview of legislation, whether by one Parliament or by the other. The effect of the Amendment would, therefore, be to insert the subject of mortmain amongst the subjects that should not be dealt with at all; and according to the scope and spirit of this clause, the implication would be that the laws were to remain exactly as they are, and should not be altered at all. On the general question, I am strongly opposed to the locking-up of land by the priesthood; but I object to the Amendment, because this is not a question merely of restraining the Irish Parliament from promoting a great extension of the Law of Mortmain. I have no reason to doubt that the Irish Legislature would not be possessed of the knowledge requisite for the right dealing with this subject as well as any other Legislative Body. I believe the Irish Parliament will desire to put the land in the hands of the people, and in order to get the land into the hands of the people they will be most desirous of getting it into the market and not let it got into mortmain, which would take it out of the market, and thereby frustrate the sound policy of the Irish Legislature. This Amendment would not only prevent the Irish Legislature from touching mortmain, but it would prevent it from touching the Law of Charitable Bequests at all. Are they to be prevented from making laws with reference to personal property left for charitable uses? That would be a most unreasonable restriction to impose, especially as we are not now dealing with subjects which are reserved to ourselves, but with subjects that are to be taken outside the purview of legislation, whether by the Irish Parliament or by this Parliament. I see no reason why the Irish Parliament should not be left to exercise their own discretion in the matter. If I am told that there would be great ecclesiastical pressure brought to bear on the Irish Parliament, to secure the bequeathing of land in Ireland for religious uses, I say, looking to the history of Ireland, that a very strong ecclesiastical movement for taking a large quantity of land out of the limited land market of the country would be discouraged by the people; and as the Catholic Church must, as a Voluntary Church, keep in the closest harmony with the people, there is, I think, no danger of such a state of things.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The right hon. Gentleman has urged a general objection to this Amendment, and a particular objection. His general objection is that the Amendment is not relevant at all to the clause, which he says is constructed not with a view to seeing that certain matters shall be excluded from the purview of the Irish Parliament and given to the Imperial Parliament, but of prohibiting certain legislation by any Parliament. That is the most astounding statement I ever heard. There is no allusion to the Imperial Parliament in the clause. There is not a suggestion in the clause that the Imperial Parliament is to be debarred from these matters; and if there was such a suggestion, it would be absurd on the face of it. The idea that the Imperial Parliament is to pass a Bill declaring that the Imperial Parliament shall not legislate on certain matters is surely the most fantastic legislative proposition that ever came from the brain of man. If I may be allowed to put a more rational interpretation on the right hon. Gentleman's own Bill, I would say that Clause 3 obviously is intended to deal with those matters which are not purely Irish, and Clause 4 obviously is intended to deal with matters purely Irish. But the idea that in Clause 4 we are laying down a law for all time binding not only the Irish Parliament, but the Imperial Parliament is utterly absurd, and I venture to brush it aside. I come to the particular argument of the right hon. Gentleman. He says that while it would be very inexdepient that large tracts of land should be handed over for religious or charitable purposes he does not anticipate that even if we leave Ireland free to deal with the matter the evil will ever arise, and he went on to state a reason for that belief. His reason is that, the amount of land in Ireland being limited, the Roman Catholic Church would render itself extremely unpopular if it were to withdraw any large amount of land from the market. In one sense land in Ireland is limited. That is to say, that the number of persons who desire to be tenants is in excess of the tenancies, and hence the hunger and competition for land which has done so much injury to Ireland in the past. But what is affected by this question is not the tenant right, or the occupation right, but the landlord right. Is there so much competition for the landlord right in Ireland that the Roman Catholic Church would render itself unpopular by becoming a landowner? The right hon. Gentleman knows that the number of persons desirous of selling land in Ireland is so much in excess of the number of persons desiring to buy it that, practically, the Landed Estates Court is choked and drugged by the unsaleable estates thrown on its hands. Therefore, I do not see the slightest relevancy of the force in the argument of the right hon. Gentleman that there would be an ill-feeling against the Roman Catholic Church if it employed some of that land for religious or charitable uses. Certainly the Catholic Church in Ireland has never shown itself adverse to becoming the owner of land, and I believe that at present a large amount of its property is in the form of land mortgages. There is a danger in Ireland of a large amount of property accumulating in the hands of ecclesiastical persons; and as the right hon. Gentleman desires to prevent that evil no less than the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Bury and West Birmingham, I cannot see why he should not accept the Amendment.

* MR. BARTLEY

said, he had moved the Amendment to allow the Irish Parliament to endow religion if it thought proper to do so. The objections of the Government meant that they were going to allow the endowment of the Roman Catholic religion in an indirect manner—by the endowment of industrial schools and other ways. Here was an Amendment to prevent interference with the Law of Mortmain in Ireland, and it was objected to by the Government. That showed that there was a desire on the part of the Irish Members to endow their religion. He should not object to that if it were honestly and straightforwardly done; but he protested against its being done indirectly.

* MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

wished for some clear statement as to what was intended by the clause. They had had a most startling announcement that this was not a clause simply affecting restrictions, but that everyone of the subjects mentioned in the section were to be kept not only without the purview of the Irish Parliament, but without the purview of the Imperial Parliament.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

We have no power to bind the Imperial Parliament, but simply to express our opinion. These are projects of legislation that ought not to be entertained.

* MR. HENEAGE

said, that as it was only a question of a pious opinion and not of law that was dealt with, what was the meaning of the 1st section Respecting the establishment or endowment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Could the Imperial Parliament in the future disestablish or disendow the Church of Wales or of England or Scotland? [Cries of "Oh!"] It was all very well for hon. Members to cry "Oh!" but they could not have read the clause, or did not understand it. The right hon. Gentleman had put a different light on the matter, and they wanted to know what was the real fact. Could the Imperial Parliament deal with any of these subjects?

MR. DUNBAR BARTON (Armagh, Mid)

said, that if the Prime Minister's construction of the clause was correct, an injustice would be done to the Unionists. They had put down several Amendments to Clause 3, which they were told should be taken on Clause 4. If the right hon. Gentleman were correct, the Unionists would be shut out from the consideration of these matters. He (Mr. Barton) held that they would be justified in considering each one of these questions when it came up.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 187.—(Division List, No. 137.)

