Commons Sitting of 16 June 1893

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

  LLANDRINDOD WELLS WATER ORDER.
  MR. EDWARDSmoved—
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Water Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill, that they have power to insert a clause into the Llandrindod Wells Water Order empowering the Llandrindod Wells Local Board of Health to purchase the Llandrindod Wells Water Company's rights, powers, privileges, works, and property at a price to be agreed upon by the parties, such prices in case of dispute to be settled by arbitration in the usual way."
  He explained that he had altered the Instruction as it appeared on the Paper by the addition of the words "that they have power," the alteration being made with the view of making the Instruction a permissive one instead of a mandatory one.
  Question put, and agreed to.

QUESTIONS.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS AT DEVONPORT.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether his attention has been called to an allegation to the effect that the contractor for painting the letter boxes at Devonport is infringing the Government contract conditions by not paying the standard rate of wages of the locality; and, if so, whether he is prepared to state the results of his inquiries as to its truth or otherwise?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): Yes, Sir; my attention was called to the subject by a letter from my hon. Friend; but, on inquiry, I am informed by the tradesman employed to paint the street letter boxes at Devonport that the man who performs the work is paid the Union rate of wages.

  LEITRIM PARLIAMENTARY REGISTER.
  MR. COLLERY: In the absence of the hon. Member for North Leitrim, I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that Mr. James Faris, Clerk of the Peace for the County of Leitrim, neglected, at the last Presentment Sessions for the county at large, to enter a presentment for the printing of the Parliamentary Register of the county for the coming year; is there any rule in existence in Ireland requiring Clerks of the Peace to call for tenders for the printing of county registers, and to leave the contracts open to public competition; and will he, in the interests of the cesspayers, be good enough to order an inquiry into the action of Mr. Faris in regard to the printing contract for the County Leitrim Parliamentary Register in this and previous years?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): There is no statutory enactment or rule requiring the Clerk of the Peace to advertise for tenders for the printing of the Parliamentary Registers. The Grand Jury are the Body whose business it is to protect the interests of the cesspayers in matters of this kind, and I am not aware that the Government are called upon or entitled to interfere.

  THE INDIAN MINTS.
  SIR W. HOULDSWORTH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if the Government of India has power to close the Mints in India to silver from the public as an administrative act without legislation?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): No, Sir; supposing it were determined to close the Mints, an Act of the Legislative Council of India would be required; but, pending such legislation, the Government could, by an administrative act, extend the period for which certificates for the delivery of silver coin should run.

  ACCIDENT TO A CORK POLICE PENSIONER.
  MR. BODKIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of Thomas Butler, police pensioner, who was so severely injured by a gunshot wound accidentally inflicted by a comrade whilst on duty, at a police station in County Cork, that his forearm had to be amputated, and who was thereupon discharged on a pension of £10 16s. 8d. per annum; whether he is aware that Butler is now residing, in absolute penury, precariously supported by his friends, near Strokes-town, in the County of Roscommon; and whether he will take steps to ameliorate as far as possible his position?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I would ask the hon. Member to be good enough to repeat this question on Monday next, when I hope to be able to give him a reply.

  AFFIRMATION BY JURYMEN.
  Mr. H. J. WILSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to a report of The Wellington Journal of 10th June, from which it appears that on the previous Monday Mr. Clarke, the Coroner at Shrewsbury, refused to allow Mr. Overy, who was summoned as a juryman, to make an affirmation, though he stated he was "forbidden by the New Testament to swear," stating that the juryman would sit in the room until the

  1181
  jury is dismissed, and that he would be put on every time; and whether Mr. Clarke was acting within his duty?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I have made inquiry, and the Coroner does not appear to have been aware of, or at any rate to have observed, the requirements of the Oaths Act, 1888 (51 & 52 Vict., c. 46), and to have supposed that the juror was only making an excuse to avoid service; but his attention will be called to the Act, and he will be cautioned as to a due compliance therewith in future.

  REGISTRATION OF TITLES IN COUNTY MAYO.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can state the number of holdings in County Mayo in respect of which applications were made before 1st January last to have the titles registered under the Local Registration of Title (Ireland) Act, and which titles have not yet been registered; and if he will explain the cause of delay?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that applications were lodged in respect of 290 holdings in Mayo prior to 1st January last, and that none of these have as yet been registered. The applications from Mayo were lodged very late; the first application was not received until September last, and only 29 were lodged before the 1st December, 1892. The cause of the delay in registration appears to be due partly to the low place which the Mayo cases occupy in the already heavy list of cases awaiting registration, and partly to the apathy of the applicants themselves in replying to requisitions sent out from the Office of the Registration of Title.
  MR. J. F. X. O'BRIEN: When may my constituents expect to get this settled? Many of the titles have been sent in since last November.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have answered the question on the Paper. I will communicate any further information to the hon. Gentleman privately.

  THE CASE OF MR. CLUNE, J.P.
  Mr. THEOBALD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what steps
  1182
  have been taken by the Lord Chancellor in the case of Mr. John Clune, who was appointed a Magistrate for Limerick by the present Government, in consequence of his having presided at a meeting at which a so-called landgrabber was denounced and boycotting resolutions were passed?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Lord Chancellor for Ireland informs me that the matter is still the subject of investigation. It is perfectly reasonable that time should be given to the Magistrate to make his explanation.
  MR. THEOBALD: I will repeat the question next Tuesday.

  "BURNS V. THE 'BELFAST EVENING TELEGRAPH.'"
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the case of "Burns v. The Belfast Evening Telegraph," tried before Mr. Justice Gibson and a special jury, in Dublin, on the 2nd and 4th instants, and reported in The Belfast News Letter of the 3rd and 5th; whether he is aware that at this trial it was proved that on the occasion of the West Belfast election, in July last, a person named Kearney, who was then acting as secretary of the Belfast branch of the National Federation, marked on the list of voters the names of dead, absent, and sick men, and handed the list to three men named M'Ginley, Carberry, and O'Neill, with instructions to have them personated; whether a large number of personators were arrested on the polling day; and if he can say how many pleaded guilty when brought to trial; whether it has been brought to his notice that Mr. Justice Gibson in his Charge to the jury declared that there had, if the jury believed the evidence, been arrangements for wholesale personation under the direction of the National Federation through their secretary; whether it is true that Kearney has, since the election, been appointed to any public office; and if he can say by whom he was recommended to the Government for the appointment; and if the Government intend to take any action in regard to the parties involved in the evidence given at the trial in question?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I understand that evidence to the effect stated in the second paragraph of this question was given by a man named Bloomer. Bloomer virtually described himself as an accomplice in the offence which he charged against the persons named. His evidence was not corroborated; and as the parties charged by him were neither parties to, nor witnesses in, the action, they had no opportunities of refuting what was alleged against them. Bloomer at the time of the trial was in the employment of the defendants in the action. A large number of personators, 15 in all, were arrested on the polling day, of whom 11 pleaded guilty at the Assizes and four were discharged. The observations of Mr. Justice Gibson, in his Charge to the jury, are understood to have been made on the evidence of Bloomer; but, as already pointed out, Bloomer admitted himself an accomplice, and his evidence as an accomplice, being uncorroborated, could not be acted upon in a criminal prosecution. Kearney, I believe, is now acting as collector of Income Tax. The Attorney General for Ireland is of opinion that there is no adequate evidence to warrant a prosecution of the persons named by Bloomer, the truth of whose evidence is denied by the persons implicated.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the jury, in giving a nominal verdict for the plaintiff, with a farthing damages, instead of the £6,000 he claimed, did not at all events show that they—
  MR. SEXTON: I rise to Order. I submit that this is not the kind of inference which ought to be put in the form of a question. As this question raises grave charges against a gentleman residing in my late constituency, I will ask first, with regard to Mr. Bloomer, is it true that he was taken into the service of the defendant newspaper whilst the defence was in preparation; secondly, did Mr. Kearney have no opportunity whatever of giving evidence; thirdly, is it true that the three men, Kearney, Carberry, and O'Neill, having been subpœnaed by the defendants, and being present in Court, were not called by the defendants, and had consequently no opportunity of giving evidence; fourthly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that these men
  1184
  were prepared to prove their innocence on oath; fifthly, does he know that two of them could neither read nor write; and, sixthly, was not the list of voters prepared in the ordinary way, and, as at every election, with the object of preventing personation by either side? Finally, I am requested by Kearney, as the charge is made against him in a place where he cannot defend himself, to invite the hon. Member for South Tyrone to repeat his statement in a place where, as he is in this House, he will not be sheltered by privilege.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Naturally, I cannot answer all the questions of detail which my hon. Friend has addressed to me, but I have received from Kearney a communication which bears out some of the statements which the hon. Gentleman has made. I will, however, make further inquiry.

  GUARANTEES FOR NEW TELEGRAPH OFFICES.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if there are no exceptions to the Post Office Regulation, which requires a guarantee of the whole cost of the establishment of a new telegraph office; and whether, in the case where there is a large but poor population, such as the Island of Luing, in Argyllshire, he could accept a guarantee amounting to £35, that being the maximum sum they have been able to subscribe amongst a population numbering 800?
  MR. A. MORLEY: In reply to the hon. Member, I have to say that a guarantee for a new telegraph office is never required where it is estimated that there will be sufficient revenue to cover the expenses. Even where it appeared that there would not be sufficient revenue, telegraph offices have been established in a few cases where Imperial considerations justified Her Majesty's Government in setting aside the Regulations which have been laid down for the guidance of my Department. For instance, in the last financial year, the telegraph was extended to certain remote places in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland without guarantee out of money provided for the purpose in the Vote for the Fishery Board for Scotland. In the absence of any special provision, I regret that I am unable to extend the telegraph to Luing,

  1185
  in Argyllshire, except under a guarantee of £60 a year, as I have already informed the hon. Member; and I think it has been explained that this does not mean that £60 a year would have to be contributed by the guarantors, but merely that the difference between the actual receipts and that sum would have to be made good. Thus, if the actual receipts in any year were £25, the guarantors would only have to pay at the end of that year £35.
  MR. MACFARLANE: Seeing that this is a district with a very poor population, could not the Regulation be modified in this case?
  MR. A. MORLEYwas understood to reply in the negative, and to suggest that application should be made to the Secretary for Scotland.

  IRISH MAILS.
  MR. HORACE PLUNKETT: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the evidence given in the recent arbitration between the General Post Office and the Dublin Junction Railway Company as to the number of bags of mails which daily pass over the Dublin Junction Railway—namely, an average of 29 bags from Ireland for distribution in Great Britain and of 98 bags from Great Britain for distribution in Ireland, is correct; and if so, whether, in estimating the loss which, by the Return lately issued by the Treasury, was shown on the working of the Irish Post Office, the Treasury bad taken into consideration the very much larger number of letters and other postal packets sent from Great Britain to Ireland than sent from Ireland to Great Britain?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I will answer this question. I can only say that the evidence referred to constitutes no guide as to the total amount of the correspondence between Great Britain and Ireland.

  VACANT COUNTY COURT JUDGESHIPS.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the vacancies in the Bow and Somerset County Courts are to be filled?
  MR. ASQUITH: The case of the Bow County Court vacancy will be dealt with as soon as we have received a
  1186
  Report from the Committee to which has been referred the question of the desirability of decreasing the number of County Court Judges in and near the Metropolis. The Somerset County Court vacancy will be filled up by the transfer of one of the Judges from the Welsh Circuit.

  THE CASE OF WILLIAM DAVIDSON.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant whether his attention has been called to the proceedings at Ballyclough (County Cork) Petty Sessions on Monday, the 5th instant, when a lad, Michael Higgins, aged 15 years, who was charged with assaulting and intimidating a boy named William Davidson, was sentenced by the Magistrates to 14 days' imprisonment and to be sent to a reformatory for a period of three years; is he aware that the solicitor for the defence applied to have the term of imprisonment increased, to give him an opportunity for appealing, and was refused; and, if so, were the Magistrates justified by law in refusing this appeal; under what Statute or authority were the Magistrates justified in sentencing this lad to three years in a reformatory for a first offence of this kind; and whether an immediate inquiry will be made into all the circumstances of the case?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The facts are substantially as stated in the first paragraph of the question. The conviction was under the Reformatory Schools (Ireland) Act, 1868. Disturbances had for some time existed in the locality. The young offender was one of the ringleaders. When these disturbances have wholly ceased it will be open to the boy's father to memorialise for his discharge, giving, at the same time, an undertaking for his future good behaviour. I have no information as to whether the Magistrates refused to increase the sentence of 14 days' imprisonment. An appeal from a Magistrate's order committing to a reformatory can be made as of right to the ensuing Quarter Sessions under the Reformatory Schools (Ireland) Act—namely, 31 & 32 Vict., c. 59, sec. 12.
  MR. FLYNN: Was not this a case of mere assault, and why was it brought under an Act which, as I understand, is

  1187
  aimed solely at criminal offences? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the condition of things at the place has improved, that peace has been restored, and that the children do now go to school? Is he aware that a Memorial has been sent to the Lord Lieutenant praying that the boy may not be compelled to undergo the severe punishment of three years' detention in a reformatory school.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I hope it is true that the children are now in full attendance at school. The case, I assure the hon. Member, has my attention, and if circumstances justify it the boy will certainly be released.
  MR. FLYNN: But this boy is to go to the reformatory school on Tuesday next, and if that is allowed the stigma will rest on him all his lifetime.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I should be sorry to think that any stigma should rest on him on account of the conduct charged against him. But I may remind the hon. Member that the boy has already been 14 days in prison; therefore, any stigma that may accrue has been already incurred, and the reformatory will not add to it. I will give the case close attention.
  MR. SEXTON: Were the Magistrates justified by law in refusing to allow the case to go to a Superior Court?
  MR. HUNTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is only customary to inflict reformatory sentences in cases of dishonesty, and that they are altogether inapplicable to cases of this nature?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I think I must stand by the proposition I have already stated. The case has my close attention. I may add that from the first it has struck me as being one for inquiry. If the district has become quiet and remains so, I do not think hon. Members will have any fault to find with the action of the Government.

  ELECTRICAL COMMUNICATION WITH LIGHTHOUSES.
  MR. MUNRO FERGUSON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has received any further representations from the Board of Trade regarding a grant to carry out the recommendations of the Electrical Communication of Lighthouses, &c. Commission, and whether any grant has
  1188
  yet been arranged to enable the Post Office and Lighthouse Authorities to carry out these recommendations in whole or in part; whether he can state what lightships or rock lighthouses, if any, are to be forthwith connected with the telegraphic system; and whether any such connections will be made during the present most favourable season of the year—namely, the summer months?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: A cable is almost immediately to be laid to Lundy Island. Communication is authorised to 16 shore lighthouses, and to some of them has been completed. The lightships and rock lighthouses will be taken in hand when means are available.

  PALMISTRY.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to an advertisement in The Daily Telegraph headed "Palmistry;" and whether he will take means to put a stop to this form of fortune telling, so as to treat all classes alike?
  MR. ASQUITH: My attention has been called to this advertisement by my hon. Friend's question. By the Vagrant Act, 1824, every person using any subtle craft, by palmistry or otherwise, to deceive or impose on any of Her Majesty's subjects is to be deemed a rogue and a vagabond, and to be subject on conviction to imprisonment. The mere practice of palmistry is not, so far as I am aware, illegal; the essence of the offence created by the Statute is the intention to impose, and the object is to protect the young and the ignorant. The police have instructions to watch cases of suspicion, and whenever there is good ground for believing that fraud or imposition is being practised they will be directed to prosecute.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Will the police inquire into this particular case?
  [The question was not answered.]

  DECORATIONS FOR VOLUNTEER NONCOMMISSIONED OFFICERS.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether anything is yet decided concerning the proposed recognition, by some decoration or otherwise, of non-

  1189
  commissioned officers of the Volunteers I of the fine; and whether, under the of long standing?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): I can only assure the hon. Gentleman that the matter has not been lost sight of.

  THE PAWNING OF PENSION PAPERS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the very frequent practice among Army pensioners of pawning their pension papers and borrowing money on them at very high interest; whether this practice is illegal; and whether he has considered the advisability of further protecting such pensioners by requiring them to send in their ring papers in addition to their life certificates before receiving their pay, thus leaving the pawnbroker without his present security for making such loans?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,): The attention of the War Office is continually called to this most reprehensible practice. For any person to receive or detain a pensioner's life or identity certificate is illegal; and though it is not illegal for the pensioner to pawn them, his doing so renders him liable to fine or forfeiture of pension. It should be fully understood by both parties to these transactions that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to prosecute and punish to the full extent allowed by law; but, beyond this, no stops can be taken to protect pensioners from their own folly. A pensioner already has to produce his identity (or "Ring") certificate to the authority who certifies his pension paper.

  THE CAROGH ORPHANAGE.
  MR. HORACE PLUNKETT: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord; Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has been informed that the Rev. S. G. Cotton, incumbent of the parish of Carogh, County Kildare, who was recently convicted of gross cruelty to, and neglect of, the inmates of the Carogh Orphanage, and who was sentenced to six months' imprisonment and a fine of £400, is now out of prison and is again conducting an orphanage; whether he is aware that the Rev. S. G. Cotton's effects were recently seized for payment
  1190
  of the fine; and whether, under the circumstances, he will cause such orphanage to be officially inspected?
  MR. J. MORLEY: As far as the police have been able to ascertain, there are two children at this so-called orphanage. The Rev. Mr. Cotton recently informed the District Inspector of Police that he had three other children in the place; but when that officer asked to be allowed to see these children he was directed by the rev. gentleman to leave the premises. The District Inspector has been informed by Government that if any person acting in the bonâ fide interest of any child at this place will make an information, pursuant to the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1891, that there is reasonable cause to suspect that the children, being under the statutable age, have been or are being ill-treated, or neglected, in the Carogh Orphanage, it will be competent for a Magistrate to issue a warrant to search for the children. Should it turn out that the children have been ill-treated or neglected the proceedings indicated by Section 6 of the Act can then be taken.

  JUDGE KELLY AND THE STATE OF CLARE.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has seen the remarks of Judge Kelly on the state of Clare, made on Monday last, as reported in The Freeman's Journal of the 14th instant, saying that—
  "He did not believe that in any country in the world such a state of things existed as in that county. … Trial by jury there was a farce. The jurors were canvassed in Court, and when they went out or went home they drank with the prisoners; … that he would try no ease by jury; that it was perfect nonsense to do so there, and a disgrace to the County Clare;'
  and whether he proposes to take any steps, by change of venue or otherwise, to remedy this state of things?
  MR. W. REDMOND: Is it not a fact that there were only three cases brought before Judge Kelly; that those three cases were sent to the Assizes; that no jury was empanelled; that Judge Kelly tried no case; and that there is not the slightest ground for these statements?
  MR. DODD: I will ask the right hon. Gentleman further whether he will cause inquiry to be made

  1191
  as to whether Judge Kelly used the words as reported; and, if he did, will he call the attention of the Lord Chancellor to the matter, and invite him to consider the conduct of the Judge?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman also say whether the Lord Chancellor has any control whatever over Chairmen of Quarter Sessions?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have not had time, since the question was put on the Paper, to examine into the circumstances or the remarks the learned Judge is reported to have made. Of course, the state of things in this county is always, and in every aspect, a subject of serious consideration.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: I will put the question down for Thursday.

  MEMBERS AND THEIR CORRESPONDENCE.
  Mr. BODKIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, having regard to the recent Resolution of the House of Commons declaring that Members of Parliament, are entitled to reasonable remuneration for their labour, loss of time, and necessary expenses in the Public Service, he will give favourable consideration to some arrangement by which they may at least be partially relieved from the expense of the postal correspondence necessary for the proper discharge of their duties; whether, with this object, he will consider the advisability of extending the system that already prevails in Public Departments, by providing a special impressed stamp to be applied to all letters of Members posted unstamped within the precincts of the House of Commons; and whether he will ascertain, as nearly as possible, the small loss that such an arrangement would entail on the Post Office, and will consult with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the best means of making good the same?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I have no doubt that the decision of the House of Commons on the question of payment of Members was influenced, to some extent, by the consideration of the expense incurred by Members in connection with the large amount of correspondence imposed upon them. Up to 1840 Members had the right to frank letters; but this practice led to so much abuse that by an Act of
  1192
  that year (3 and 4 Vic. c. 96) it was provided that except in certain specified cases—
  "All privileges whatsoever of sending letters by the post free of postage, or at a reduced rate of postage, shall wholly cease and determine."
  Under these circumstances an Act of Parliament would be required to repeal the Act of 1840, and in view of the reasons which led to the passing of that Act I am not prepared to recommend or support such a step.
  MR. BODKIN: Arising out of that answer, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if in the case of Public Departments Ministers are excluded from the operation of the Act, and are permitted practically to send out letters free? Could not the same privilege be granted to every Member of the House? Again, in regard to the abuse which it was found necessary to remedy by Act of Parliament, was it not the practice by which Members were allowed to frank the letters of their friends? Would the same objection apply to letters posted within the precincts of the House?
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: Has the right hon. Gentleman any knowledge of what would be the cost of the reform suggested by the hon. Member?
  MR. A. MORLEY: No, Sir. The hon. Member for Roscommon is mistaken in thinking the heads of Public Departments have the right of free postage. The stamping is only dispensed with by arrangement with the Postal Authorities.
  MR. BODKIN: Would not a similar arrangement be possible in the case of all Members of the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question as to the cost.
  MR. A. MORLEY: I have stated that I am not prepared to recommend or support any such legislation, and it is not, therefore, necessary to get an estimate of the cost.
  MR. BODKIN: May I press the right hon. Gentleman to consult—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!

  "ROUSE YE, ULSTER,"
  Mr. WOLFF: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that the song, "Rouse ye, Ulster," which has been played in public by many regimental bands, has been forbidden to be played by the band of the Coldstream Guards;

  1193
  and whether such prohibition is by order of the Horse Guards, or by order of the officer commanding the regiment?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The officer commanding the Coldstream Guards reports that he has forbidden the bandmaster of the regiment under his command from playing the song entitled "Rouse ye, Ulster," as he considered that it had a political significance; and the General commanding the Home District informs me that he entirely concurs in this action. I feel sure that the House will approve of the decision of these officers. I have myself no knowledge of this song; but so far as one can discern, under the bad grammar of its title, it seems to be an appeal, on one side or the other, to political passion; and I will endeavour, so far as I can, to discourage the participation by military bands in any expression of political feeling.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will recommend that Volunteer and Army bands shall cease to play "The Wearing of the Green;" and whether he can distinguish between one and the other?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: With very little knowledge of what this music-hall song may be, I think I can distinguish between the two, and I will deal with each case as it arises.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider the case of "The Wearing of the Green" if I bring it before him?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If the hon. Member brings before me any tune or song which involves a direct appeal to political passion I shall be happy to consider it. [Cries of "Sing it!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chorus of the question is—
  "Shall we from the Union sever?
  By the God who made us, never."

  GREENWICH AGE PENSIONS.
  Mr. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Government still decline to give effect to the promise given on the 16th of March last with respect to the Greenwich age pensions?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The Government have not declined to give effect to the promise made by them on the 16th of March with respect to the Greenwich age pensions. I am considering with the Admiralty how the matter can best be dealt with, with a sincere desire not to disappoint the hopes that have been held out.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: In consequence of the answer just given, I beg to give notice that I will call attention to the matter on the Navy Estimates if we ever reach them.
  MR. KEARLEY: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the statement of the Civil Lord of the Admiralty as to the promise of legislation, so as to give effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: If the hon. Member will look at the answer given by the Civil Lord of the Admiralty he will see what was said. He seems to have put this question without examining that answer.

  FEMALE TYPISTS IN GOVERNMENT OFFICES.
  Mr. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the following answer given by his predecessor, Mr. W. H. Smith, on 25th July, 1890, to the late Mr. Bradlaugh, that
  "The employment of female typists has been as yet experimental, and Departments have made their own selection of typists. There is little doubt that this form of labour will be generally adopted in the Public Service, and the Treasury will have to consider the general conditions under which female typists will be employed,"
  he can state under what conditions it is intended to employ them; and whether it is intended to make these appointments after competitive examination, and to put those who are employed on the permanent staff of the Civil Service, with its attendant privileges?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The matter is still under consideration.

  THE TEMPERATURE IN THE HOUSE.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that on 15th June the temperature rose to 69 inside the House; and whether, by the obvious method of opening windows or otherwise,

  1195
  the atmosphere and temperature might be made more tolerable?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,): I am aware that the temperature yesterday inside the House was high; but in the shade outside it was still higher. The state of the atmosphere in the House could not have been improved by any such measure as the opening of the windows.

  PRECAUTIONS AGAINST CHOLERA.
  MR. TANKERVILLE CHAMBERLAYNE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the re-appearance of the cholera in France, and the serious danger of it reaching this country, he will afford facilities for discussing the question as to what precautious should be taken by Her Majesty's Government to effectually protect our coasts?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): Perhaps I may be allowed to answer this question. The Department responsible to the House and the country for taking precautions against cholera is the Local Government Board. That Board has the advice of the most competent and experienced experts in the Kingdom on this question; and, so far as the precautions taken last autumn are concerned, I believe both the House and the country were satisfied with the course which the Board pursued. I can conceive no course more prejudicial to the public interest than a discussion in the House of the precautions to be taken. The Local Government Board feel that the responsibility of their position is very great; and they are prepared to carry out those precautions which, on the best and most competent authority, they believe to be necessary.
  MR. CHAMBERLAYNE: May I explain why I put the question? A deputation from the seaport towns has already waited upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and, in consequence of his answer not being satisfactory, it was thought that the only course open to us was to appeal to the House.
  MR. HARRY FOSTER: May I ask whether it is not a fact that, however competent the Department may be to advise, they
  1196
  have no power to compel Local Authorities to carry out their advice?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I think it is inadvisable to discuss, in the form of question and answer, the powers of the Central and of the Local Authorities. But if the Local Government Board think it desirable to ask the House to give them further powers by legislation they will not hesitate to do so.

  HOME CHARGES PAID BY INDIA.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if, the Indian Currency Commission having concluded its deliberations, he will now consent to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the question of the Home Charges paid out of the Revenues of India?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): I cannot consent to the appointment of the suggested Committee. We are awaiting the opinion of the Government of India on the Currency Report, and can do nothing until we receive that.
  MR. MACFARLANE: This has nothing to do with the currency question. I simply ask for an inquiry into the Home Charges paid by India.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONEwas understood to say that nothing could be done in the matter at present.

  THE ROYAL MARRIAGE.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government have yet come to any decision with regard to the proclamation of a public holiday on the occasion of the Royal wedding?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We have had opportunities, I think, of sufficiently considering the subject and of estimating the state of public feeling; and we are convinced that there is no such general desire existing as would justify us in proclaiming a public holiday.

  THE SCOTCH SUSPENSORY BILL.
  MR. HOZIER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government propose to proceed with the Suspensory Bill for the Church of Scotland, or to adopt instead the Disestablishment Bill of the

  1197
  hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I can only repeat the answer which I have been obliged to give on several occasions, that we can give no further intimation of our views and intentions with regard to what I may call the Queen's Speech Bills until further and effectual progress has been made with the Government of Ireland Bill.

  THE FINANCIAL CLAUSES.
  MR. GOSCHEN: May I ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the discussion of Clause 9, he can undertake, now that the figures have been ascertained, that the Financial Clauses will soon be in the hands of hon. Members? It is very important that we should be able to consider these clauses in relation to the question of the position of the Irish Members in the Imperial Parliament. If there is to be any change in these clauses, I hope my right hon. Friend will say how soon we may expect to see them.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I confidently hope to be able, in the course of a very few days, to state the effect of the proposed Financial Clauses. My right hon. Friend will be aware that, altering, as they do, questions of money charge, it becomes necessary very carefully to consider the best mode of introducing changes of that kind into the Bill.

  THE HOME RULE BILL.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if it is possible to have printed at the head of the list of Amendments issued daily the text of the clause under discussion? It would be a very great convenience, and not materially add to expense.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have had no intimation that that is desired; but if it be the general wish I shall be happy to give instructions to have it done at once.

  THE SEAL FISHERY BILL.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: This Bill makes makes provision for the execution of an arrangement with Russia, which it is desirable we should put forward at once, and I propose to report Progress on the Home Rule Bill
  1198
  about 11 o'clock on Monday evening in order to take the Second Reading of the measure. There is no difference of opinion on the subject, but it is right that the House should have an opportunity of considering the Bill.

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

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 15th June.]
    [TWENTY-SECOND NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Legislative Authority.
    Clause 4 (Restrictions on powers of Irish Legislature).
    THE CHAIRMANruled the following Amendments out of Order, namely—
    Mr. Butcher (York)—Page 2, line 31, after "law," insert "as such law now exists or as the same may from time to time be altered by Act of Parliament."
    Mr. Harry Foster (Suffolk. Lowestoft)—Page 2, line 31, after "law," insert "under the laws of the Imperial Parliament."
    MR. GERALD BALFOURhad the next Amendment on the Paper, as follows:—
    Page 2, line 31, after "law," insert "in accordance with the settled principles and precedents of judicial procedure unalterable save by the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
    He said that he proposed to move the Amendment in a form slightly different from the form in which it appeared on the Paper, namely—
    After "law," insert "in accordance with settled principles and precedents of judicial procedure, unalterable by legal enactments other than those of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
    He would hardly have ventured, as a layman, to intervene in the Debate were it not for the fact that he had powerful intercessors in the Attorney General and Solicitor General. The sense of this Amendment was the sense which these hon. and learned Gentlemen had put upon the expression "due process of law," and the words of the Amendment were really the words used by them in the Debate the previous night. A great deal had been said about the dangers of definition. They had been told that these words "due process of law" never had been defined, and never would be defined.