SIR H. JAMES

said, the next Amendment stood in his name. Its object was to enlarge the meaning of the word "privilege," and he hoped the Government would accept it.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 22, after the word "privilege," to insert the words "advantage or benefit."— (Sir H. James.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. J. MORLEY

said, he did not think the words were required. They had no desire to narrow the word "privilege"; but if the right hon. Gentleman wished to have the words inserted the Government would not oppose them.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN (Kent, Tunbridge)

said, he rose to move, in page 2, line 23, to insert, after "belief," the words "or political opinions." If the Amendment were adopted the clause would provide that the powers of the Irish Legislature should not extend to the making of any law Imposing any disability, or conferring any privilege, on account of religious belief or political opinions. He recognised that it was not only possible, but extremely probable, that an Irish Legislature would endeavour to impose disabilities or confer privileges on people on account of their religious belief; but, he thought that it was even more probable that they would be likely to do it on account of political opinions. The object, of his Amendment was to safeguard those Loyalists who had been contending against what he might call the Nationalist movement in Ireland, and who, therefore, would be open to the resentment of the Nationalists when they had secured their Parliament. There was more likelihood of persecution on account of political opinions than there was on account of religious belief. It was more probable that the Loyalist would be persecuted as such than that the Protestant would be persecuted as such; and, therefore, if a safeguard was necessary in the case of the latter the safeguard was far more necessary in the ease of the former. He had arrrived at this belief by studying the nature of the Nationalist movement. That movement might have assumed in recent years a somewhat clerical aspect; but it was perfectly certain that in its beginnings and throughout the whole of its career its main objects had been agrarian and political, and the clerical objects had only come in afterwards by the way. That was clear from a study of the speeches of the late Mr. Parnell or any of his lieutenants. Their object was to drive out of Ireland what they called the English garrison, and to strike at landlordism, and through that to obtain either absolute separation or something which effectually answered to the ideal of Irish nationality. It was clear from those speeches and the findings of the Special Commission that the object of this movement had been political. In Ireland there were two races—the Celtic, which was striving for Home Rule in order that they might get the upper hand, and the English planters. The former had been on the Nationalist side and the latter on the Unionist side; and it was highly probable, when the former had secured Home Rule that they could deal out scant justice to the men who had resisted their movement. He stated that as a probability. But he could go far beyond probability. The Nationalist Members had declared that when their time of power came they would remember who were their political opponents. In the Irish Parliament he had no doubt a leading Member would be the hon. and learned Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy), who, speaking at Boston in December, 1881—

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out that the hon. Member was not confining himself to the object of of his Amendment.

MR. GRIFFITH-BOSCAWEN

said, he could assure the Chairman and the Committee that the quotations he desired to make bore directly upon the Amendment. In December, 1886, the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. J. Dillon) said this was a struggle to put an end to a system set up in Ireland by Cromwell, and when they had done that they would remember who had been their friends and their enemies, and would reward one and punish the other. The hon. Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy), referring to the Resident Magistrates, declared that the National Party, when they came into power, would know how to deal with these "lily-souled assassins"—men whoso only crime was that they had carried out the law of the laud. In view of such deliberate statements, it was necessary Parliament should protect, the people who had resisted the revolutionary movement in Ireland, and done their duty in administering the law, from being persecuted and trampled under foot. He would like to ask the Chief Secretary, if he thought it necessary to safeguard the religious minority, why he did not also think it necessary to safeguard the political minority? The difference was political rather than religious. Anyone who understood the circumstances of Ireland would see that a safeguard was necessary. At present they had only got the safeguard of the Legislative Council, which the minority regarded as of no use whatever. No doubt the right hon. Gentle- man would tell them that these words were useless, and could not be enforced if embodied in the Bill. Well, a great deal might be said upon that point; but if these words could not be enforced there, neither could any clause in the Bill. They were giving these powers in the belief that the Irish Legislature could and would carry them out; but surely, if they argued that this Amendment could not be carried into effect, they might say also that they could not carry out any of the safeguards or restrictions. For these reasons he ventured to submit the Amendment to the House,

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 23, after the word "belief," to insert the words "or political opinions."— (Mr. Griffith-Boscawen)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. J. MORLEY

said, he was quite confident the hon. Member knew the Government could not accept the Amendment, which, indeed, was scarcely deserving of serious consideration. The hon. Member's speech really went against setting up at all the Legislature which the House and the Committee had in various ways agreed to set up. As for safeguards for the minority, did the hon. Member suppose that the acceptance of this Amendment would constitute a safeguard against such dangers as he anticipated? The idea was really too childish, and they must repudiate it.

MR. PLUNKET (Dublin University)

said, that if it was necessary to protect people in Ireland from persecution in respect of their religious belief, it was no less necessary they should be protected on account of their political opinions. If they were not going to give protection in one case, why did they give it in the other? He submitted there was nothing inconsistent in the argument of his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, and that on the construction of the Bill, according to the Government itself, this restriction ought to be placed in it.

MR. RENTOUL (Down, E.)

said, he wished to support the Amendment. If this Bill became law the Unionists and the Loyalists in Ireland would be in a hopeless and a miserable minority for many years; and, therefore, it was necessary that protection should be afforded them. He could tell the Committee that the differences in regard to politics were much keener than those in regard to religion in Ireland. They had gentlemen in the Nationalist Party who were Protestants, and who were accepted of the Catholic majority because they were Home Rulers; while they had the case of the hon. and learned Member for one of the Dublin County Divisions (Mr. W. Kenny), who, though a Catholic, was bitterly opposed in Dublin because he was a Unionist. It seemed to him perfectly clear that if they were to have a safeguard at all, it should be in the matter of political feeling and opinions. The political feeling in Ireland and England differed greatly in character. It would be hardly credible to some Members of the House how great the difference was. In England each Party had its turn in Office; but the Party in Office was kept in check by the knowledge that its turn would not be of long duration, and it made its appointments accordingly. But, as he had said, the Unionist Party in Ireland would be in a hopeless minority for many years to come. They would not be more than one-fourth of the numbers of their opponents, and the smaller they were the more necessary was it that they should have adequate safeguards. It was claimed that a large number of Protestants were Home Rulers; and, if all that was claimed were true, then the Unionists as a body must be smaller in number than the Protestants in whose favour a restriction had been inserted. Why should they not insert a restriction for the smaller body—the Unionists? The analogy of England did not lie at all, for, in England, the minority was one that could not be over-ridden. He hoped, on all those grounds, that the Government would agree to the Amendment.

* SIR R. TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)

said, he would desire to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that the assumption of a somewhat offhand and contemptuous mode of treatment of these Amendments was not calculated to disarm opposition to the clauses of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had evidently thought it possible that persons in Ireland would obtain privileges, or would have restrictions imposed upon them, on account of their religious belief.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, that he did not entertain that idea. Had he done so he should not give Home Rule to Ireland.

* SIR R. TEMPLE

said, in that case, why had the right hon. Gentleman introduced a safeguard into the Bill that would protect persons from having restrictions imposed on them on account of their religious belief? The point, however, was that there might be disabilities imposed on account of political belief. The Leaders of the Irish Party out-of-doors had exhausted the resources of the Hibernian language —making every allowance for its exaggerations—in threatening what they would do to their political opponents when they obtained Home Rule. That was the reason why an Amendment of this kind was necessary as a safeguard for political freedom, and he hoped it would be pressed to a Division.