    1199
    The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster went so far as to say that they could not be defined, and that they ought not to be defined, because definition would destroy their value. Of course, if these words could not be defined, it would be unreasonable for any Member of the Committee to ask that a definition should be placed in the Bill. He did not demand impossibilities; his request was a much humbler one. He did not ask for a definition; he asked for an indication—for something in the nature of a signpost, which would prevent the Irish Judges, or any other Judges who might have to interpret the words in the future, from going astray by following English decisions rather than the interpretation of the American jurists. What he desired was that the Judges should have, as it were, a compass to guide them on this mysterious sea of legal interpretation; and for the words of his Amendment which, he hoped, would provide such a compass, he had gone to the Attorney General and the Solicitor General themselves. Two questions had arisen in the course of the Debate upon this subject. The first was, "What was due process of law?" By that he did not mean what would constitute an exhaustive definition; but what was the general character and significance of the expression—"due process of law?" The Attorney General, speaking on the point the previous night, said—
    "He would say that the words 'due process of law' were to be regarded in this way: that due process of law was where the process of law followed certain principles of judicial procedure, or where such process followed sound precedent applicable to the subject-matter and the circumstances affecting it."
    Similar language was employed by the Solicitor General. He said—
    "'Due process of law' meant a process of law which was according to sound precedent; and, therefore, they did secure trial by jury in all those cases in which, according to the sound general principles of our English Constitution, trial by jury had always been given."
    It would be seen that his Amendment practically embodied the words of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General. The other question was no less important, and it was one which had given rise to some doubts in the minds of hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side at all events. It was this—"Does this Bill leave it in the power of the Irish
    1200
    Legislature to pass laws altering the due process of law? "On that question they had very explicit statements from right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. As he understood, it was admitted that the Imperial Parliament could pass laws which would alter the due process of law. But the important question was, Could the Irish Legislature also do this? In dealing with that question, the Solicitor General reminded the Committee that the expression "due process of law" was intended to have a meaning; and that if it were in the power of the Irish Legislature to alter the due process of law, this sub-section would become nugatory and meaningless. If he might venture to intrude his opinion, he did not think that the words would become perfectly meaningless. It appeared to him that even if it were in the power of the Irish Parliament to alter by legal enactment "due process of law," these words would still have a meaning, for they would still prevent the Irish Parliament from passing laws giving an indemnity beforehand to the Executive for depriving any person of life, liberty, or property by illegal means. However, it was not necessary to pursue that subject further, because they had explicit statements from the Government on this question, whether the Irish Parliament would or would not have the power of making enactments altering the meaning of "due process of law." The Solicitor General said on the subject—
    "The section as it stood was plainly a limitation on the legislative power of the Irish Legislature. Due process of law could only be altered according to the will and pleasure of this Parliament."
    He asked the attention of the Committee to the words "according to the will and pleasure of this Parliament," for those were the words he had introduced into the second part of his Amendment. The Attorney General, on the same point, said—
    "It was said that in spite of the clause the Irish Legislative Body might make any law or might lay down any mode of proceeding they pleased, and that thereupon it became due process of law. He had no hesitation in saying that that argument was absurd on the face of it, one to which no legal tribunal would, or could, for a moment listen."
    These were strong, and explicit, and clear statements. He would cite one more—from the Chancellor of the Duchy who said—

    1201
    "There was another error which pervaded the arguments of lawyers who had spoken in the Debate—that was, that the Irish Parliament could make that due process of law which would not be due process of law. Why, the whole object of the Government was to make it impossible for the Irish Parliament to vary this matter."
    If the Chancellor of the Duchy was right in saying that the whole object of the Government was to make it impossible for the Irish Parliament to vary the matter, the best way of carrying out that intention was to accept the Amendment, which he now begged to move.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 31, after the word "law," to insert the words "in accordance with settled principles and precedents of judicial procedure unalterable by legal enactments other than those of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. RUSSELL,): I do not recede from anything I said yesterday on this subject. I see no reason to qualify the citation from my observations which was read by the hon. Gentleman. If I did I should quite candidly make the qualification. But I must say, on behalf of the Solicitor General, that the citation from his argument was not quite complete. It did not fully convey his meaning, but so far as it went it was accurate. We both maintain that "due process of law" means process of law proceeding, to use the words of the Amendment, "upon settled principles and precedents." That is the language we used. We do not think that the addition of these words will add anything whatever to the strength of the language of the clause as it stands—"without due process of law." But if it would save discussion, or save time, we have no objection to take the language, with a slight qualification, of the hon. Member, so that the sub-section would run—
    "Whereby any person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the process of law, having regard to settled principles and precedents."
    But when the hon. Member goes further, and asks us to declare that these settled principles and precedents shall be unalterable save by the legal enactment of the Imperial Parliament we object, for a reason which I hope will be appreciated
    1202
    by the Committee. The words which the hon. Member propose to introduce would give to these settled principles and precedents a stereotyped character.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: I bog the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon. He has quoted the words of my Amendment as I put it down on the Paper. But I was prepared for the objection he has raised, and in order to meet it I altered the Amendment as follows:—
    "In accordance with settled principles and precedents of judicial procedure, unalterable by legal enactments other than those of the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
    So far as "due process of law" is alterable by the decisions of Judges, this Amendment would not prevent it being so altered.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: I do not think the alteration in the Amendment removes my objection, though it somewhat qualifies it, and it would still give a stereotyped character to the principles and precedents. And this gives me the opportunity of pointing out a misapprehension of what I and my hon. Friend the Solicitor General said yesterday. We have not said, and we never intended to say, that the Irish Legislative Body would not have the power to affect legal procedure or due process of law. We said that, under this enactment, it would be out of the power of the Irish Legislative Body to propose anything they pleased and call it "due process of law," and thereby entirely get rid of the restrictions which the clause as it stands is intended to supply. I submit to the hon. Member that, by saying that the due process of law shall be in accordance with settled principles and precedents of legal procedure, we leave it to be dealt with and judged by judicial interpretation, for this being a written constitution it lies within the domain of judicial interpretation.
    MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, he wished to ask whether the Government would, in the clause dealing with the powers of the Irish Exchequer Judges or any Imperial Judges, who might take their places, give a direct right to every individual citizen of appealing against any Act of the Local Legislature, or any Act of the Executive Government of Ireland, which contravened the limitations laid down by this clause?
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Mr. Bryce,: If I understand aright the question of my hon. Friend behind me, he will find when we come to that part of the Bill which deals with the jurisdiction and powers of the Exchequer Judges that every right that anyone can possibly desire to enforce under Clause 4 will be brought before the Exchequer Judges, and when any question arises under Clause 4 in any Court in Ireland that question will be brought up in due course of appeal before the Exchequer Judges or the Privy Council.
    MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, he did not refer to questions that might arise in some judicial proceedings. He asked, Would it be competent for an individual citizen who felt himself aggrieved to go before the Exchequer Judges?
    MR. BRYCE: Certainly it will.
    MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, that then they were to understand that the Government, if necessary, so amend this provision as would enable an individual citizen who complained of any act of the Executive Government or of the Local Legislature to appeal direct to the Exchequer Judges or to the Imperial Judges and get redress?
    MR. BRYCE: It will be found when we come to those clauses, which it is not regular to anticipate now, that every citizen, if any attempt is made to injure him by legal procedure, will have that appeal which my hon. Friend desires.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am sure we all appreciate the spirit which animates the Attorney General in making this concession to my hon. Friend behind me; and when I cast my memory back to the long Debates we had last night when we endeavoured to induce the Government to introduce words into the Bill carrying out their own intentions, I cannot but regret that the policy which now apparently actuates the occupants of the Treasury Bench did not commend itself to their attention somewhat earlier in our proceedings. It would, if I may venture to say so, have saved a great deal of the valuable time of the Committee, which we have been accused, not by the Treasury Bench, but accused by the Press which supports them, of having wasted. I hope those who make that accusation will now realise that if time has been expended
    1204
    in amending the Bill that time has been expended more by those who refused to accept Amendments, the justice of which they recognised, than by those who pressed those Amendments on their attention. With regard to the Amendment before the Committee, as I said before, we welcome this recognition of the validity of our contentions, even though it may be a tardy concession. The Attorney General has shown a very wise disposition to embody in the Bill the avowed and explicit views of the Treasury Bench, though I do not quite think—I may, however, be wrong—that the Amendment on the Amendment which he proposes would carry out the avowed intentions of his Colleagues. There was especially one quotation read by the Mover of the Amendment to which I would respectfully call the attention of the Prime Minister and of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who was the author of the statement. The right hon. Gentleman said that an error pervaded the arguments of the lawyers who had spoken on this question, and that that error was to suppose that the Irish Parliament could make that to be due process of law which would not be otherwise due process of law. The whole subject of the Government, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say, was to make it impossible for the Irish Parliament to vary what is now due process of law.
    MR. BRYCE: What I meant was that it would be impossible for the Irish Legislature to get rid of this safeguard or provision by endeavouring to make that, by their legislation, due process of law which would not be due process of law, within the contemplation of the clause.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am right in saying that it is at the present moment in the power of the Imperial Legislature to vary the due process of law. I wish to know, then, whether there is anything in the Bill as it stands, or will stand if amended by the proposed Amendment of the Attorney General, to prevent the Irish Legislature doing what the Imperial Parliament can now do, and can always do—namely, vary the due process of law? It appears to us to be quite clear that if the words of the Attorney General be accepted something material will be gained in the way of an exposition of

    1205
    the views of the Government. But I ask them to move one step forward, and to embody in the clause not only the views of the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, but the views of the Chancellor of the Duchy. That would be adequately mot by the words suggested by the Mover of the Amendment. The effect of the Amendment in the form in which it has been moved would be, that while the natural process of devolution—of interpretation—by Courts of Law as to what is due process of law would remain unhampered, as it ought to remain unhampered, if any necessary change in what is due process of law were to be effected, it could only be effected by the action of the Imperial Parliament as distinguished from the action of the Irish Parliament. The Government can effectively insert a full and complete exposition of their uttered opinions into the framework of the Bill by accepting the Amendment as it has been proposed, and, at the same time, shorten this Debate.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, it did not rest absolutely in the hands of the right hon. Gentleman to shorten debate—
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he was not at all certain that the acceptance by the Government of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman would shorten debate. The obvious effect of the insertion of the words in the clause would be to withdraw the subject of criminal procedure, so far as concerned life, liberty, and property, entirely from the cognisance of the Legislature of Ireland. The Irish Legislature would not be at liberty to amend the due process of law in any practical sense, because the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, considering what was the due process of law, would be bound to see that the due process of law was in accordance with settled principles and precedents, unalterably, except by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The Committee had already declared that power over the criminal procedure should be given to the Irish Parliament; but the acceptance of the Amendment would substantially withdraw that power, and whatever might be the peculiar necessities of the country, whatever might be the circumstances that might arise varying the offences by which life and liberty
    1206
    were justly taken by the law, and the holding of property affected the Irish Parliament if they enacted any provisions to meet those altered circumstances, they would be unable to carry those provisions into effect by being deprived of the power of altering criminal procedure. He understood, as he entered the House, that the Government had agreed to accept some of the words of the Amendment—
    SIR C. RUSSELL: Yes, we have agreed to accept "regard being had to settled principles and precedents."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that if nothing was to be done by the Irish Legislative Assembly except in accordance with this proposal the lines for discussion in that Assembly would be extremely narrow—so narrow that he did not think anything could pass between them. If that did not mean taking away power from the Irish Legislature he did not know what could mean it.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Hear, hear!
    MR. SEXTON: Yes; that might please hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but it did not please him. The Irish Parliament was to have power to make laws, and he thought that to take away the power to legislate in criminal procedure would be to deny that Ireland was a distinct country with separate interests, and to deny one of the fundamental principles of Home Rule. They had had several Gentlemen talking last night about the meaning of the words "due process of law," and if the Court of Interpretation in construing a Statute was to consider not only what was due process of law but also the question of regard being had to settled principles and precedents, and what were principles and precedents, and how far they had been settled, the function of the Interpreting Court would be a difficult one. He thought the matter required further consideration, and feeling the spirit under which he laboured when learned Gentlemen came to the front in Debate, he should be obliged to reserve his right to claim re-consideration of the matter at a later stage of the Bill.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not surprised at the statement of the hon. Gentleman opposite as to the acceptance of the words the Government propose to add, but I think

    1207
    he is precluded from taking objection to the addition. Last night he listened to the Debate for several hours, and he then appeared to be of opinion that it was an obstructive Debate. He seemed to think that we were indulging in vain repetitions. Well, in the course of—as it now turns out—a most useful discussion, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General again and again used language precisely in accordance with the language which it is now proposed to incorporate in the Bill. If the hon. Member for North Kerry now objects to that language, why did he not do so last night?
    MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman is too old a Parliamentarian not to know that language used in debate is one thing and that language to be inserted in a clause in the form of a definition is another.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot make any distinction between language offered to this House by a Member of the Government and the subsequent carrying out of what was understood to be the effect of that language. Our complaint against the Government last night is not that their language was not intelligible to us and satisfactory, but that they refused to put it into the Bill. Well, they have had time for reflection. They, no doubt, pondered over the repetition of our arguments, and they have come to the conclusion that we were right and they were wrong. ["No, no!"] Of course it shows that, but I am not going to throw it in their teeth. They would not have run the risk of offending hon. Members opposite if they had thought that we were wrong. They must have thought that we were right. I am thankful for this change of temper, which, no doubt, will materially assist the further progress of the Bill. I do not think the Committee have hitherto quite appreciated the magnitude of the concession the Government have made, and which I desire most frankly to acknowledge. I do not see very much consequence in the question whether or not the later words of the Amendment proposed by the hon. Gentleman opposite are accepted by the Government or not, and I think I can show that it will not make any difference if they are not accepted. Let us suppose that the words are objected to and we take only those
    1208
    that the Government have accepted. Then the Irish Legislature will be precluded from making laws except in accordance with the settled principles and precedents of general procedure. They may legislate within the settled principles and precedents, but it is part of the superior Statute that they may not go outside the settled principles and precedents. Therefore, if it be a settled principle and precedent, under certain circumstances, that a man shall be entitled to trial by jury or to indictment before a Grand Jury, the Irish Parliament will have no power to alter the law in those respects. And if it be a settled principle and precedent that a man is entitled to habeas corpus it appears to me the Irish Government will have no power and will be going beyond the principle laid down in the superior Act if they attempt to interfere with the supervision of the habeas corpus. The only legislation that will be left to them will be as to details within settled principles and precedents. If I have rightly understood the extent of the concession, it appears to me to give us all that for which we coutended something like six or seven hours yesterday. Though I regret that a certain amount of time was wasted, it was not by us. I am prepared to accept, thankfully, the concession made. If the view I have expressed is correct, certain Amendments that are on the Paper to restrict the powers of the Irish Legislature will be unnecessary; but if not, and the Government continue to refuse the Amendment of the hon. Member for Leeds, then, of course, they cannot complain if these Amendments are successively brought up, because it will be they who have forced us to raise these questions separately. If, however, as I understand by the words now proposed by the Government these Amendments are all excluded we shall get rid of several important Amendments, and the progress of the Bill will be materially facilitated.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: The tone in which several hon. Members of the Committee have received what was intended as a concession by the Government in order to save time does not afford us much encouragement in endeavouring to secure that reasonable progress shall be made with the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham and the right hon Gentle-

    1209
    man the Leader of the Opposition certainly cannot be allowed to treat this matter as if the Government were making any concession whatever except in point of form. We stated yesterday—and I repeat again to-day—that this concession, in our judgment, gives nothing which the words "due process of law" did not give in the clause as it originally stood. I stand by this position. I cannot allow any portion of the House to be under the impression that this is more than a concession to hon. Members in a matter of form, but does not alter the meaning of the clause as proposed.
    MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, that the Attorney General declared that the words proposed to be inserted in the sub-section would add nothing to its meaning; and in view of that announcement it would be necessary to bring forward separately the Amendments relating to habeas corpus, contracts, indictment by grand jury, bail, and so on. The Chancellor of the Duchy yesterday had said that "due process of law" was a matter that could not be defined and ought not to be defined; but now the Government were prepared to define it, and they were offering to do this notwithstanding the legal maxim quoted by the right hon. Gentleman that there was nothing so dangerous as definition. Further, the Government had repudiated the idea of accepting the opinion of an isolated Judge; but now they were inserting words embodying that opinion; and the very people who had said that the definition could not be given by anyone were themselves offering a definition. He considered the statement of the hon. Member for North Kerry most important—namely, that this power over life, liberty, and property was a fundamental principle of Home Rule. Why was it that the hon. Member was so anxious that this power should not be restricted—why was he so jealous of losing this power of depriving Irish citizens of life and liberty? They had the laws of murder and treason, and what more could they want? He disputed the contention of the Solicitor General last night that the Irish Government could act on precedents and principles, and that these would include historical precedents. In no country had historical precedents been used in deciding legal
    1210
    questions; and if they could be used there would be nothing to prevent the Irish Legislature following the coercive policy of the present Government in past years. He thought the Government should give a fuller explanation of this word "precedent" before it was finally adopted in the Bill. The concession of the Government did not, in his opinion, meet the dangers pointed out last night as to the lives and liberties of the Irish Loyalists. There was a remarkable difference between the expression "having regard to" and "in accordance with." Under the latter there would be some control over the Irish Parliament; but under the former it might be hold that the Irish Parliament had had "regard to" precedents if it considered them without acting upon them.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): I do not speak now of what my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General proposes to cut off from the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite; but I speak of the words he proposes to admit. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham has before him two sets of words—first, "due process of law;" and, secondly, "having regard to the established precedents of principles." We do not want to exclude what meaning my right hon. Friend attaches to the latter words; but we think it is included in the words of the subsection. The question whether it is included in our own words or not has become really a verbal question. The right hon. Gentleman secures the meaning he desires, and we have no disposition to go further into argument.
    SIR H. JAMES: It would be bad faith with the Government if we did not point out that this concession is really of a most substantial kind, and alters entirely the whole complexion of the matter. Take one instance—the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. All that would be necessary without these words would be for the Irish Legislature to declare that after a certain day the Act of Charles II. would be suspended. Thereafter, any person could be arrested without process, and detained in custody. But under the Amendment the person could only be arrested with due process of law—