MR. H. C. PLUNKETT (Dublin Co., South)

said, he hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a Division, and that the right hon. Gentleman would deign, at all events, to argue the point. It might be a great hardship to bring forward the Amendment at a quarter past 9, as had been done; but, at all events, it was his intention to argue it at 20 minutes past 9. He had never accepted the view that Irishmen need be afraid of persecution on account of their religious belief; but he thought that they were likely to suffer on account of their political opinions. He knew Ireland just as well as any other Member, and he was of opinion that the danger through politics was greater than that through religion. Many Catholics had been subject to persecution owing to their political views, and he was satisfied that political considerations would predominate over the religious. He hoped, in all the circumstances, the Government would argue the question more seriously than they had done, and that the Amendment would be divided upon.

MR. HANBURY (Preston)

said, the Irish Parliament was likely to be governed by example rather than by precept; and, that being so, they would probably follow the example set by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. James Bryce) in showing how necessary it was to protect men who held certain political opinions, and in conferring privileges upon the minority. He could refer to others on the Treasury Bench who had set a very bad example to the Irish Members.

* MR. W. KENNY (Dublin, St. Stephen's Green)

said, the Bill contained restrictions on legislation which would impose disability or confer privileges on account of religious belief, but any person who had lived in Dublin for several years past, as he had done, would recognise that, if any restriction was necessary, it was of the nature of that proposed in this Amendment, because, as he contended, persecution and disability would more likely be associated with political opinion than with religious belief. The Irish Nationalist Party invariably repudiated drawing any distinction as to religious belief; but clear distinctions were always drawn in matters of political opinion. They had seen quite enough in Dublin politics during the last six years to show that the distinction was a very marked one. He need go no further back than to instance a banquet at which his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was entertained in Dublin some five years ago.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Hear, hear!

MR. W. KENNY

said, the Tress representatives were invited to the banquet in a private capacity only; yet one of the Dublin papers sent reporters to stand at the door and take down the names of the gentlemen as they passed into the Hall—

An hon. MEMBER

What journal?

* MR. W. KENNY

said, if the hon. Member wanted to know, it was "The Fallen Journal" (referring to a name given for some time past by one Party in Ireland to The Freeman's Journal.) The object in taking down the names was to make out a "black list" of those who attended. The present Chief Secretary had been long enough in Dublin to know how people were made to suffer for their political opinions. He did not attribute any intention to the Nationalists of Dublin, at least, to injure their opponents on account of religious opinions, but he was convinced that the fact that the leading men of Dublin held strong Unionist opinions was enough to condemn them in the eyes of the Nationalists. The case of the Bank of Ireland had been referred to the previous night by the hon. and learned Member for North Dublin, and he (Mr. Kenny) had been ruled out of Order when be attempted to reply. Perhaps he would be allowed to state on this Amendment what had really occurred with regard to the bank. The hon. Member for North Dublin said the Bank had passed through a crisis because of the non-publication of its accounts. The crisis through which the Bank of Ireland passed was due to the introduction of the Home Rule Bill of 1886, which brought its shares down, and to the fact that The Freeman's Journal wrote it down, because the Directors were strong Unionists. The crusade against the Bank was only put an end to by the intervention of a leading Catholic ecclesiastic, who was asked by a deputation to interfere, lest the funds of the Catholic charities invested in the Bank should be endangered. He had quoted the Bank of Ireland as an example of an Institution being made to suffer on account of the political opinions of its Directors. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment gave specimens of the language used by Nationalists towards the minority in Ireland. That language had not ceased. The Daily Independent, the leading Nationalist journal in Ireland, on March 31 in the present year, referring to a speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, said that the Irish people had passed through some dark days, and that, when the time came, they would know how to strike unitedly and firmly at the enemies of Irish freedom. But who were meant by the enemies of Irish freedom? Not the persons who differed from the Nationalists in religion, for the Nationalists repudiated that, but the persons who differed from them politically—the Unionists of Ireland.

MR. T. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour Division)

said, a considerable portion of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for St. Stephen's Green Division answered itself. If it were true that all the rich merchants of Dublin were Unionists, and if the people of Ireland were intolerant in their political actions, how did those merchants accumulate their wealth? Being merchants, it must be by trading with the general mass of the people.

MR. VICARY GIBBS

No, no.

MR. T. HARRINGTON

The hon. Gentleman who interrupts cannot be a gentleman of a very commercial turn of mind.

MR. VICARY GIBBS

I have been in business all my life.

MR. T. HARRINGTON

said, that perhaps the hon. Gentleman would get up during the Debate and explain how he was able to accumulate wealth without customers. It was a well-known fact that nine out of every ten of the principal merchants of the South of Ireland were Unionists, and they were not injured in their business, because the Nationalists of Ireland were actuated by a spirit of toleration which had not yet touched their opponents. The hon. and learned Member himself was one of the most remarkable illustrations of the tolerance displayed by the Nationalists towards their political opponents, seeing that though be went about England attacking his coreligionists in Ireland for their intolerance, he enjoyed one of the largest legal practices amongst Catholic communities in Ireland. The reasons which led to the crisis in the Bank of Ireland were the introduction of the Home Rule Bill, not because it led to any insecurity in Irish property, but because it was thought that its premises might be wanted for the purposes of the Irish Parliament, and because the owner of The Freeman's Journal at that time was interested in a rival bank, and was glad of the opportunity to attack the Bank. The object was to endeavour to get the Bank to publish their accounts, and the moment it did so security was restored, and its shares went up to their former condition.

MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)

assured the hon. and learned Member who had last spoken that nine out of every ten of the leading merchants were Protestants and Unionists because in nine cases out of ten the Protestants and Unionists had a monopoly of commercial ability. The Chief Secretary had said that he rejected the Amendment because it was founded on ridiculous and absurd apprehensions, and went on to say that if he thought it possible that an Irish Legislature would oppose men because of their political opinions he would not be in favour of Home Rule. But it had been pointed out that the leading Members of the Nationalist Party had threat- ened a portion of the Unionist population of Ireland with pains and penalties when an Irish Parliament was established; and, indeed, they need not wait for the establishment of an Irish Parliament in order to be able to realise the fate that awaited those who held Unionist opinions. It was said at Sunderland by a leading Nationalist that they held the Chief Secretary in the hollow of their hand, and that the right hon. Gentleman was only in Office to carry out their wishes. It should be admitted that there was a substratum of truth in that statement, because when the right hon. Gentleman was appointed to Office members of the Lunatic Asylum Boards of the North of Ireland, who were prominently identified with the Unionist Party, were picked out for removal from the Boards, though they had for years rendered great public services. In South Antrim there was a erase of a gentleman who had sat on the Board for many years who was removed, not because he was a Protestant, but because be was a Roman Catholic Unionist who had incurred the dislike of the Nationalists of Antrim. In several other counties, also, gentlemen bad been removed from the Asylum Boards, not because they were slack in their attendance, but because they were Unionists. The Chief Secretary opposed the Amendment because, he said, it was founded on absurd apprehensions, but the right hon. Gentleman's own action in regard to the Asylums Boards was proof that the apprehensions of the Unionists were not absurd or ill-founded.