    1211
    "In accordance with the settled principles and precedents of general procedure."
    SIR C. RUSSELL: I have not accepted the words "of general procedure."
    SIR H. JAMES: I thought they were accepted. Whilst the words proposed remain in the Bill the Irish Legislature can never suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, which is a result we desire to accomplish. It will, therefore, be unnecessary for us to move Amendments to prevent the Irish Government from suspending the Habeas Corpus Act. Without these words it would have been possible to alter criminal procedure in Ireland; but with these words it could only be altered in accordance with settled principles and precedents. These words, I think, would prevent a man in a case of felony from being deprived of the right of going before the Grand Jury. The Irish Legislature, no doubt, would have power in minor matters. Before they would have had full power, but now their powers will be mitigated.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid that, so far as he was concerned, he should be prepared to accept the Amendment of the Government, provided the words "in accordance with" were allowed to remain. The words "judicial procedure," he thought, ought also to remain. Did the Government accept them?
    MR. SEXTON: I object to this system of question and answer across the Table.
    MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, complaint had been made that the concession of the Government was not received in the spirit in which it was offered. That, so far as he (Mr. G. Balfour) was concerned, was not a just complaint. He fully recognised the value of the concession, and was not desirous of spending the time of the Committee unnecessarily.
    SIR C. RUSSELL: The words I propose (with the assent of the Prime Minister) to accept are, "in accordance with settled principles and precedents."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the Amendment only appeared for the first time on the Paper that morning, and a further Amendment had been arrived at, he did not know how, in the course of the day, and now these words were to be inserted in the Bill. He thought it would be admitted that the position of himself and his Colleagues was extremely difficult.
    1212
    Most of them had not a training in the law, and had had no opportunity of advising with legal authorities on these subjects which were to bind the action of the Irish Legislature, perhaps, for ages yet to come. He had taken the liberty of pointing out to the Attorney General that the words "regard being had to settled principles and precedents" were preferable to the words "in accordance with settled principles and precedents," because he could form some approximate idea of the meaning of the former. He would only say that if the meaning of the Amendment were that the due process of law when enacted by the Irish Legislature must be strictly in accordance with not only settled principles, but also settled precedents, be doubted whether the words would enable the Irish Legislature to attend to the circumstances of criminal procedure as the country might require. If the words "in accordance with" were accepted, he should be obliged to divide the Committee against them. He would agree to the words "regard being had to."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It seems to me that it would be difficult to manage the business of the Committee on the principle laid down by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. We had a discussion last night on the legal bearings of this question; and the hon. Member for North Kerry who, we know, has one of the cutest and clearest heads in the House, and who is as competent to deal with the legal aspect of this question as any eminent Queen's Counsel, was present. He now says he has had no opportunity of conferring with legal gentlemen.
    MR. SEXTON: I have had no opportunity of conferring with my legal friends as to whether the Amendment should be accepted.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I believe there are even now in the House legal gentlemen belonging to the Nationalist Party sitting close to the hon. Member who would be prepared to give an opinion on the point. If we are to be broken up into small parties in the House, and if we are to have a Conference whenever a legal difficulty arises, our proceedings must be indefinitely prolonged. We must have confidence in those lawyers whom we select to advise

    1213
    us; and if we think the two eminent gentlemen opposite are not competent to deal with such a simple question as to whether the words should be "in accordance with" or "in regard to," we cannot have confidence in them.
    MR. SEXTONsaid he should be obliged to insist upon a Division.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 31, after the word "law," to insert the words "in accordance with settled principles and precedents."—(The Attorney General.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted.
    MR. SEXTON: I beg to move that the words "in accordance with" be omitted, in order to insert "regard being had to."
    Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "in accordance with," in order to insert the words "regard being had to."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question put, "That the words 'in accordance with' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 324; Noes 144.—(Divisiou List, No. 147.)
    Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. CLANCYsaid, he thought the time had come when some protest should be made against further concessions of this kind. He thought he might, without exaggeration, say that when the Bill was introduced it was accepted as about the minimum that the Irish Nationalists could accept as a working settlement. The whole course of the Committee up to the present moment, so far as he could see, had been in the direction of whittling down the Government proposals. He did not profess to be a great authority on Constitutional questions; but he could not shut his eyes to the fact that legal gentlemen of some repute had staked their reputation on the fact that the Amendment, if carried, would be a serious encroachment upon the power that bad already been given to the Irish Legislature to regulate their own criminal procedure. Looking at the matter as a layman, he himself had
    1214
    come to the conclusion that if the Amendment were adopted as it now stood the Irish Legislature would be prevented from legislating except in accordance with settled precedents and principles. What was the object of a Legislature? What was the Imperial Parliament doing every day but upsetting settled precedents and principles? As an Irish Nationalist, he objected to the Irish Legislature being prevented from legislating except in accordance with settled precedents and principles, many of which might be shown by experience to be deserving of no other fate than to be set aside. The Amendment would constitute such an encroachment upon the powers of the Irish Legislature that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James) were correct it would almost destroy the title of the Bill. He could not but think that the Government had brought much of the difficulty on themselves by introducing such a sub-section as that now before the Committee. The Bill of 1886 contained no such sub-section. He understood that Magna Charta was still the law of the land, and that unconstitutional legislation under the Bill would, therefore, be impossible. He supposed the sub-section had been introduced to please Unionists, who would not be conciliated by any concessions, who would only make use of the successive concessions that had been made to demonstrate the usefulness of their obstructive tactics, and who would go up and down boasting, as they had already boasted in that House, that they had extorted from the Government nine successive Amendments. In his opinion, the Government had made a vast mistake in introducing the sub-section at all, and they had made a still vaster mistake in making concessions on any of the Amendments. If it were in his power now, he should divide the Committee on the question whether the sub-section should stand part of the Bill or not. Most certainly, on the Report stage, he should move to omit the sub-section, not only on the ground that it was spoilt and rendered harmful by the adoption of the Amendment, but that it was useless, that it would be simply a weapon in the hands of the opponents of Irish Nationality, and that it was likely to destroy the effectiveness of the Irish Legislature in the domain of exclusively

    1215
    Irish affairs which the House of Commons had on several occasions in that Session decided should be within its competence. He had only to announce that those with whom he usually acted—and he thought he might speak for other Members also—would most decidedly divide the Committee against the Amendment, not only as a protest against the action of the Government in giving way on any of these Amendments, but also on the ground that there was a reasonable belief that a vast and unjustifiable encroachment was about to be made on the power of the Irish Government within its proper sphere.
    EARL COMPTONwished to explain why he went into the Lobby with the Irish Members in the last Division, and why he should do so if they went to another Division. He had two reasons. First of all, the words "in accordance with" decidedly restricted the sub-section under discussion, and he did not think it required any further limitation or restriction. In the second place, he looked upon the agreeing to Amendments moved to this sub-section as concessions to those who were trying their very best, night after night, day after day, and week after week, to wreck the Bill. For his part, he was perfectly ready to do everything in his power to hasten the progress of the Bill, and he thought his best way to do that was to remain silent on the subject. He had accordingly remained silent up till now, and had only broken that silence when he thought it right to explain why he was taking part in voting against the Government which he was glad to follow. If there was anything done in the way of Amendment which he thought would improve or increase the power of the Irish Legislature in a reasonable way, then he, for one, should support such an Amendment from whatever side it came. But during all these weeks they had seen Amendment after Amendment put down in order to weaken the Bill; they had heard the Opposition declare they meant to make the Bill more detestable, and he did not think it was reasonable to ask those who were supporting the Bill in its entirety to help the Opposition to make the Bill detestable. Their (the Liberals') object was, and always had been, to do their utmost to give Ireland what they thought
    1216
    the Irish people had a right to ask for; and what they did ask for at the present moment was, in his opinion, most reasonable. There ought to be elasticity in this as there had been in other matters; and, holding that opinion, he should certainly support the Irish Members in the course they were taking, and he hoped the Government would not be too ready in future to grant concessions to a Party who did not ask for these concessions in order to improve the Bill, but in order to destroy it.
    MR. SEXTON: I feel constrained to join without qualification in the protest which has been made, and to emphasise the views expressed by the hon. Member for North Dublin in regard to what I must call the unaccountable fatuity of the course of concessions lately pursued by the Government in the hopeless endeavour to conciliate an Opposition who have avowed before the country that their object, and their only object, is to destroy the Bill. The Government, time after time, have yielded to the most audacious conspiracy that has ever avowed itself, and the folly of the course has been made plain from day to day; because upon the concession of each Amendment, although the Government may have declared that it is a concession merely in point of form, the Opposition have availed themselves of it to justify and to vindicate a further course of obstruction. That is not carrying out the will of the people; that is not fulfilling the mandate of the electors. We always understood that the Home Rule measure to be given to Ireland would be a measure entirely satisfactory to the people of Ireland and her Representatives here. Of what use will it be if it be otherwise, and, in the hopeless attempt to save one hour or to relieve yourselves of one speech to be delivered from those (the Opposition) Benches, you day by day incur the fatal danger of alienating the people of Ireland? I beg that this course may be no longer pursued. I have called attention to it again and again. I have spoken, no doubt, with some energy, but, I hope, with perfect respect to the Government and its illustrious head. As a Representative of the Irish people, I am bound to say that if this course of concession be further pursued, the Bill, which, as the hon. Member for North Dublin has said, is unquestionably the minimum which the Irish people

    1217
    could accept as a settlement of Home Rule, will be rendered unacceptable, and will be no settlement of the question. I greatly fear, and I have little doubt, that the words which have been just accepted, will seriously hamper the Irish Legislature in matters of essential moment—an Amendment put down without notice upon the most unfortunate sub-section dragged by the heels out of the American Constitution which has no revelancy to the case of Great Britain and Ireland, no relevancy to the case of a Parliament unquestionably sovereign here and another Parliament unquestionably subordinate to it in Ireland, provisions which are very well where you have a written Constitution without sovereign authority, Federal Parliaments and Slate Parliaments which will make laws of their own without a Federal veto, but which have no relevancy whatever to the case of Great Britain and Ireland. But you drag in the subsection, and by doing so you give an opportunity and a most tempting occasion for saying, "If you find that this part of the American Constitution is so valuable, why not bring in all the rest?" and so we have had numerous Amendments, and we may have an Amendment to have the whole body of the American Constitution so far as it concerns anything that can be called Constitutional security superimposed upon us. That would be nonsensical and absurd. I say the words which you have now agreed to may give rise to serious consequences. For instance, it may be necessary to have a compulsory measure of Land Purchase in Ireland. The heart of Ulster is set upon it. [A laugh.] The hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) may laugh; but he knows very well that after having denounced compulsory sale in this House he went over to South Tyrone and blessed it when he required to be elected. I have given a few minutes' further study to these words, and I am satisfied that they would prevent the Irish Legislature from passing a law for the compulsory sale of land, which law alone, especially in the Province of Ulster, would settle the Land Question. Under the Land Clauses Consolidation Act, upon taking a piece of land it is made a settled principle that the price of the land must be increased by a certain percentage,
    1218
    because the land is compulsorily taken; and by the introduction of these simple words, "in accordance with settled principles," you have made it impossible for the Irish Legislature to deal with the question of the compulsory sale of land as the interest of Ireland would unquestionably desire. I will say no more. I have endeavoured to press upon the Government the gravity of the course that they have pursued. I have failed. I should not have thought it worth while to challenge a second Division on the Amendment; but as the hon. Member is disposed to divide we will join with him.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that after the speech of the hon. Member for North Kerry he wished to ask the Prime Minister whether he did not think it was his duty to the country to report Progress in order to consider whether the Government would not withdraw this Bill?
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 310; Noes 165.—(Division List, No. 147.)
    MRJOR DARWINmoved the following Amendment:—
    Page 2, line 32, after "laws," insert "or shall escape liability for acts done or omitted to be done by means of an Act of Indemnity."
    In moving this Amendment he had chiefly in view those illegal acts which might be committed by the Executive in times of great civil disturbance, when riots or insurrection were taking place. He could not in the least doubt that it was the intention of the Government that no one should be illegally punished in Ireland, and they had been told that the checks under this Act would be applied automatically—that was to say, if anyone took any part in an illegal punishment or proceeding, he would be liable to presecution and punishment. In a previous discussion the Solicitor General stated, as a Constitutional principle, that a subordinate Parliament could not pass an Act of Indemnity excusing any illegal act which that Parliament could not, by previous legislation, have made legal. That was, he believed, an undoubted principle of Constitutional Law—that no legislature, other than the Supreme Legislature, like the Imperial Parliament, could make that legal retrospectively which it could not have

    1219
    legalised originally. In discussing this matter he would take two cases—that of acts which could, and that of acts which could not, have been legalised originally. As to acts which could not be legalised, he presumed that to mean that the Irish Legislature could not indemnify the Executive which had taken part in illegal punishment without trial, because there would be no power to legislate for punishment without trial. He would not argue the legal aspect, but would take the common-sense view of the meaning of the Bill—that all powers were given which were not excluded. He thought, therefore, the Irish Legislature would have seem to have power to pass an Act of Indemnity to cover any acts of its officers. Legal principles were, no doubt, necessary to the interpretation of an Act; but he must protest against legal principles being a reason for excluding words necessary to giving a plain meaning. That was a bad principle to go upon. The Act would be so worded as to be capable of being read by laymen as well as by lawyers. Constitutional principles might change by fresh decisions over which the Imperial Parliament would have no control; but the words in the Act could not change, and he thought these words had better be inserted. Another reason might also be brought forward. Let them take the case of an insurrection, with illegal punishments followed by an Act of Indemnity. In order to prosecute, in addition to the ordinary procedure, it would be necessary to prove that the Act of Indemnity was invalid, because the act committed could not have been legal. Surely that would increase the difficulty of prosecution? Would it not be better to make the Act of Indemnity invalid without question? They had also to consider how far advisable it would be to allow the Legislature to excuse by Act of Indemnity an act which they could have legalised originally, still dealing with troubles likely to arise at times of riot or insurrection. Here the main check was the sub-section with reference to "due process." He was not going to re-open the discussion upon that question, but he must give an example in order to make his meaning clear. Taking the view of the Government, capital punishment for sheep-stealing could be made legal. Hence, if anyone was executed for sheep-stealing—he
    1220
    admitted, of course, that this was an extreme case—and executed after trial, then an Act of Indemnity would cover those taking part. Arguing from analogy, a great number of irregularities might be committed which would be covered. If "due process" had the meaning put upon it by the hon. and learned Member for Mid Armagh (Mr. Dunbar Barton), then very few acts, indeed, of any kind would not be covered. He was perfectly well aware that it would be said there could be no harm in giving the Irish Legislature power to excuse acts which they could have rendered legal. He did not think so, however; for if, in a bad time, the Legislature felt they had not power enough, they could legislate to meet contingencies. If such Acts of the Legislature were unjust, they could be vetoed. Well, then, it might be said—"You can veto an Act of Indemnity." But the answer to that was that it would be too late. If the Legislature had no power to pass an Act of Indemnity, they would have to legislate in advance, and an opportunity would be given of considering such measures as might be introduced. He did not deny that at times it would be almost impossible to avoid illegalities; but the Amendment was necessary to ensure that in all cases there should be discussion in Parliament before the officials were freed from penalties. The Government had promised to see to the protection of minorities, and this discussion was necessary for that purpose. The safeguards of the Government for the protection of the Irish minority would be absolutely useless unless they excluded the power of passing Acts of Indemnity. There were other instances which might be cited as well as that which he had given. He did not wish to insult Irish Members; but if this Bill was to become law, he should like to see this power of indemnity withheld from the Irish Legislature. For these reasons he begged to move the Amendment standing in his name.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 32, after the word "laws." to insert the words "or shall escape liability for acts done or omitted to be done by means of an Act of Indemnity."—(Major Darwin.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR C. RUSSELL: I will reply to the hon. and gallant Member in a single sentence. Certain matters might be made the subject of Bills of Indemnity divided in the way in which he has divided them in his speech. One class of Bills of Indemnity might relate to matters which the Irish Legislative Body would have no authority to legalise à priori. Any Bills of Indemnity relating to such matters and passed by the Irish Legislature would be null and void. But the Government intend that the Irish Legislature should have the power by Bills of Indemnity to legalise acts done in cases of necessity and emergency when it would be within the competency of that Legislature to legalise such acts à priori. I, therefore, cannot accept the Amendment.
    SIR H. JAMESsaid, he would like to know whether the Attorney General's object was carried out in the Bill? How were they to determine, according to the principle just laid down, what was and what was not a good Act of Indemnity? He did not see how the principle was to apply. If they took the case of the coinage and considered what might be done, the Attorney General would see that, unless the words of the clause were altered, the distinction which he had drawn could not be observed in practice.
    MR. CARSONsaid, it occurred to him that a very serious case that had never arisen under their own Constitution, but which had arisen in America, might arise under the Irish Legislature. The Committee had been engaged for many days enacting sub-sections which must give rise to great controversy when the legality or illegality of the Bills passed by the Irish Legislature came to be considered. Again, controversy must arise in every case of new procedure as to whether it was in "due process of law" or not. He would put this case: Suppose the Irish Legislature passed and Act which, primâ facie, was perfectly proper and within their powers, and an official proceeding under the direction of the Executive to act upon that law—it might be to do something that would be an infringement of the liberty of the subject or of the rights of property—could the Irish Legislature pass a Bill indemnifying the official of the Executive in the event of the former
    1222
    Act being subsequently held to be null and void? He supposed they would be morally justified in trying to indemnify for somethingd one under an Act which they had themselves passed; but he wanted to know, could they do so? This was not a fanciful case. They had the instance of Virginia, where an Act, was passed dealing with people's property; and, although it was vetoed, the Legislature went on indemnifying their officials and dealing with the property as before. If the Irish Parliament could do that—and he saw nothing in the Bill to prevent them—not one of the exceptions mentioned in the Bill was worth the paper it was written on as a safeguard.
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, the Government were content with the Bill, being satisfied that the Irish Legislature could not pass such Acts of Indemnity as various hon. Members had supposed.
    MR. CARSON: Why?
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, the reasons had been given again and again by the Attorney General and himself, and he had no others to offer.
    SIR J. GORSTsaid, with all deference to the Solicitor General, he would put it to him that, as a question had been asked by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James) and another by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Mr. Carson), the Committee ought not to be dealt with in that way. He was sure the Solicitor General would see the necessity of giving a fuller explanation of the reasons influencing the Government in opposing the Amendment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he could understand the feelings of the Government in the matter, for they were open to certain pains and penalties if they ventured to reply to the arguments of the Opposition. But in this case the Government were not asked to reply to the arguments of the Opposition, but simply to state their own arguments. They could hardly be allowed to retire under a dignified silence when asked their reasons for advancing certain legal propositions which many hon. and learned Members—Members who were leaders in their profession—thought were erroneous and objectionable. There could be one explanation—that the Government were afraid of their allies, or that they had no

    1223
    reasons to give. If they had reasons he hoped they would reply to the questions addressed to them.
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, he had given the reasons again and again.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman has merely repeated his opinion, giving no reason for it.
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, he had shown—and the Attorney General had repeated this—that it was laid down by authorities that a Bill of Indemnity could only be of validity when the Legislature passing it might have legalised the act done beforehand. He had given a particular case, with the names of the Judges, and what he had said had not been contradicted, but was, on the contrary, supported by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour). There could be no indemnity by a Body for an act which they might not have authorised. He hoped that would be considered a plain answer. He had given it now for the sixth or seventh time.
    MR. MATTHEWSsaid, he would point out to the Solicitor General that he had not dealt with the concrete difficulty that might arise. The Irish Parliament might pass some Act which would be held afterwards to be in excess of their powers and in violation of Clauses 3 and 4. Under that Statute, before its being declared void, some official of the Irish Parliament might invade the right of liberty or property—an act for which he could be prosecuted, if the Act under which he did this was declared null and void. What they wished to understand was—would it be in the power of the Irish Legislature to make certain acts lawful which would otherwise be held to be unlawful? And would they be able to indemnify against the commission of those acts? They would be told that they had ample authority in these matters in the Imperial Parliament; but upon the subjects given over to them, the Irish Parliament would be as authoritative, as all-embracing, and as capable of dealing with them as they at Westminster. There was the question of the troops in times of riot. Would there be power of indemnity in such cases? The Irish Parliament would have under its jurisdiction the whole Common and Criminal Law. They would control, he assumed,
    1224
    the law of false imprisonment and trespass. Was it intended that the Irish Legislature should deal with such matters by Bill of Indemnity? Were they to be considered as matters that might have been authorised beforehand, and so capable of being justified by indemnity? What they asked the Solicitor General to do was to point out words in the Bill to prevent that. They had powers to make laws except so far as they in terms restricted them. Where were the terms restricting them from doing what he had suggested?
    SIR C. RUSSELL: There are in this Bill certain definite subjects with regard to which the Irish Legislative Body have no concern whatever. There are certain other subjects which they have only power to deal with subject to certain restrictions and qualifications. These two heads exclude from their legislative authority divers matters, and as to which they could not legalise à priori, or subsequently what is done or what is intended to be done. But, as regards other matters, we do not intend that the Irish Legislature shall not have power, if they think proper, to deal with them.
    SIR H. JAMESsaid, supposing there was any attempt to arrest a person who had committed treason, what would be the indemnity? It would have nothing to do with treason—it would have to do with an act of trespass; and because it was attacking a traitor, or attempting to deal with a supposed traitor, their Act of Indemnity would not touch treason. It would be more or less an act of trespass on the land or person of a traitor, and the Bill of Indemnity would go against the trespass. It would be no answer to say—"Oh, it is a bad Bill; the Irish Legislature could not deal with it, because treason is one of the subjects Clause 3 has excepted." But this would happen to be an act of trespass on the person of a traitor, so that, if a lawless act had been done, the Irish Legislature would be enabled to justify and protect the person who had done that lawless act. The answer of the Attorney General that it would be invalid, because the Act had some connection with excepted subjects, would never be held to prevail; and unless this Amendment were accepted, they would give unlimited power to the Irish Legislature to pass Acts of In-

    1225
    demnity. They were endeavouring to prevent the Irish Legislature using powers beyond what were laid down in this Bill; and if their agents or anybody could act beyond these powers, and the Irish Legislature could step in and make that valid which was invalid, to the extent of protecting such agents for such action, it was useless putting safeguards in the Bill, because they escaped from the prohibitions laid down by the means he had indicated. If the view of the Attorney General was to prevail, let something be put in the Bill to say that which he had himself expressed it to mean. He respectfully asked the Government not to shrink from saying in the Bill what their Representatives had said on the floor of the House.
    MR. GOSCHENinquired whether indemnity could be given by the Irish Legislature to agents of the Irish Government who had committed trespass in attempting to enforce one of these Statutes of the Irish Legislature which had been passed in violation of the restrictions imposed by the Bill? In that case the whole of these so-called safeguards might be evaded.
    SIR J. RIGBY: In answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury, and to the question just put by the right hon. Gentleman, I have already said that acts that cannot be authorised cannot be indemnified. It may be possible that there will be a distinction between criminal proceedings and civil ones. But take the case of trespass. A man who is an officer of the Executive Government is ordered to go and do something illegal—I do not care what it is, but something they have, nevertheless, effected by Statute and authorised—that Statute dealing with an excepted subject is void; therefore, it is only a pretence of authorisation. Nevertheless, he does it, and afterwards they pass a Bill for indemnity. This is a question, again, of legislation. They have professed to authorise him to do something which they have no power to authorise him to do. He commits trespass upon any individual; and after the Act of Indemnity is given in the widest conceivable words, the man on whom he committed trespass, whether personally, or as regards property, brings his action. What is the result? The other person pleads under the Act of Indemnity. The
    1226
    answer would be, "You are attempting to make legal ex post facto or take away a man's right of action ex post facto, and that it has been held you have no right to take it away by a prior Act." That action must inevitably result in favour of the plaintiff. Civil liability of an officer of the Executive could not be taken away by any Act of Indemnity, even though the wrong may have been committed in pursuance of a direct order of the Irish Executive.
    MR. GOSCHENasked, would it be in the power of the Irish Legislature in such cases of trespass to vote the money for which the agent would be civilly liable?
    SIR J. RIGBYreplied, that that had nothing to do with the question they were now upon. The answer was that no Lord Lieutenant or Representative of Her Majesty would allow such a Bill as had been referred to to become law.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 220; Noes 258.—(Division List, No. 148.)
    MR. HORACE PLUNKETTmoved the following Amendment:—
    Page 2, line 33, after "taken," insert "any person not otherwise provided for by this Act be deprived of any public office or situation such person may have occupied on the appointed day."
    He had added to the Amendment as it stood on the Paper by inserting the following words—"not otherwise provided for by this Act." He had made that addition in order to narrow the scope of the Amendment, and he hoped the Government would not now say that its scope was unduly wide. All that the Amendment sought to do was to restrict the legislation of an Irish Parliament for a limited period in respect of a limited number of officials. The Judges, Constabulary, and Civil servants and some who were not Civil servants, but who were paid by the Lord Lieutenant, were provided for in Sections 26 to 30, inclusive, and also in a supplemental paper dealing with the 5th schedule. The Government had accepted a certain responsibility with regard to the persons he had named. The officers with whom this Amendment chiefly dealt were the county officers in Ireland, such as the Secretary and Trea-

    1227
    surer to the Grand Jury, County Surveyors, and so forth. No doubt one of the first Acts of the Irish Legislature would be, and probably ought to be, a Local Government Act, which would abolish the present Grand Jury system. If the late Government came in again he believed it was their intention to do the same; and all they wished was that the same generosity or fairness that would be extended to these servants by an English Administration should be extended to them by an Irish Parliament. He maintained that, although these men had no legal contract or any agreement for permanent employment, they had a strong moral claim, not only upon Ireland, but also upon this country, and that the same responsibility which this country had to the permanent Civil servants—in a less degree it might be—extended to other classes of servants whose position, although not legally, was practically a permanent position. This position would have been, so to speak, legislated away. Then there arose the very difficult and unpleasant question as to whether these servants would be dealt with fairly by an Irish Parliament. He did not care to go down to the bottom of his dust-bin to find proof that those who would probably take the lead in the Irish Parliament would not deal fairly with these officials who had belonged to what they called the loyal minority in Ireland. There was no doubt that the first Irish Ministry would have a large number of claims, and they ought to be very glad if Parliament would enable them to resist these claims, and so make their position a greal deal easier than it would otherwise be. There was also the probability that the "spoils system" would be imported wholesale from America, and the Irish machine very largely run by machinemen from New York and elsewhere. As a precedent for the course he suggested, he instanced the Irish Church Act, and said that although they did not expect the Government now to go so far as they did, when the Irish Church was disestablished, in respect of compensation, at the same time they did expect them to acknowledge they had some responsibility to those who had not been provided for in the Bill, but who, on moral grounds, had just as good claims
    1228
    as those who had. He had not dragged in by the heels this Amendment from the American Constitution—it was simply based upon common sense and common fairness.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 33, after the word "taken," to insert the words "or any person not otherwise provided for in this Act be deprived of any public office or situation which such person may have occupied on the appointed day."—(Mr. Horace Plunkett.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. MORLEY: I am not sure, though I listened carefully to what the hon. Member said in this Amendment, that I understand what he is aiming at, because this is a restriction upon legislation. The future Irish Legislature is not to make any law whereby a certain class of persons—whom the hon. Member has not described accurately in detail, and I confess I do not know whom he means—may be deprived of any public; office which they occupy upon the appointed day. Well, but these officials are either liable to dismissal at pleasure or they are not.
    MR. H. PLUNKETT: I was not providing in this Amendment against administrative harshness, but simply proposing that if the Irish Legislature wish to abolish the offices in certain restricted cases they should not do so without just compensation.
    MR. J. MORLEY: My hon. Friend says the object of the Amendment is not to provide a safeguard against legislative harshness, but what he deprecates is the abolition of office in these cases.
    MR. H. PLUNKETT: Without compensation.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Very well; but it can be done in these cases by administrative act now. My hon. Friend admits we have, in a Schedule, and in Clauses 27 and 28, dealt liberally with some classes of existing Civil servants, though less liberally with others. He is now dealing with the cases of those who have no vested interest, whom the Administration of to-day or a future Irish Administration can by an administrative act dismiss. Then why on earth should they think it necessary to legislate? I do not think my hon. Friend has clearly realised or worked out in his own mind

    1229
    what the words of the Amendment come to.
    MR. PLUNKET: I must say that this is a very small concession, and one to which the Government may well he expected to give favourable consideration. What is it my hon. Friend asks for? He is not asking for any interference with any administrative action which the Irish Government might think it necessary to take. His Amendment is a very small and technical one; but it will provide for a class of cases which might very easily occur. What does the Amendment ask? It asks that if the Irish Government of the future should think fit to propose and carry any legislation such as the abolition of the Grand Jury system, involving the dismissal of persons who, in the great majority of cases, would have just as safe a tenure of office as others whom the Government themselves are willing to provide for, without some compensation being given them. If the Irish Legislature abolishes the Grand Jury, with them must, of course, go the servants of the Grand Jury. It would be in the power of the Irish Legislature, passing such an Act as that for the abolition of the Grand Jury to make very inadequate or no provision at all for the position in which these dismissed persons would find themselves. I am sure that no Bill would ever be passed by this Imperial Parliament of such a kind which would not give—I do not mean excessive compensation—but what is described in the clause as adequate and just compensation. What the Amendment is intended to provide is this: that if the Irish Legislature should proceed to carry such a Bill as I speak of, provision would have to be made that these persons so dismissed should not be dealt with in a spirit and way different from that which they would have been dealt with if such a measure were passed by the Imperial Parliament. That is the whole of the Amendment. It is to provide for cases which may never occur, but which, nevertheless, ought to be provided for here. There is a moral claim just as good for the protection of these people as there is in reference to others whose case is provided for. They have brought themselves into relations more or less uneasy with the sentiment which which would be the dominant sentiment of the Irish Legislature of the future
    1230
    which would not be very friendly or harmonious with the interests of three people. The concession that is asked for is a very small one, and I think myself it might very well be granted by the Government.
    MR. SEXTONcould not admit the Amendment was either small or technical. It was large, and very practical, and it was also, he would venture to say, extremely bold. If it was adopted the Irish Legislature would not have power to pass any law by which any person might be deprived of any public office or situation which he had occupied on the appointed day without just compensation. The difficulty was, what was the public office to be? The proposer of the Resolution evidently had no doubt that the description of public office should be very, very expansive, and should include every person in Ireland in the employment of any Body in Ireland which might be called a Public Body.
    MR. H. PLUNKETTsaid, he meant any County or Urban Authority.
    MR. SEXTONthought that all servants of the State were provided for; but the hon. Gentleman proposed, by this small and technical Amendment, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University had described it, to deal with a class of persons not in the employment of the State at all, but in various other employments. Now he said he meant County and Urban Authorities. Did he include Boards of Guardians?
    MR. H. PLUNKETTsaid, the officers of the Boards of Guardians mostly belonged to the majority, and would be quite safe.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the hon. Gentleman was a young Member, and did not hear the very different story that was told when it was proposed to amend the constitution of Boards of Guardians in Ireland some time ago. The words of the Amendment would include any person who held office under any Corporation, Board of Guardians, Harbour Authority, or similar Body which exercised any function for the public good. These people held office during pleasure. They had no right to compensation at present, and they might be dismissed by their employers without compensation. It was misleading to speak of just compensation, because that