MR. J. MORLEY

A more maladroit argument than that of the hon. Member who has just spoken has, I venture to say, never been heard in the House of Commons. He said, in effect, that the Irish Parliament' would be likely to ostracise those who professed certain political opinions, and that in doing so they would be only following the example of myself, who the hon. Member said is held in the hollow of the hand of the Nationalists.

MR. MACARTNEY

I did not say the right hon. Gentleman was held in the hollow of the hand of the Nationalists. I stated that one of the Party had said so.

MR. J. MORLEY

Some words of the kind may have been uttered in a rash moment. But let us come to the argument. What is the illustration of the hon. Gentleman? It is that in the course of my administration I removed from the Boards of Lunatic Asylums gentlemen of Unionist opinions and appointed Nationalists. But it was not a question of removal at all. It was a question whether these Boards were fairly constituted or not—whether there was upon them a fair and reasonable Catholic representation, and, I will add, in some cases, a Protestant representation in proportion to the population. The Committee shall judge. Does the Committee suppose, considering all the attacks made upon the Irish administration of the Government, that the selection of Governors would have escaped a vote of censure had there been any foundation for it? If I wanted to show ostracism for religious and political opinion I could have cited the constitution of these Boards in counties where, although 97 per cent, of the population were Catholics, there was only one or two Catholics out of 22 or 23 members on the Boards.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, the right hon. Gentleman had not touched the specific instance which he quoted. He pointed out that in the County of Antrim, where admittedly the population was Protestant, a prominent Catholic, Mr. Hammil, who happened to be a Liberal Unionist, had been removed from the Board.

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, it was absurd to suppose that under an Irish Parliament a man's political opinions would not have a serious effect on his position. Let them take a case that had recently happened—the fight over the great Freeman's Journal. They knew how, when Mr. Parnell fell, political opinion was worked against him by that newspaper; and when that could be done through the machinery of a newspaper, it could be much more effectually done through the machinery of a Legislature. He therefore thought there was a necessity for the Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not mean to attack the present Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant upon the subject of Party appointments. My hon. Friend knows more of the particular case he has brought before the Committee than I do, and, for all I know to the contrary, the Chief Secretary may have in that case committed an error. But broadly speaking, I am perfectly ready to acquit the right hon. Gentleman of having endeavoured to ostracise his political opponents, or of having in any way endeavoured to clear out from political life those whom he suspected or knew to differ from him. The question, however, is not what the right hon. Gentleman did. It is what will those do who will succeed him in the government of Ireland? I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman's first speech on the Amendment, but I understand that he derided the idea that political motives would be allowed more virulent sway under Home Rule than in England.

MR. J. MORLEY

My argument was that if I thought the Irish Government were going to ostracise men and to make laws ostracising men because of their political opinions I would not support this Bill.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I cannot help thinking that if the right hon. Gentleman would study the utterances of leading Gentlemen below the Gangway he would be compelled, doubtless much against his will, to come to the conclusion that he ought not logically to vote for Home Rule. I recollect reading an article written by a leading Member of the Nationalist Party, the Member for the City of Cork, in an English weekly review, which I think is the only weekly review devoted to the cause of hon. Gentlemen opposite. The article was intended to describe the course which the right hon. Gentleman should take as to the government of Ireland, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cork certainly urged, in language of the most violent description, that the Castle should be cleared out of every man differing from the Nationalists, and that in their place should be established an official hierarchy agreeing with them. That policy the right hon. Gentleman wisely, humanely, and in a statesmanlike spirit absolutely refused to carry out. But does he doubt that the gentlemen who are to succeed him will do that which they have publicly recommended? When we are establishing in Ireland, for a generation at least, one political Party only in power, and when we find that Party professing principles which would drive from office every gentleman who differed from them, do you think we can trust such men with legislative power which would enable them to carry out the intentions? I confess I do not see how you can trust them. The right hon. Gentleman says that in this country it is the practice of the Party in power to consider the political opinions of those they appoint to office. If we were dealing with a colony or an ordinary society, to refuse that power to avail of that practice would be the height of absurdity, but we are dealing with a society where the division of Parties has been so deep, where political animosities have been of such long standing and of so bitter a character that we must, in common consideration for the minority, take precautions which, under other circumstances, would not only be unnecessary, but even frivolous and absurd. The hon. Gentleman the Member for the St. Stephen's Green Division had quoted a case in which a number of gentlemen, not politicians, had been pursued with vengeance with the view of destroying their business in Ireland because they had attended a private dinner given to me in Dublin. I only allude to that case as an indication of the point to which political savageness has reached in Ireland, and I ask the Committee whether they are not bound to take the facts as they find them? When the right hon. Gentleman professes to look forward in this sanguine spirit to the political future of Ireland, I cannot help feeling that he has shut his eyes to the actual facts that come under his own experience. Though I admit that even if this Amendment was carried it would be a poor protection to the political minority in Ireland, still it would be a most valuable recognition upon the face of the Bill that we look forward with apprehension to the use that may be made of the powers given to the new Parliament, and that any abuse of this power would be against both the letter and the spirit by which that Legislature is to be established.

* SIR H. JAMES

Some of us think the Government of Ireland in past times has not been in all directions a wise and just Government, and one reason why we have opposed Home Rule has been that we have always felt there would be reprisals on the part of the majority against the minority. The right hon. Gentleman told us of localities where there were 97 per cent, of the people of certain political opinions, and that when a Body had to be elected, only two or three of the 97 per cent, were placed upon that Body.

MR. J. MORLEY

I said that upon nominated Bodies only one or two of the 97 per cent, were placed upon them.