    1231
    implied that there was, at the present time, right to compensation which there was not. Then, what would be the effect if this Amendment were carried? One of the first things the Irish Legislature would have to do would be to supplant the Grand Juries by County Councils; and it was obvious that if the Irish Legislature, in the Act establishing County Councils, did not provide that compensation should be given to everyone in the employment of the Grand Juries the Privy Council would void the Irish Act. The result would be that this small and technical Amendment not only cut at, but cut away, the root of all Local Government legislation by the Irish Legislature. That, he thought, would be enough to secure its rejection by the Committee.
    MR. W. KENNYsaid, the objection raised by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Sexton) to the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Dublin was rather a technical one, so far as he could see. The hon. Member, he was sure, would be inclined to admit that certain officers deserved consideration; but he rather objected to the generality of the Amendment. If that were the only objection to the providing of some just compensation to certain of these officers, it might easily be met by a Schedule being made out of those to whom the Amendment was intended to supply. But were not these officers very much in the same position as members of the Civil Service who were provided for in the amended Schedules that had been introduced by the Government? Take the case, for instance, of a County Surveyor in the employment of the Grand Jury of a county. That gentleman might have entered into the employment of the Grand Jury when he was only 25 or 30, just starting upon his profession, and he might have given up his whole life to the service in which he was engaged, and then, at his present age of 45 or 50 years of age, he would be thrown upon the world without pension or compensation. He would say that such an official had quite as strong a claim upon the consideration of the Government as any Civil servant that had passed an examination and spent 15 or 20 years in the service of the State. Several other cases might be given, and he would
    1232
    appeal to the Chief Secretary to say, at least, that he would give some consideration to this Amendment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Amendment of my hon. Friend is not, indeed, a large Amendment in the sense that it would produce a very great drain upon the funds of the Irish Legislature which this Bill proposes to establish; but it is, undoubtedly, a most important Amendment, so far as the feeling with which the Bill will be received in Ireland is concerned. The hon. Member for North Kerry has endeavoured to show that under the Bill as it stands an Irish County Government Act would be rendered void by the Privy Couneil of this country if it did not provide adequate compensation for one particular official, Mr. Jones or Mr. Smith. [Mr. SEXTON: No.] Well, it came to that. The argument of the hon. Member was that the Irish Parliament might pass a Local Government Act; they might fail to give compensation to one of the officials, and that small failure on their part would void the Act. I do not believe that this Bill is so drawn; if it is, it is very badly drawn; and I think if I am right in my interpretation of Clause 33 any such absurd consequences would certainly be avoided. But so much for the positive argument of the hon. Member for North Kerry against the Amendment. The negative argument and the general tone of his speech which I complain of is that, in dealing with I the real equities of the matter, he never seems to realise that this Bill in substance is a Bill which establishes a legal revolution. It may be a necessary revolution; it may be a beneficial revolution; but a revolution it undoubtedly is; and it is our business—and I am sure the Government are at one with us—to see, if this revolution is allowed to take place, that it shall not carry in its train all those serious consequences to individuals which unfortunately even the best revolutions usually bring with them. The hon. Gentleman talks of these officials as being, as a rule, persons who hold office during good behaviour, who have, therefore, no fixed tenure of office, and entitled to nothing that can be properly described as just compensation. Let me point out that is not the way in which this House, at all events, has

    1233
    usually treated officials, who, if they have no legal or permanent tenure of office, still have a tenure of office which, under ordinary circumstances, would last through their lives, which prevents them having any other means of livelihood, and which may be expected to last so long as their physical strength holds out. Let me point out, in the second place, that if these men at present hold office during good behaviour, they do not hold it at the will of the Government as a rule, and will not, as a rule, hold it at the will of the future Irish Government. They are officials, not of the present Government and future Irish Government, but of those great Local Bodies, Grand Juries, and other Bodies; and therefore, though undoubtedly it will lay in the power of the Irish Government to dismiss them, or to have them dismissed, to shorten their career, and to cast them and their families out as beggars upon the world, they will not do it by dismissing them, but by destroying their employers. They will put an end to the Grand Jury that employed them; and as a consequence, unless some provision is put into the Act, these officials of the Grand Jury will be dismissed, or may be dismissed, from office at an age when a man cannot take up a new livelihood. Surely, the Government would only be carrying out their own policy by inserting provisions to remove the just alarms of these people. The hon. Member for North Kerry has told us that the first act of the Irish Government will be to bring in a County Council Bill. Very likely it would, and I think very properly. If we may gather from his speech, and the views he takes of just compensation to the people who hold their offices during pleasure, he does not think that just compensation will amount to much. He will not even admit that just compensation can be used on their behalf at all; and if, in that respect, he represents the prevailing spirit of the Assembly of which he will undoubtely be a great ornament, I say the new Irish Parliament will be animated by different principles from those which animate this.
    MR. SEXTON: I think the right hon. Gentleman misapprehends my view. I never said they might not be compensated. I rather think the Irish Legislature and the Bodies under it would act in
    1234
    a different spirit; but that is a different thing to saying that, although these persons have no legal right to compensation and such a course would involve burdens upon the public purse, this may be made the occasion of giving them that right which they do not now possess.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Gentleman must recollect two things. The first is that the Party to which he belongs has certainly always been animated by active hostility, political and social, to Grand Juries, which they want to disestablish, and through the Grand Juries the officials. [Colonel NOLAN: Not the officials.] The hon. and gallant Gentleman may be an exception; but that is the way I read contemporary Irish history. We must recollect, in the second place, that this House when it dealt with servants of an English Body which corresponds to the Irish Grand Jury—that is, the Quarter Sessions—did insure that compensation which I am sure is only just in such cases. When, therefore, we are going to initiate an Irish revolution, and going to hand over to an entirely new Body the lives and future of these people who entered into their present career under a very different system—be it better or worse than that we are going to establish—before we for ever cut our connection with them and hand them over to the mercies of those who have not shown themselves very tender of them in the past, surely it is our duty, and in the interest of the Government themselves, to introduce words in the Bill which may relieve their apprehensions, and relieve us and our consciences, at all events, of any doubt as to whether we have behaved justly in this matter.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly justified in saying that in sentiment and feeling on this subject there is no difference between him and ourselves. But I submit to the right hon. Gentleman that this Amendment is absurdly wide. Granted that there may be a class of public servants—not servants of the Executive Government, but of Local Bodies such as the Grand Juries; granted there be such, the language of your Amendment is far too wide, because it transforms every holder of what may be called any public office or situation—it transforms that post from

    1235
    the moment this Bill becomes law into a freehold. [MR. CARSON: Without compensation.] It gives the holder a right which he would have if the office were a freehold. But surely the Committee must see this is a question of detail. You cannot seriously profess to intend in the case of every servant, every public officer in a situation however humble, to exempt him from any form of legislation or any power of administrative reform? There has been—for the honour of this Parliament and the country I am glad to say it—a very jealous regard for this—that when there has been any reform in the system of government, it should not be carried out at the expense of those who have administered the previous system. I believe we have done all we possibly can do to satisfy the claims of these officials upon the Central Government. At all events, the Amendment does not propose the proper way of dealing with any question that may remain for settlement. The proper place for dealing with it would be on Clause 28; and under the circumstances we oppose the Amendment.
    MR. W. REDMONDsaid this, like the majority of the Amendments, was founded on the supposition that the Irish Legislature would do everything that was wrong. He did not think the hon. Member for South Dublin intended by this Amendment to make any suggestion that would be insulting to Ireland; but he was bound to say that it was a tax upon the self-restraint of Irish Members to sit there night after night and listen to suggestions that they were not capable of being entrusted with the smallest details of government in Ireland. He did not believe, notwithstanding the words that had fallen from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour)—to the effect that they would drive these people out as beggars upon the world—he did not believe that the Mover of the Amendment imagined any Irish Parliament would be guilty of any acts of injustice such as they had heard suggested. They had no desire to do it; and, he asked, was it likely they would do this, especially when they considered that the eyes of all the world would be upon their actions and their words—every word spoken in the Irish Parliament would be reported, and carefully reported,
    1236
    in every newspaper in the world—certainly in this country. Was it likely, he asked them again, that, in these circumstances, they would be guilty of these things? He denied the right of the Leader of the Opposition to assume that everything they would do would be based upon injustice and wrong. It was perfectly true they held strong views upon this matter, and they differed from the Leader of the Opposition; but that did not carry with it the assumption that the setting up of an Irish Legislature must necessarily carry with it the doing of acts of injustice. He said for himself—and he was sure he spoke for many others—that if when an Irish Legislature were set up an attempt were made to do these acts, he should protest most strongly against it, and do all he could to prevent it. It was monstrous to suppose, however, that they would bring their Parliament into discredit, and prove the failure of the Home Rule system, by perpetrating things of this kind. The object of the Amendment was simply part of the general object of the Party in Opposition—that was to make the Bill as objectionable as they could make it. Some people talked of proposing Amendments in a way that would lead one to believe that the first thing the Irish people would do when they got their Parliament would be to erect a guillotine in O'Connell Street, Dublin, and set about punishing every single one of their opponents. As he had said, the Amendment was based on the assumption that they would act on the basis of doing wrong. He put that to the Chief Secretary. The question was—Were they going to have Home Rule, or were they not? If they were not going to trust them with Home Rule in these small matters, then let them withhold it altogether and not give it at all. But if, on the other hand, they believed in the sense of justice, if they believed that they were entitled to govern themselves, then let them banish these groundless suspicions and leave them something to manage when Home Rule was granted.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, there was something in what the Chief Secretary had said. He had said that they should leave this matter over until they had reached Clause 27. That clause did not deal with—
    MR. J. MORLEY: Clause 28.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Clause 28; very well. The Irish Parliament might-deal with the reform of the Poor Law, and the Medical Officers under the Boards of Guardians would be involved in that. They were told that they should trust the Irish Legislature. Perhaps it did not occur to the Government that they were only prepared to trust men who proved themselves trustworthy; and, that being so, how were they to regard hon. Members on the opposite side as being trustworthy? If they could not trust them, those hon. Members had only themselves to blame. The hon. Member for the City of Cork—[Cries of "Oh!"] He knew all about that; but hon. Gentlemen who asked them to believe in the policy of trust — the Government that asked them to believe in it—asked them to go aboard a vessel manned by pirates. They were not going aboard themselves, however. [A laugh.] The hon. Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macfarlane) laughed. The hon. Member had once been an Irish Member, and he had trusted the Irish people and their friends so implicitly that he dare not go back again. Well, the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) said, two years ago, that the spirit of the Irish people and their Representatives would be, in the end, that they would have to open relentless war upon their foes. Did hon. Members on the Liberal Benches differ from the Members below the Gangway? Again, the hon. Member for East Mayo (Mr. Dillon) gave them fair warning, for he said that when they were out of the struggle they would know how to deal out rewards to the people's friends and punishments to the people's foes. Those who differed from hon. Members opposite saw in these utterances good reason for their distrust. They had "nursed the pinion that impelled the steel," and, until they (the Irish Members) retracted the sentiments of which he had reminded the Committee, they need not expect any sympathy or confidence from the minority in Ireland. If the Chief Secretary would give an undertaking when they reached Clause 28—[Mr. J. Morley dissented]—if an undertaking were given that the question would then be considered, the Amendment might be withdrawn. They from Ulster, the Unionist Members—the only Members, or nearly the only Members, from Ireland who were elected with-
    1238
    out clerical dictation—represented those medical men to whom he had referred, whose rights and privileges might be imperilled, and who were entitled to protection. He hoped they would have an undertaking, so that when Clause 28 was reached the question might be finally disposed of.
    Mr. CLANCYsaid, he desired to say only one word with reference to what had fallen from the Chief Secretary. He regretted to have heard the right hon. Gentleman invite Amendments on this subject. This was a continuance of the policy which had led to the obstruction complained of before; he believed it would lead to further obstruction. They (the Irish Members) would admit of no concession of this character. The Civil Service of Ireland, and the higher offices, were amply protected by Clauses 27 and 28, and to go on protecting every person holding a position in Ireland would be to bind the Irish Parliament in iron fetters in a way that he for one—and he was sure the Irish Members who were Nationalists—would not endure. The assumption upon which all these Amendments were based was that the Irish would cut each other's throats, or the throats of some other set of persons. The idea of some gentlemen seemed to be that they would cut the other people's first and their own afterwards. He did not find fault with gentlemen on the Unionist Benches who went on that assumption; but he appealed to every Home Ruler in the House who did not act upon this assumption to press upon the Government that the policy they were adopting in this matter would, if continued, prove absolutely fatal, and that, by pursuing it, they were walking in a way that would alienate the sympathy of the Irish people from the Bill. He hoped the Amendment would not be accepted, and that they would hear no more about it.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, the statement to which they had just listened was most interesting. They had sometimes heard it suggested that hon. Members opposite were the masters of the Government, and now they had the hon. Member telling them that the Bill would not be accepted unless the conditions of the Irish Members were agreed to. The hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) said, earlier in the

    1239
    Debate, that the Government were guilty of "unaccountable fatuity" in yielding to the Amendments proposed by the Unionist Members. The hon. Member who had just spoken — and, indeed, hon. Members from Ireland generally—appeared to be under a misapprehension as to the pledges of the Government. They spoke of the Government satisfying the wishes of Ireland as if that were the only thing to be considered. He would remind them of the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt) that the Government had not only to satisfy the people of Ireland, but also the people of England and of Scotland—especially those of Scotland. [Cheers from the Opposition Benches, the allusion being taken as to the success of the Unionist candidate at Linlithgowshire bye-election, announced this morning.] They claimed that the people of England and Scotland should have some consideration in the course of the discussion of the Bill. The moment that the slightest concession was made Members from Ireland got up and said they would put pressure on the Government—
    MR. W. REDMOND: You said you only wanted to destroy the Bill.
    Mr. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, they (the Irish Members) put pressure upon the Government to refuse discussion or concession upon the Amendments brought forward. No great Bill had ever been passed without some concession to the Opposition. He did not wish to stand between the House and the Division; but he might say that he sometimes thought hon. Members opposite were riding for a fall, and he would add that they would not be riding for long.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 211; Noes 253.—(Division List, No. 142.)
    It being after Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House at Nine of the clock.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  TREATY OF ARBITRATION WITH THE UNITED STATES.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. CREMERrose to move—
    "That this House has learnt with satisfaction that both Houses of the United States Congress have authorised the President to conclude a Treaty of Arbitration with any other country; and this House expresses the hope that Her Majesty's Government will, at the first convenient opportunity, open up negotiations with the Government of the United States with a view to the conclusion of such a Treaty between the two nations, so that any differences or disputes arising between the two Governments which cannot be adjusted by diplomacy shall be referred to arbitration."
    He said that before proceeding with his Motion he had the honour to submit a Petition (which arrived too late to present in the ordinary course) from some hundreds of British subjects resident in Paris praying the House to pass the Resolution he was submitting. If he had been privileged to move this Resolution in the last Parliament very little explanation would have been necessary, as most of the Members would have been familiar with the subject, a great number of them having taken part in the efforts then made in favour of arbitration between this country and the United States. But the Fates had denied him that opportunity. In 1887 an Address was presented to the President and Congress of the United States signed by 234 Members of the House of Commons. That address was as follows:—
    To the President and Congress of the United States of America.
    "The undersigned, Members of the British Parliament, learn with the utmost satisfaction that various proposals have been introduced into Congress, urging the Government of the United States to take the necessary steps for concluding with the Government of Great Britain a treaty, which shall stipulate that any differences or disputes arising between the two Governments which cannot be adjusted by diplomatic agency shall be referred to arbitration. Should such a proposal happily emanate from the Congress of the United States, our best influence shall be used to ensure its acceptance by the Government of Great Britain. The conclusion of such a treaty would be a splendid example to those nations who are wasting their resources in war-provoking institutions, and might induce other Governments to join the peaceful compact."
    For reasons which he need not refer to, it was not considered advisable to ask Members of the House