* SIR H. JAMES

And is not that a great wrong on the 97 per cent.? and, according to your views, how would they be likely to act if you give them unfettered power? You tell them they have sustained great wrong; you may be right or wrong in so telling them, but you are preaching to them the doctrine of vengeance. ["No, no!"] Yes, yes. What is the object of this legislation? To redress that wrong. According to your view, this disability has been imposed, and would not that be remedied according to the view of the majority when the hand is unfettered, and is it not our duty to see that that very sense of wrong—you may call it justice, others may call it vengeance —shall be restrained? That sense of wrong, however baseless it may be, has influenced Ireland I for some 13 or 14 years. We have never thought there has been hostility solely on account of religious differences of opinion, but there has been a sense of wrong on account of that which was political and social, and we saw a persecution unexampled in the history of the world for the years the Land League legislated. They did legislate. They issued their decrees; they passed their laws; they enforced their laws, and they were laws more cruel, more despotic, more tyrannical than any Chamber ever could have passed with the sanction of a majority of a Constitutional Power. The men who controlled the Land League are the men for whom the Chief Secretary now pleads, and they are the same men to whom we are to give unfettered power; and when we say there shall be no legislative power to make reprisals, the Chief Secretary says, "We will give you the power."

MR. J. MORLEY

No.

* SIR H. JAMES

Yes, you do; if you do not restrain you give; and, therefore, the Chief Secretary pleads there shall be opportunity of making reprisals, and that you ought not to prevent the men who for years ruled Ireland with greater power than any Parliament, and in a manner that did injustice to the minority. We have examples of what would happen from the speeches of hon. Members The hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. T. Harrington) says that, according to Irish views, if a man is interested in a bank, he should endeavour to destroy another bank.

MR. T. HARRINGTON

said, he had not said that. He said The Freeman's Journal, which hon. Members seemed to think was under the control of a large body of the Irish people, was under the control of one individual, and that, being interested in one bank, if all banks were to be on the same footing, he wanted the Bank of Ireland to publish its audit.

* SIR H. JAMES

That he should use the power of this great journal to boycott and stamp out a bank, and that is what the hon. Member declares is very honourable for one Irishman to do against another. ["Oh, oh!"] When the evil of such a doctrine is pointed out those who will be the majority in any future Irish Parliament hoot down the man who protests against such a doctrine. It is shown, not only by the statement of the Chief Secretary and the history of the last 14 years, but by the arguments adduced by those who would rule in Ireland, that if you do not endeavour to safeguard those who will be the minority, all the wrongs of past years will be avenged, and all the principles which the Nationalists profess in Ireland will be enforced against the minority.

MR. MACFARLANE

said, that when he heard the Amendment moved he did not expect they would derive any advantage from the Debate; but he had seen occasion during the discussion to change his opinion on the subject. They were now discussing the question of safeguarding political opinion. The English and Scottish people were continually told to preserve religious liberty: but during this discussion they were told by hon. Members that they did not in the least fear the action of the Irish people against them on religious grounds. ["No, no!"] Yes; he had carefully listened to the Debate, and it was said they feared nothing from the action of the Irish people on religious grounds; but what they feared was that they were to be ostracised and driven from all political power. [Cries of "Who?"] By many hon. Gentlemen. [Cries of "Name!"] The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James) was the last transgressor in this matter, and had pointed out that the chief fear was political oppression. He considered the discussion had proved that the hollow cry as to religious oppression was insincere and shallow. Political oppression was no new thing, and was well known to the House. They had had some experience of a body called the Primrose League, and did they not exercise political boycotting? Let a man go into any constituency in the country where a branch of this League existed, and ask any person whether he had known shopkeepers and others who had not been boycotted. [Cries of "Question!"] That was the question. The question was one of legislation, and hon. Members who argued against it must be aware that against any adverse legislation by the Irish Parliament they were protected by the Supreme Parliament here.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Lonth, N.)

had expected the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James) was going to give a concrete case of how this Amendment would have a protective character; but he had waited in vain for that illustration. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour) took the distinction that they could not legislate against Executive action, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would have gone on to give a concrete case to show what he meant to effect under this Amendment. They had heard a great many instances given, but they had been merely instances of Executive action and of Imperial Executive action. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James) ought to have let the Committee know what was the concrete case, not of Executive but of legislative action to which this Amendment pointed. Was it, for example, supposed that no Orangeman was ever to get Office? Assuming that the Irish Executive excluded Orangemen, what criminal idiots they would be to include the provision in an Act of Parliament. Why? Because they could follow the example of the Imperial Executive and do executively what there was no need for them to do legislatively. The real fact was that these Amendments to which the Committee had been listening were mere object lessons for the country, and these were lessons of obstruction in the House of Commons. They all knew that the Tory Party was the Party of virtue and intelligence. It had never committed any wrongs; it had never excluded anyone from office, whether from religious belief or on any other ground. But the Parry of virtue had been in power in Ireland for several years, and what was the lesson they had taught? He should be sorry to see that lesson imitated. It was, perhaps, right enough that the superior Judgeships should be given to their political followers, because the Party had possessed a number of hungry claimants; but take the case of the County Court Judges, of whom there were 22 in Ireland.

An hon. MEMBER

Question!

MR. T. M. HEALY

Very well, I will not take up the time of the Committee.

MR. WYNDHAM (Dover)

said, the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) said that no speaker had suggested a concrete case of legislative action on the part of the Legislature to be established in Dublin, which would be prevented by the Amendment under consideration. The hon. and learned Member had commented on the fact that they had been dealing rather with Executive action and patronage than laws that might be passed imposing disability. He would suggest, as a concrete case, the Oath of Allegiance in the Irish Legislature. What was there to prevent the Legislature from adding to the Oath of Allegiance a declaration of loyalty to the Constitution set up? No Unionist could take such an oath or make such a declaration. Let them turn to another part of the Bill. In the 7th clause, Subsection 3, power was given to the Irish Legislature to pass a Redistribution Act at the end of six years. He could not help thinking that the proviso that "due regard is to be had to the population of the constituencies" would gain in effect if the Government were to accept the Amendment under consideration. But they need not search for concrete in- stances; they had so many examples. In Ireland the sphere of politics was wider than in England; it extended upwards to autonomy as applied to Unionism, downwards to questions of the Plan of Campaign. Therefore, the Irish people had a wide field for exercising the spirit of which they had given indications. He had, he thought, given an example of the kind of action it would be in their power to take.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