    1241
    of Lords to sign the Address; but a considerable number of Peers wrote expressing their concurrence in the effort that was being made to promote a peaceful alliance between this country and the United States of America. The significance of that Address would be understood when it was remembered that it established an entirely new precedent. He well recollected the late Mr. John Bright observing when he signed the Address that it was the first time the Members of one Legislature had ever memorialised the Members of another. The Address was presented to President Cleveland at his official residence in Washington on October 31st, 1887, by a deputation of 10 Members of the late Parliament and three representatives of the Trade Union Congress. The subject was discussed with the Committee on Foreign Relations, and it was evident, from the moment the deputation first landed in America, that the right chord had been struck. The Committee on Foreign Relations, having carefully considered the subject, submitted to the Senate and the House of Representatives the following Resolution, which was unanimously adopted by both Houses on April 4, 1890:—
    Concurrent Resolution to invite International Arbitration as to Differences between Nations."
    "That the President be, and is hereby requested to invite, from time to time as tit occasions may arise, negotiations with any Government with which the United States has, or may have, diplomatic relations, to the end that any differences or disputes arising between the two Governments which cannot be justified by diplomatic agency may be referred to arbitration, and be peacefully adjusted by such means."
    A careful reading of that Resolution would show that the prayer of the memorialists was more than answered. The Memorial only asked that this country and the United States should agree to arbitrate their differences; but the Resolution unanimously adopted by Congress authorised the President to invite other nations to do the same. He (Mr. Cremer) was not aware that that Resolution was ever officially communicated to Her Majesty's Government.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It was.
    MR. CREMER: Even if it had not been submitted to Her Majesty's Government, an invitation to join the United States in a Treaty of Arbitration
    1242
    was subsequently addressed to Lord Salisbury's Government. The same month in which the Congress adopted the Resolution a Pan-American Conference meeting at Washington also adopted a Treaty of Arbitration, and by a subsequent Resolution the Conference resolved to invite the Governments of Europe to become assenting parties to the Treaty. That Resolution and a copy of the Treaty was communicated to Lord Salisbury; but, so far as he was aware, it was never replied to. He was not endeavouring to cast any reflection upon the late Government, because he heartily and cheerfully acknowledged the promptitude with which they had endeavoured to settle more than one difference with other Powers by means of arbitration, and he was fully aware that many hon. Members on the opposite side of the House were favourable to the settlement of international disputes by such means. But he had good ground for asserting that the Resolution passed by the Pan, American Conference was forwarded to Lord Salisbury, and he should be glad to learn that it was duly considered and officially replied to. The Treaty, accompanied by a Circular Letter of Instructions was sent to all the American diplomatic Representatives abroad by the Government of the United States, and the instructions sent to those Representatives was signed by Mr. Blaine. No European Power had as yet accepted the invitation thereby conveyed, and the reason was obvious. Each Government was waiting what the others would do, and no one had the courage to take the initiative and set an example, as the present German Chancellor had said. The King of Denmark had made a similar statement quite recently, adding that if any of the leading European Powers would set the example, he would gladly follow suit. All the nations of the old world were groaning under the burden of military preparations, and it was in the hope that Her Majesty's Government would take the initiative and set the example that he brought forward this Motion. He was not so sanguine as to believe that if this Motion should be accepted, and an effort should be made to carry it into effect, that universal peace would be at once secured; but a beginning—and an important beginning—would have been made, and a stimulus

    1243
    would have been given to the movement in many other countries. In France, a large number of Deputies and Senators had indicated their desire for the conclusion of a Treaty of Arbitration between that country and the United States, and, but for recent unfortunate events, a Motion, similar to that he was now moving, would have been submitted in the Senate by a distinguished senator. The Danish Parliament had already by a considerable majority expressed its desire for the conclusion of a similar Treaty between that country and the United States. Many Members of the Italian Parliament were also in favour of doing the same, and the Representatives of other Parliaments had, at the Conferences which had been held at Paris, London, Rome, and Berne, expressed their hearty concurrence in the idea. If the House of Commons should accept the present Resolution, a powerful impetus would be given to the movement in every country of Europe. He knew it was said that Governments would only obey the obligations of such a Treaty as long as it suited their purpose to do so. He knew that Treaties had been made and broken. But the Treaties which had been made and violated were such as the conqueror imposed on the conquered, and now that public opinion was such an important factor in the government of the world he had yet to learn that nations would disregard Treaties into which they had freely and fairly entered during a time of peace. It would probably be urged against the adoption of this Motion that its advocates might fairly trust to the growth of public sentiment in favour of arbitration, and not seek to tie the hands of the Government by compelling them, when a dispute arose which could not be adjusted by diplomacy, to resort to arbitration before declaring war. But that was exactly what they wished to do. They wished to tie the hands of Governments so as to render them powerless for mischief. If the Government of the United States was willing to submit to the pinioning process why should we object? It might be that the late Government was, and that the present Government were also, favourable to a pacific policy; but what guarantee was there that the next or some subsequent Government would be of the same character? Governments come and Governments go;
    1244
    and it might be that some Government, although willing and anxious to preserve the peace, might, during a period of excitement similar to that which prevailed during the Trent outrage and the Alabama dispute, plunge the nation into war. The late Earl Russell once said—
    "On looking at all the wars which have been carried on during the last century, and examining into the causes of them, I do not see one of those wars in which, if there had been proper temper between the parties, the questions in dispute might not have been settled without recourse to arms."
    He believed Earl Russell was right in his conclusions. The best way of restoring proper temper between nations and individuals who had matters in dispute was to afford them proper time for reflection; and he believed that the sobering and softening influence of time which would result from a Treaty of Arbitration with America would render war between the two countries practically impossible. He did not quite understand or know what the attitude of the Government would be in regard to this Motion. He had heard that the Prime Minister would presently declare the intention of the Government. Well, he remembered what the right hon. Gentleman said and did in 1873 when the late Mr. Henry Richard introduced a Motion in favour of inviting foreign Powers to join in the establishment of a permanent system of international arbitration. But that Motion was of a different character from the present. Mr. Richard's Motion proposed that we should extend a general invitation to all the Powers of the world, while the present Motion was limited in its application to the United States of America. Then we were asked to invite; now we were the invited. When the Alabama question was under consideration in the House the present Prime Minister said—
    "Both sides of this House are animated by one sentiment—that we should make progress in gradually establishing in Europe a state of opinion which will favour the common action of the Powers to avert the terrible calamity of war."
    And speaking again on the same subject at the Guildhall of the City of London the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "But differences will occur; quarrels will arise, and how are these contests to be settled? 'By blood!' has been the unfortunate reply almost invariably in former times, a great

    1245
    experiment is now being tried. It may be no more than an experiment, too bright and too happy to be capable of being realised in this wayward and chequered world in which we live; but it is an experiment worth the trial—whether it is possible to bring the conflicts of opinion between nations to the adjudication of the tribunal of reason instead of to the bloody arbitrament of arms."
    The success of that experiment was now a matter of history, and stood out in bold relief as one of the most glorious incidents in the illustrious career of the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Cremer) asked the right hon. Gentleman, with all the earnestness of his soul, whether the time had not arrived for making another experiment in the same direction and taking another step towards the completion of their hopes? It was 22 years since the Prime Minister uttered those memorable words, and during the period which had since elapsed there had been a wonderful growth of public opinion on the subject among all classes of the community. This growth was strikingly shown in the Circular which had been distributed amongst Members; and the fact that upwards of 2,000,000 of people had by petition and resolution endorsed the Motion was, he believed, altogether without parallel. He was anxious to know what answer the Government would give to such an extraordinary expression of public opinion. There were many other advantages which would accrue if arbitration were adopted. Panics would be checked, commerce would be steadied, the funds would not go up and down with every warlike rumour, and the way would be paved for a general reduction of armaments. But he would leave these considerations to the right hon. Baronet who would second the Motion (Sir J. Lubbock) and others who would follow in the Debate. In conclusion, he hoped the Prime Minister would not ask them to be content with mere expressions of sympathy, but would boldly do for the toilers of the latter half of the 19th century what Moses did for the Israelites and would make an earnest effort to deliver them from the bondage of conscription and the burden of armaments. He (Mr. Cremer) was satisfied, from the experience he had gathered amongst the masses of the people in every country of the world, that if the right hon. Gentleman was only bold enough to take this step
    1246
    he would not only earn the lasting gratitude of the toiling millions, but would make for himself a name in history, and occupy a position in the future which the whole world would look upon with admiration. The people of this country, and the Government and people of the United States, had manifested their desire to take the step proposed in his Resolution, and he could not bring himself to believe that the only barrier to such a consummation would be set up by Her Majesty's Government. He begged to move the Motion which stood in his name.
    SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, he rose to second the Motion moved by the hon. Member for Shoreditch. The hon. Member had spoken for the working men of the country, and he (Sir J. Lubbock) believed the great majority of the mercantile community were of the same opinion. He did not, indeed, wish to put the question on any merely material ground, for it appealed to the great principles of justice, humanity, and religion. It was—and he was sure the House would regard it as—a question far above Party. The carnage, suffering, and misery which war entailed were terrible to contemplate, and constituted an irresistible argument in favour of arbitration. It was not from undervaluing these considerations that he would argue the question on other grounds, but only because, being anxious to save the time of the House, he would confine his remarks to that point of the question with which he was most conversant. The present state of things was a disgrace to human nature. There might be some excuse for barbarous tribes who settled their disputes by brute force, but that civilised nations should do so was marvellous, and not only repugnant to our moral, but also to our common, sense. At present even the peace establishments of Europe comprised 3,500,000 men; the war establishments were over 10,000,000, and when the proposed arrangements were completed would exceed 20,000,000. The nominal cost was over £200,000,000 annually, but, as the Continental Armies were to a great extent under conscription, the real cost was far larger. Of course, there are considerations deeper and graver than questions of money; but yet money represented human labour and human life. It was impossible for anyone to

    1247
    contemplate the present military and naval arrangements without the gravest forebodings. Even if they did not end in war, they would eventually lead to ruin and bankruptcy. The principal countries of Europe were running deeper and deeper into debt. During the last 20 years the Debt of Italy had risen from £483,000,000 to £516,000,000, that of Austria from £340,000,000 to £580,000,000, that of Russia from £340,000,000, to £750,000,000, and that of France from £500,000,000 to £1,300,000,000. Taking the Government Debts of the world together they amounted in 1870 to £4,000,000,000—a fabulous, terrible, and crushing weight. But what were they now? They had risen to £6,000,000,000, and were still increasing. By far the greater part of this enormous, this apalling, burden—this terrible incubus—was represented by no valuable property, had fulfilled no useful purpose; it had been absolutely wasted, or what, from an international point of view, was even worse, thrown away on war or in preparation for war. In face of these figures we could not expect confidence and prosperity, and we could not wonder at, however much we might regret, the growth of Socialist and Anarchist feeling. In fact, we never had any peace; we lived, practically, in a permanent state of war, happily without battles or bloodshed, but not without terrible suffering. Even in our own case one-third of our national income was spent in preparing for future wars, another third in paying for past ones, and only one-third was left for the government of the country. Our interests at stake wore enormous. Of the Mercantile Marine of the world 9,700,000 tons belonged to Great Britain, and only 6,700,000 to the rest of the world. Lord Derby, who always spoke with wisdom and moderation, wisely said that "the greatest of British interests is peace." But if we had the greatest stake in peace, on the other hand the economical condition of Continental countries was far worse than ours. The great Military Powers of Europe were sinking deeper and deeper into debt; the present system would inevitably lead to general bankruptcy. For his part, though not a "peace-at-any-price" man, he was not ashamed to say he was a peace-at-almost-any-price man. No doubt there were some vital
    1248
    questions which could not be referred to arbitration; but as the hon. Member had pointed out, Lord J. Russell, a very high authority, said that there had not been a war for the last 100 years which might not well have been settled without recourse to arms. The late Lord Derby was not a man easily led away by plausible suggestions or visionary schemes, and, speaking on a difficulty with Spain, he said—
    "Unhappily, there is no international tribunal to which cases of this kind can be re-referred, and there is no International Law by which parties can be required to refer cases of this kind. If such a tribunal existed it would be a great benefit to the civilised world."
    Lord Clarendon in 1856 submitted the following resolution to the Conference of Paris—
    "The Plenipotentiaries do not hesitate to express, in the name of their Governments, the wish that States between which any serious misunderstanding may arise should, before appealing to arms, have recourse, as far as circumstances might allow, to the good offices of a friendly Power."
    This proposal was unanimously accepted; would that it had been acted upon! Why did Lord Clarendon propose this if it was impracticable? The condition of Europe could not be viewed without alarm. Russia was honeycombed with Nihilism, Germany alarmed with Socialism, France in a panic from Anarchy. There was no justification, no excuse for recent dynamite crimes, but nothing happened in this world without a cause. Continental workmen wore working terribly long hours for very low wages. If hon. Members had read the recent reports from Italy they would see the miserable condition of agricultural labourers in that country, and the small proprietors in France and elsewhere were no better off. He sympathised very much with the desire for an eight hours day, but the resolution passed in Hyde Park last year wisely desired that it should be international. If the present military system was maintained no relaxation of the hours would be possible. The only way to secure the eight hours was to diminish military expenditure. The unnecessary Army and Navy expenditure compelled every man and woman in Europe to work an hour a day more than they otherwise need. He admitted that the blame did not rest on this country. Our motto of "Defence, not defiance" applied not only to the Volunteer Force, but to the Army and

    1249
    Navy also. The Resolution had direct reference to the United States. War with that country would be especially terrible. With America we had not only common interests, but the ties of blood.
    "Our commerce with America," said Cobden, "unparalleled in its magnitude, demands no armament as its guide or safeguard; nature herself is both. And will any rational mind recognise the possibility of these two communities putting a sudden stop to such a friendly traffic, and, contrary to every motive of self-interest, encountering each other as enemies? Such a rupture would be more calamitous to England than the sudden drying up of the River Thames; and more intolerable to America than the cessation of sunshine and rain over the entire surface of one of her maritime States."
    If that were true in 1835 how much more was it true now? Our trade with the United States was then £10,000,000, whilst now our trade with them readied £140,000,000. The citizens of the United States were our own kith and kin, they were our own blood, and war with them would be a civil war. They had intimated their willingness to refer all difficulties to arbitration. Surely we ought to meet them in the same spirit. Surely we should spare no effort and lose no chance of doing anything in our power to restore "Peace on Earth and Goodwill amongst Men." The attempt might not succeed, but at least we should have the satisfaction of feeling that we had done our best.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House has learnt with satisfaction that both Houses of the United States Congress have authorised the President to conclude a Treaty of Arbitration with any other country; and this House expresses the hope that Her Majesty's Government will, at the first convenient opportunity, open up negotiations with the Government of the United States with a view to the conclusion of such a Treaty between the two nations, so that any differences or disputes arising between the two Governments, which cannot be adjusted by diplomacy, shall be referred to arbitration."—(Mr. Cremer.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): Sir, I am too much in harmony with the general tone of the speeches we have heard to require to wait for the persuasive addresses which
    1250
    we may hear from other quarters in order to lead me to lay my views before the House, and I desire to do so at this very early period for a reason which will presently become apparent. In the first place, however, I cannot but say that I am heartily glad, even at the close of an exhausting week, that my hon. Friend (Mr. Cremer) and my right hon. Friend (Sir J. Lubbock) have found an opportunity of striking a stroke, be it a great stroke or not, on behalf of humanity. I think we are indebted to them both for calling our attention to the subject, and likewise for the excellent speeches they have made. In those speeches, while they were hearty from the first word to the last, I do not think the most jealous critic could detect a single unhealthy or exaggerated sentence. They were the speeches of men of humanity, the speeches of men of enlightenment, and the speeches also of sober-minded men of business. I heartily trust that they will be widely read and deeply pondered. The more they are read and pondered the better it will be for the great interests that are at stake. I think that my hon. Friend who made the Motion deserves a peculiar credit for the pains that he has taken and the degree of success that he has achieved in giving an accurate account of the state of public facts in relation to his case. I cannot be surprised that it has been impossible for him under the circumstances to attain perfect accuracy. Undoubtedly events of very great interest have happened within the last few years directly bearing upon this subject. While I have no blame whatever to pronounce upon those who have preceded us in Office, and who, I believe, were animated, speaking generally, by the same spirit as ourselves, I regret that the official and formal record of those events has not yet been placed in the hands of the House of Commons. It would have been of great advantage to my hon. Friend, and of great advantage to the House to have had it. My hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir E. Grey) will take care that the lack is at once supplied, and that the House is put in possession of those documents which were some time ago communicated to the British Government. I will by-and-bye go through the facts briefly, but in a way that I hope will convey to the mind of the House what