The point we are considering is extremely important, not so much intrinsically as for the light it has shed upon the feelings with which the two Parties approach this great question. Take the two last speeches against the Amendment to which we have listened; one very complete in itself, and the other —I must call it a noble torso, interrupted unfortunately, but still very suggestive of very important results. The speech of the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. Macfarlane) was one of those to which the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy) referred as an object lesson, made not so much for this House as for the electors of Argyllshire; but I think it will be seen it illustrates the different points of view. The hon. Member, in the first instance, said the Debate had shown we were insincere in anticipating that any religious bigotry could possibly exist in Ireland, or have any practical results after this Bill has passed. And why? Because we were dwelling upon an Amendment that contemplated not religious but political bigotry, and were, therefore, leaving out of account the other part of the question. I cannot understand how the hon. Member can take any comfort from the fact that in dealing with political bigotry we are not, at the same time, separating religious bigotry. It is quite true, as the hon. Member told us, we are not in fear of religious persecution in the sense in which the word was used in the time of Bloody Queen Mary. That is not the thing that we expect; we do not suppose the fires of Smithfield will be rekindled on College Green. What we do suppose is that under this Bill there will happen in Ireland what has happened in Canada and in every other place in which a predominant religious Party has secured power. Of course they will take advantage of their position, and of course that will result in proceedings which, undoubtedly, the majority of this country are not prepared for. But then the hon. Member for Argyllshire went on, and, referring to the moral question, he made the comparison of Gladstonian platforms with the political practice of which he quoted the Primrose League as an illustration. It is not my business to defend the Primrose League, nor am I going to say there is any political Party in this country that is wholly undeserving of criticism in this matter. I confess I do not think it would be easy for us to justify the means taken to fill our judicial appointments in the Superior Courts. I allow they are made almost universally by each Party in turn from members of their own Party. I think that is unjustifiable. There are lots of other cases of the same kind in which political feeling does influence appointments and action in this country. But I ask hon. Members to deal with this matter fairly, and say is there anything comparable between the kind of influence that is used properly by political Parties in this country and the kind of influence used by political Parties in Ireland? I do not care which Party you take for the sake of this argument. No one has spoken more strongly than hon. Members opposite of the bigotry of the Ulster Orangemen. I am not concerned to say whether their accusations are just or not. If they are just, that proves my case. You have to fear the bigotry of Ulster Orangemen and their resentment; and is it to be said there is to be fear of the bigotry of Nationalist Irishmen; are we to put aside all that has happened during the last 10 years; that the men who have openly threatened that whenever they came into power they would be revenged on their adversaries did not mean what they said; that men who have said they would stick at nothing; the men who have invented the Plan of Campaign, the men who have invented boycotting; the men who have established the National League, and we know that crime and murder dogged the footsteps of the League; are we now to get up gravely and compare such a state of things as that with any state of things that is conceivable in this country, or in Scotland, or in Wales? No, Sir; owing to the extraordinary virulence of political opinions in Ireland, we have to deal with a different state of things to anything prevailing in this country. We may represent differences of opinion here; but, at least, they do not go to the extent of crime and outrage. I admit there is much political unfairness—I think that some of us have had experience of that even within the last few days; but none are in fear either for our property or our lives in this country. Can hon. Gentlemen say that if a Nationalist Party were in power a Protestant and an Ulster-man would not be in fear of life and property? [An hon. Member: Certainly.] I say that in the last 10 years there has been no district in Ireland in which the Nationalist Party have been in power— as they have been owing to the influence of the National League and the Land League—in which a Protestant could hold his life and his property secure— ["Oh, oh!"]—unless he had the protection of the police—["Oh, oh!" and cries of "Question!"] I say that is perfectly true—[Cries of "No, no!"] Let me finish my sentence; you differ from me—

MR. MACNEILL (Donegal, S.)

Yes, we do.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

You will have full opportunity of answering me afterwards. I say that is my opinion; I say that that is true of the last 10 years, and is there a man on that Bench who will dispute that statement, that, at all events, it has been true during the last 10 years?

An hon. MEMBER

No; it is not true.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

I appeal to that Bench, and I will find in the speeches of right hon. Gentlemen who are sitting there as allies of hon. Gentlemen opposite the proof of what I allege—that at that time, at any rate, all of them said that there have been times when that state of things has existed in consequence of the tyranny exercised by the National League? But I do not want to dwell on the Nationalist side of the case. Take the other side, which hon. Members think themselves safe in a Parliament governed, officered, and controlled by these Ulster Orangemen? [Cries of "Yes, yes!"] I call on my hon. Friends to take note of this revulsion of feeling. It was not always so. [Cries of "Always!"] That is not the case—that is absolutely contradicted by the speeches of Members like those of the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy). I myself have listened to speeches about the riots in' Belfast at the time the Chief Secretary sent the police there, and at that time the hon. and learned Member denounced the Ulster Orangemen and declared the lives of the Catholics were not safe. Whether you accept the idea of a Nationalist majority, or an Ulster majority, or a Protestant Orange majority, in either case, as long as feeling remains as bitter as at present, the danger to the minority in Ireland is something altogether different in kind and degree from the danger to the minority in England. Now I turn to the interesting fragment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Louth. He is always interested in the order of our Debates since he has ceased to speak himself. He says no one has shown what possible danger there is in regard to this matter from the powers of legislation to be given to the Irish Parliament, nor how the Amendment is to restrict that power and prevent the evils that we fear. I am not going to say that the words of the Amendment would be an absolute protection. I admit that if Home Rule is given all idea of absolute protection to the minority must be given up. But at least we can assert the intention with which the Imperial Parliament has made this concession, and it is in that sense that I value these various Amendments. At the moment when the hon. and learned Member for Louth said that if the minority had anything to fear it would be from the action of the Executive and not from that of the Legislature, I was reading an extract from a speech which will throw some light on the point. A distinguished Nationalist, speaking a few years ago of the police, said— The police are close at hand, very close at hand, and when we shall be masters in Ireland I know the reward which we shall mete out to the men who have oppressed us. That seemed to be a menace to the police; but probably the hon. Member reflected that he had an English as well as an Irish audience, and therefore he began to qualify, for he continued— It is not injury for injury; we shall do justice to all. [Interruption.] Let hon. Members be patient until I have finished the quotation. I will only say in passing, however, that if justice is to be done to all, I do not see the necessity of the previous statement warning the police that when the Nationalists became masters they would mete out reward to the men who had oppressed them. But to continue the extract— Mr. Balfour said the other day that if I were the Chief Secretary I should enforce the law. I hope I should enforce the law; but the first men against whom I should enforce it are the ruffianly Magistrates and policemen. That raised two questions. "Who were the "ruffianly Magistrates and policemen"? [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite are very impatient, and answer the question before I have put it. Who are the ruffianly Magistrates and policemen against whom the present law—the law as it exists—can be brought into force with effect by an Irish Parliament? Does not the Committee see that for the purpose there must be a new law? That is just what we fear, and that is my answer to the hon. and learned Member for Louth. The Colleague of the hon. Member, when he made the speech referred to, was not contemplating the existing law, not the British law, not the law in a foreign garb, but a brand new law which was to be made for the purpose. The Committee will now see the object of the Amendment. What we want is to prevent an ex post facto law being made by the Irish Parliament for the purpose of punishing Magistrates whom the Nationalists think to be ruffianly, but whom the Imperial law cannot possibly touch.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 233; Noes 269.—(Division List, No. 138.)

MR. RENTOUL (Down, E.)

moved, In line 23, after "or," to insert the words "repealing or amending any law at present in existence, or hereinafter to be enacted by the Imperial parliament, which gives legal effect to any rights or ceremonies performed by any Protestant Church, or. He said the object of the Amendment was with reference to marriages performed in the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. He desired to make it clear that the Irish Legislature should not be able to assimilate the law in Ireland with that in England. At present, in England, the registrar attended all Nonconformist marriages and kept the books relating to those marriages; but in Ireland it was totally different, the Presbyterian minister keeping his own register, and making quarterly returns, being in all respects like the rector of the Church of England.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 23, after the word "or," to insert the words "repealing or amending any law at present in existence, or hereafter to be enacted by the Imperial Parliament, which gives legal effect to any rites or ceremonies performed by any Protestant Church, or."— (Mr. Rentoul.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

* SIR J. RIGBY

said, the Government did not regard these supposed acts of oppression from the same standpoint as the hon. Member. If they were to regard them in that light they might have 500 or 5,000 other provisions which would be just as reasonable. The only object of the Amendment was to delay the progress of the Bill. There was not, in the opinion of the Government, the slightest chance or the remotest possibility that the matter would be dealt with at all by the Irish Legislature: and as they considered they ought only to provide against real, and not imaginary, dangers they could not accept the Amendment.

LORD R. CHURCHILL (Paddington, S.)

said, there was no human being in the world so unsympathetic as a lawyer. What did it matter to a lawyer in what way a marriage was performed if it was according to the law of the land? He did not think that the contention of the Solicitor General would be supported by the Prime Minister, who had great sympathy with all Christian religious rites. If the Presbyterians of Ireland, who were a very orderly, moral, and Religious Body, had for years enjoyed a peculiar manner of celebrating their marriage rites, and if they prided themselves on the superiority of that manner, why on earth should the Solicitor General dismiss with the utmost contempt and treat as the most despicable idea the desire of the Presbyterian Body to maintain the rites with which their fathers and forefathers had been married? [Laughter.] These were not things to be laughed at, for they represented national sentiment. Was the marriage ceremony a solemn thing?

An hon. MEMBER

A sacred thing.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

Were the marriage services solemn or grotesque? He wanted to know that from the President of the Board of Trade, who was indulging in the most excessive ridicule.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he could assure the noble Lord that he had not even smiled.

LORD R. CHURCHILL

said, he thought at all events some consideration was due to this old Religious Body, and that their old methods of solemnising their marriages should not be lightly taken away. There seemed to be some reason for the apprehension that was felt that on this question of Marriage Law the Irish Legislature might make some change. The Unionists only desired that the old practice should not be altered, and he asked for sympathetic treatment from the Prime Minister.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

I must demur to the noble Lord's expressions with regard to the Solicitor General's speech, as I do not think there was any want of courtesy or any contempt in it. I myself look upon the Presbyterians of Ireland as a Body who are entitled to our very warm sympathy. The noble Lord has spoken of the ancient law which 1 hey have inherited from their forefathers; but that law is of a very recent date, and one of the reasons why I respect the Presbyterians of Ireland is that, until it became convenient and necessary for the true ascendency party in Ireland to allow a relaxation of the laws, the Presbyterians were in a position very analogous to that of the Irish Roman Catholics. The position of the supporters of the Amendment is that the Presbyterians of Ireland have a Marriage Law which they value, and they are apprehensive lest the Irish Legislature should interfere with that Marriage Law, and deprive the Presbyterians of the civil privileges connected with it. Well, I have no doubt that there are many Bodies in Ireland that value certain laws extremely, and these Bodies may also, perhaps, entertain honest, but, as I believe, groundless, apprehensions that those laws would be interfered with by the new Legislature. Is every Body in that condition to require the Imperial Parliament to insert in the clause a prohibitory enactment to prevent the Irish Legislature from doing the apprehended thing? We cannot enter upon a boundless field of that kind unless it be shown, in the first place, that there is some ground of likelihood that the Irish Legislature would commit these offences. Is there the smallest ground of likelihood in this ease? Many Members proceed upon the supposition that the Irish majority would be totally blind to their duties towards the minority. Against that opinion, disclosing as it does a very obstinate prejudice, I am not going to contend; and I will admit, for the purposes of argument, that there will be no moral sense at all in the Irish Legislature. But it will be alive to considerations of self-interest; and it will, undoubtedly, be to the interest of the majority to secure the alliance of the Presbyterians. Therefore, to fear that the majority will set to work to contract the privileges of the Presbyterians under the Marriage Law—privileges which inflict no wrong upon the majority and cause no inconvenience—is to ascribe to that majority a large amount of gratuitous folly as well as a total disregard of principle. For these reasons I cannot consent to the Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think the speech we have just heard presents one of the most interesting studies that we ever had of the Prime Minister. It is highly interesting to contrast the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman looks at the past with his manner of looking to the future. When the right hon. Gentleman looks forward he sees before him an angelic Assembly—[cries of "Salisbury" and "Second-hand"]—representing an angelic majority incapable of any acts of oppression. But when the right hon. Gentleman looks back on the past he sees a minority in ascendency in Ireland who committed these very acts of oppression which, he says, are impossible in the future. I would take the right hon. Gentleman's own estimate of the past, and assume with him that the ascendency party were guilty of the grossest oppression when they were in power; but I ask why the Roman Catholic majority of the future are to be totally without the vices which, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, have stained the record of the Protestant minority?

MR. FLYNN (Cork Co., N.)

Because the world is wiser.

MR. A.J. BALFOUR

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that one Irishman is very like another; let us assume that an Irish Protestant Episcopalian when he is in power is no better than a Roman Catholic; Irishman when he is in power. The right hon. Gentleman stated that the Protestant Episcopalian when in power was guilty of the grossest acts of oppression, and he added that it was absurd to suppose that similar acts of oppression would ever be committed by a new ascendency Parliament. Is that reasonable? Is it common sense? The Episcopalian minority may have been right or wrong in their resistance against the privileges granted to the Presbyterians, but they certainly had not the same kind of theological motive for acting as they did as would naturally animate Irish Representatives acting under the control of the Roman Catholic Bishops. Hon. Gentlemen from Ireland must be perfectly aware that, according to the Council of Trent—[ironical Irish cheers]—he listened with the greatest interest to those jeers uttered by Roman Catholics—they must be aware that according to the principles of the Church to which they belonged a marriage performed in a Presbyterian Church was, from a religious point of view, of no validity whatever.

MR. T. M. HEALY (Louth, N.)

There is no such doctrine.

Several hon. MEMBERS

Certainly not.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not believe the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Healy), in spite of his inarticulate interruptions, will get up and contradict the statement that, according to the Church to which he belongs, a marriage in a Presbyterian Church is no marriage at all. [Cries of "No, no!"] But I say "Yes, yes, yes," and I venture to think I am just as good a judge in these matters as the hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not believe that the Prime Minister will get up and deny the statement I have made.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

Without getting up I will deny it.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Then the right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the subject is less profound than I had supposed. The right hon. Gentleman said that while the Episcopalians were in ascendency in Ireland they passed laws which he described as oppressive; but he denied it was conceivable that the Roman Catholics, when they had ascendency, would pass laws of the same character which would be equally oppressive, although they would have justification, which the Episcopalians had not, and would, at all events, be able to appeal to the doctrines of their Church as uttered in authoritative Councils for support in any action they might take in this matter. It seems to me that this forms very good ground for asking the Committee to adopt my hon. Friend's Amendment.

MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)

said, he might call the attention of the Government to the frivolous objection taken to the Amendment, and he would point out to them that the Nonconformists of Ireland stood in a totally different position from any other section of the Irish minority upon such a question as this. The President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler) at Newcastle, speaking on behalf of the Nonconformists of Great Britain, desired to know what were the apprehensions of the Nonconformists in Ireland, and said that if those apprehensions were stated he would pledge himself that they should receive every possible safeguard in this Bill. When his hon. and learned Friend, who was a member of one of the Nonconformist Bodies in Ireland—

An hon. MEMBER

There are none.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, when his hon. Friend brought forward this Amendment, if there was any meaning in the electioneering speeches of the Members of the Government, he could properly claim the vote of the President of the Local Government Board as well as that of even a more important Member of the Government—the Chief Secretary. After the speech delivered by the President of the Local Government Board, the Chief Secretary got up and said that the right hon. Gentleman was a witness of the first quality as to Nonconformist feeling in England, and they (his audience) could see what opinion he held on this question. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would go to a Division, for then the country would have once more an opportunity of testing the value that could be attributed to these declarations on the platform when the object was to catch votes for the Government.

* SIR T. LEA (Londonderry, S.)

said, that the only practical reply his hon. and learned Friend had received from the Solicitor General was that his Amendment was brought forward to delay and obstruct the Bill. As representing a large number of Presbyterians in Ireland, he protested against the methods of the Solicitor General. [Cries of "Divide!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

Order!

* SIR T. LEA

said, hon. Members below the Gangway opposite tried to gag the Unionist Members upon a question in which Nonconformists felt strongly. Presbyterians and Unionists noted the example set by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy), who interrupted so persistently, because they now knew what they might expect from a Dublin Parliament. The leaders of the Roman Catholic Church had stated that they believed it was their province to direct their people in political questions, and they knew very well that, whenever the Marriage Laws come under discussion in an Irish Parliament, the Catholic Church would have its way. From the way his hon. and learned Friend had been met in moving this Amendment he deserved the sympathy and support of the House.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 228; Noes 266.—(Division List, No. 129.)

MR. J. MORLEY

said, he begged to move the Amendment which he had promised before the dinner hour.

MR. COURTNEY (interposing)

said, he had words to propose which would carry out the object contemplated by the right hon. Gentleman, and which would come in at an earlier part of the clause. His proposal was to insert, in the first line of Sub-section 3— Abrogating; or prejudicially affecting the organisation of any religious body, and the holding by such body, or by trustees on its behalf, of property applicable to its maintenance and uses; or abrogating or prejudicially affecting any place of denominational education. The clause as it stood would refer to institutions connected with a denomination, such as a school, or a hospital, or a charity, but not to the endowments of the denomination itself. There could be no question as to what they were all aiming at, and the words he proposed, if introduced at the place he suggested, would meet the object in view.

THE CHAIRMAN

There is an Amendment on the Paper which will come before that of the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)

said, the Amendment referred to was one of which he had given notice. As, however, his Amendment was covered by one which stood in the name of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill) he would withdraw it in favour of the latter.

MR. J. MORLEY

said, his Amendment would come before that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin. There was something in what the right hon. Gentleman had said; but with all respect to him, he (Mr. Morley) considered the wording of his Amendment rather cumbrous. He therefore moved that at the beginning of the sub-section the words "diverting the property of any religious body" should be inserted.

Amendment moved, In page 2, line 24, insert "diverting the property of any religious body."—(Mr. J. Morley.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, the House would always look with great respect on any action of the distinguished ex-Chairman of Committees. But they could not but remember that he used to be very severe on hon. Gentlemen who had not given notice of their Amendments. The Amendment was suggested as an extraordinarily important one—indeed, every Amendment which came from the Benches opposite was one of extraordinary importance. He (Mr. Healy) was at a loss to know why, in the case of such extraordinarily important Amendments, it was not thought advisable to put them down on the Paper in the ordinary way. As for the English of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, he had never heard anything like it. How they could "abrogate" an organisation was more than his (Mr. Healy's) Irish intellect could understand. It seemed that in these matters they might use their own language in their own sweet way. He had no objection to the purpose of the Chief Secretary's Amendment. It was right and proper that even the suspicion of giving an unfair advantage to the institutions of one religious denomination should be prevented. He did not think the language of the Amendment was happy, and held that in the present circumstances the best course to follow would be to bring up the words on Report.

MR. HENEAGE

said, that as the hon. and learned Member opposite was so critical, and as it was now four minutes to 12 o'clock, it would be better, perhaps, to report Progress, so that the words could be placed on the Paper for tomorrow.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, that he did not object to the words, provided a guarantee were given that they would be remodelled, if necessary, on Report.

MR. HENEAGE

I move to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again." — (Mr. Heneage.)

MR. J. MORLEY

said, that he had given notice of the words fours hours before, and they had been thoroughly considered.

MR. HENEAGE

said, he had not been the person to take objection to the words. But this was not the first nor the second time that the hon. and learned Member for Louth had objected to words brought up by the Government to redeem pledges which they had given. The right hon. Member for Bodmin had brought forward words to redeem the promise of the Government. The Chief Secretary had brought forward other words, but neither Amendment pleased the hon. and learned Gentleman; and, therefore, the simplest plan would be to report Progress.

MR. T. M. HEALY

said, he would remind the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grimsby of his former Motion to report Progress on the North Sea Question—and what, he got by it. As the Government had been met by this Motion they should, to-morrow, refuse the insertion of any Amendment of the kind indicated by the Chief Secretary.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. COURTNEY

Let the words of the Chief Secretary be taken experimentally.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.