    1251
    may be called the present situation. In the meantime I will say that there are no words that my hon. Friends can use for the purpose of extolling the advantages of arbitration which would be too strong for me to subscribe to. I observe with them that war has of late years and of late generations found out for itself new channels and new methods of inflicting suffering upon humanity by means of a system known as Militarism, even in time of peace, and even—I must do justice to those who are mainly concerned—compatibly with an honest and honourable intention to promote peace. I cannot question that intention, neither can I question the fact that militarism itself is a tremendous scourge, a tremendous curse to civilisation. By militarism I mean the vast establishments we have now on foot in all countries of Europe. The great question whether militarism tends to avert war or tends to bring war into existence is as yet an unsolved problem. My hon. Friend (Mr. Cremer) quoted a saying of Lord Russell's, in which, as I understood it, I heartily concur, condemning very much in the lump the wars of the last century in which we were concerned. I think that saying may even be generalised. I think that if we cast our gaze over the whole field of history we shall find that wars fall for the most part into four classes—one of them dynastic wars, another of them territorial wars, a third religious wars, and a fourth wars for liberty. Of these four classes, I think the three first are all so bad that it has hardly ever happened that either Party has had his hands absolutely clean; and I am afraid it must be admitted that, of all the three classes, the religious wars have been the worst. There is oftentimes much that is great and noble in wars waged for liberty; yet even they have been stained by many marks of human infirmity and human crime. I must say a word upon the position of this House, and do not let my hon. Friend misunderstand me if a word I am about to say may seem to have a cooling or chilling effect. I am dreadfully afraid, on all these questions, of getting into a position in which profession outruns performance; I would much rather, if I must take my choice, be in a position where performance outruns profession. Well, now, undoubtedly we can point to something more than
    1252
    mere expressions of sentiment in this matter. I think that those who look back upon the history of the last 70 years will find that in a multitude of instances we have been willing to submit our claims in national disputes to the test of arbitration. However, there is a circumstance which we ought not to conceal from ourselves, and which does not speak altogether for that moderation on the part of England in the estimate she forms of her claims that I am sure we should all conscientiously desire to see her preserve. Between 1822 and 1885—a period of a little more than 60 years—we have been interested in 14 arbitrations. I am afraid the decisions given in those arbitrations are a grave factor in the history of the case, and that according to those decisions we must, in some degree, find the standard of national moderation or its reverse. Out of the 14 arbitrations I believe I am right in saying the number given in our favour has been three or, at most, four. Therefore, Sir, we have something to learn over and above the exhibition of anxiety for the prevalence of the principle of arbitration, and even over and above the readiness to submit our claims to a tribunal of that kind. Moderation in the original estimate of those claims will be found to be an element in this case not less important and not less valuable than any other that it is in our power to name. I assure my hon. Friend, in the first place, that I go with him up to a point tolerably advanced, for, though a Treaty of Arbitration is undoubtedly a novelty, and is undoubtedly an object which, in former times, it would have been deemed wild to dream of, yet I confess I do not think that it is beyond the reach of reasonable hope that such a Treaty might ere long, under favourable circumstances, be concluded between this country and the United States. But I am bound to point out that the greatest difficulty does not lie on that side of the water. It is the complexity of foreign relations on this side of the Atlantic which imports difficulty into this question. Having said that—which I hope will convey some sign of concurrence with the general principles of my hon. Friend—let me point out why I think the terms of his Motion require a change. He will agree with me that in any recital made in this House of the

    1253
    proceedings of foreign authorities and foreign countries, especially of foreign authorities of such weight as the Governing Body of the United States, we ought not to commit ourselves to any statement but one of absolute precision. He knows I am not blaming him; on the contrary, I have been astonished to see how near, with the private means at his disposal, he has come to attaining to the point of accuracy. But it would not be strictly accurate to say that the two Houses of Congress have authorised the President to conclude Treaties of Arbitration. A Treaty of Arbitration has undoubtedly resulted from the authority given to the President; but it would not be accurate to give that description of the authority granted by the two Houses of the Legislature. I am now going to quote the words of the Resolution, the first part of which is embodied in the Motion which the House is now debating. This is what the two Houses of Congress said—
    "We authorise the President to invite from time to time, as fit occasions may arise, negotiations with any Government with which the United States has or may have diplomatic relations, to the end that any differences or disputes arising between the two Governments which cannot be adjusted by diplomatic agencies may be referred to arbitration and peaceably adjusted by such means."
    I do not question for a moment that the motive was that the Treaty of Arbitration was to be in conformity with the Resolution; but to say that it bears out the terms of the Resolution would not be an exact account of it. It is very obvious that what was contemplated by that Resolution was that the initiative should be taken by the President of the United States, who was authorised to invite negotiations with any Government with which the United States had or might have diplomatic relations. Under these circumstances I think it is plain, even as a matter of International courtesy, that in any words we may adopt we ought not to close the question and prevent that initiative by the President if he thinks fit to take it, but that we should leave the question open as to the quarter from which the initiative should proceed, instead of binding ourselves to take it. I think that end would be com-
    1254
    pletely gained if we were to adopt, after "peaceably adjusted by such means," the words which I should be very glad to move if my hon. Friend withdraws his Resolution. Those words are—
    "And that the House, cordially sympathising with the purpose in view, expresses the hope that Her Majesty's Government will lend their ready co-operation to the Government of the United States upon the basis of the foregoing Resolution."
    Mr. STANSFELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly read the whole Resolution as he suggests it should be?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Certainly. The entire Resolution would then read as follows:—
    "That this House has learned with satisfaction that both Houses of the United States Congress have authorised the President to invite from time to time, as fit occasions may arise, negotiations with any Government with which the United States has or may have diplomatic relations, to the end that any differences or disputes arising between the two Governments which cannot be adjusted by diplomatic agencies may be referred to arbitration and peaceably adjusted by such means. And that this House, cordially sympathising with the purpose in view, expresses the hope that Her Majesty's Government will lend their ready cooperation to the Government of the United States upon the basis of the foregoing Resolution."
    It will be interesting to the House if, without drawing unreasonably upon its time and patience—and in that respect I am bound to acknowledge the admirable example set by the Mover and Seconder—I were to point out what has already taken place, and set forth the leading points in such a way as will enable me in a not very great number of minutes to submit the essential questions to be borne in mind. The Resolution of the United States Congress was passed in February, 1890. I have read nearly the whole of that Resolution, and incorporated it in the draft Amendment I have prepared. In April, 1890, a Conference met of no less than 18 of the American Republics.
    Mr. CREMER: I have received information, which has been corroborated from several quarters, that the Resolution of the Congress was passed on April 4, 1890. Still, it is no great matter whether it is April or February.
    Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: Of course, I am speaking, not from original knowledge of my own, but from the official records, which I will place in the hands of my hon. Friend to enable him to check the statement. It is not, however, a very important matter, and the hon. Member will be able to satisfy himself as to the date from the Papers that will be laid on the Table. In April, 1890, according to my statement, only two months after this Resolution had been passed, a Conference of 18 Republics gathered together and agreed to a Resolution recommending arbitration for the settlement of International disputes, and finally they agreed to a form of Arbitration Treaty. This Treaty was placed immediately in the hands of this House, and it was signed by 10 out of the 18 Governments concerned. The character of the Treaty is not at all obscure or complex. It begins—I think it is the second Article—by pointing out a number of important subjects which were fitting subjects for arbitration, and which the contracting parties bound themselves to refer to arbitration. The next Article was more sweeping, and said that subjects of International dispute generally ought to be, and should be, referred to arbitration. Then comes another Article—I think it is Article 5—which makes an important reservation, and states that there is one exception to the scope of the foregoing Articles, and it is this—that no country is to be bound to refer to arbitration any subject-matter with regard to which it may be of opinion that the matter in dispute tends to imperil its independence. Well, of course that is a very important reservation, but not so important in America probably as it would be in Europe, or, I should rather say, not so obstructive to the Treaty. Hon. Members will observe that this is the case of a Treaty between the great vast Republic of the North and the comparatively minor States of the South. I am not quite sure which of the Southern States signed the Treaty, or whether Brazil did so or not. It is obvious, in the first place, that the Republic of the United States is in very little danger of having any question
    1256
    raised between itself and one of the South American Republics which might possibly imperil its independence. Moreover, I should not imagine that any of the South American States would have the smallest disposition or cause to raise any quarrel with the United States Republic which would be likely to imperil their own independence. Almost all of them must be exempted from any such apprehension or desire. It is evident that what we have opened to us here is a system very simple upon the whole, fairly workable according to all experience, most beneficial in the character of the stipulations it contains, and in the example it sets to the rest of mankind. But it is equally evident that when we come to cross the Atlantic we have much greater difficulties to encounter, for there vast Armies are maintained by the great States; and, although all may have the best intentions to maintain peace, the cause of peace is ever trembling in the balance. Therefore, Ave must not suppose that the question is so easy on this side of the Atlantic. That is the nature of the Treaty, and I think I have given a sufficient account of it. In October, 1890, after no very prolonged delay, the United States Government brought the Resolution by a Circular Despatch which will be laid before the House to the knowledge of the European Governments, including our own; and now I am going to quote words which express exactly the point to which the President deemed it discreet to go in the exercise of the powers he had received. As I have said, he forwarded an account of the Treaty, and, I believe, the Treaty itself, and be expressed a hope in these words—
    "That the important objects now sought to be attained may favourably impress this upon Her Majesty's Government."
    Those were significant words, but, at the same time, it is plain that they were words which did not amount to an invitation to negotiation, though they opened the subject and gave an opportunity to the Governments to whom they were addressed to make replies more or less favourable in their tone. A reply on the merits of the question was not, however, challenged. The only record of any reply that we have is that the United

    1257
    States Government were informed very shortly afterwards that the proposal would receive the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government. I know not exactly what steps were taken towards that careful consideration; but I do know—and I acknowledge with pleasure the fact—that the proceedings now going on in Paris hear emphatic testimony to the desire to promote the settlement of disputes by the method of arbitration. But I am bound to tell my hon. Friends that the whole evidence was not entirely on one side. In October, 1891, President Harrison made an address to a Religious Body, the Œcumenical Methodist Council, an address which was, perhaps, somewhat sanguinary in its tone. He pointed out that there are limitations as yet to the complete and general adoption of such a scheme, and he goes on—
    "It is quite possible to apply arbitration to a dispute as to a boundary line. It is quite impossible, it seems to me, so to apply it to the case of International feud. If there is present an aggressive spirit to seize territory or a spirit of national aggrandisement which does not stop to consider the rights of other people, in such a case and in such a spirit International arbitration is a remote and difficult operation."
    And he went on to say that it might be that the full application of the principle was not at present possible, "the devil being still unchained," and they would probably best promote the settlement of International disputes by arbitration by letting it be known that if there was an appeal to a fiercer tribunal the United States would not be out of the debate. That seems to qualify the very rosy colour which my hon. Friend has placed on past proceedings on this question, and will, perhaps, assist the House to form its own judgment on the matter. I will only say, in conclusion, these few words; and although these declarations in favour of arbitration and in the general interests of peace as well as against vast military establishments are of great value, there is another method of proceeding which, I think, in our limited -sphere, we upon this Bench have endeavoured to promote, and to which I have attached very considerable value, and that is the promotion of what I may call a Central Tribunal in Europe, a Council of the Great Powers, in which
    1258
    it may be anticipated, or, at all events, may be favourably conjectured, that the rival selfishnesses, if I may use so barbarous an expression, may neutralise one another, and something like impartial authority may be attained for the settlement of disputes. I am quite convinced that if selfishnesses were to be sunk and each State were to attain to some tolerable capacity of forming a moderate estimate of its own claims, in such a ease the action of a Central Authority in Europe would be of inestimable value. Let us do all we can in the direction which the hon. Member desires us to take by encouraging a preponderance of collective opinion in Europe over the individual selfishness of separate Powers. But depend upon it the root of the whole matter lies in the fact to which I referred some time ago, that the true way to promote the cause of peace, and the most effective of all ways, is to cherish that habit of mind by which we are enabled and accustomed to form just, moderate, rational estimates of our own claims, and not to pitch those claims at an extravagant height, and so lay the basis of future quarrel and possible bloodshed.
    MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member for the Haggerston Division intends to withdraw his Amendment in favour of that of the Prime Minister, I think it would be more convenient if he were to take that course at once, instead of waiting till his present Amendment becomes the substantive Motion.
    MR. CREMER: After consultation with the Seconder of the Motion, and with some of my friends who have been good enough to promise to support me, I may say I think it would be advisable, for many reasons with which I need not trouble the House, to withdraw my Motion, and accept the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House has learnt with satisfaction that both Houses of the United States Congress have, by Resolution, requested the resident to

    1259
    invite, from time to time, as fit occasions may arise, negotiations with any Government with which the United States have, or may have, diplomatic relations, to the end that any differences or disputes arising between the two Governments which cannot be adjusted by diplomatic agency may be referred to arbitration, and peaceably adjusted by such means; and that this House, cordially sympathising with the purpose in view, expresses the hope that Her Majesty's Government will lend their ready co-operation to the Government of the United States upon the basis of the foregoing Resolution,"—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    Mr. J. W. LOWTHER: I hope that the House will accord me some degree of sympathy in the difficult position in which I find myself at the present moment. I have to follow a speech to which the whole House has listened with rapt attention, all the more marked, I think, because it comes from the right hon. Gentleman on the last Parliamentary evening of a very arduous and somewhat contentious week. I trust that, in the few observations which I shall have to offer, I shall in no degree disturb the harmony which seems to exist, and which found in the speech of the Prime Minister an echo from the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution. I feel bound to say, however, that I cannot take quite such a rosy view of the results which are likely to follow the acceptance of the Resolution as was taken, apparently, by hon. Members opposite. This question of International arbitration has been before the House for a long period of time. I think it was last discussed here in 1873; and I am bound to say, for my part, that the Resolution now before us, and which is likely to be accepted, is a great improvement on the one carried in the year 1873, for that seems to me to have been totally impracticable. This one, at all; events, can do no harm whatever, even if it may not do a great deal of good. I think, also, the fact that since 1843 we have been engaged in numerous arbitrations on a great variety of subjects proves more conclusively than any
    1260
    Resolution we could adopt that this country has accepted the principle of arbitration for International disputes. The Prime Minister, in the course of his speech, gave a list of the arbitrations which have taken place since 1822, and, according to his calculation, there were 14. I have also been at pains to examine the number, and according to my calculation it is 18.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: My list only came down to 1885.
    Mr. J. W. LOWTHER: Since then there have been four—one completed, one approaching a solution, and two not very far advanced. And it is extremely satisfactory to note that eight of these arbitrations have been with the Government of the United States, thus giving proof of our strong desire to apply the principle of arbitration to disputes which may, unfortunately, from time to time arise. The Prime Minister, when dealing with this question, seemed rather to suggest that the result of these arbitrations might tend to throw cold water upon our anxiety to adopt the principle in the future. I think, on the coutrary, that the mere fact that we have so often been defeated in these arbitrations, and have, nevertheless, gone on steadily applying the principle whenever it could be applied, constitutes an argument which shows we are as a nation, whatever Government may be in power, determined, whenever opportunity properly arises, to apply the principle. I would point out that during the last 10 years we have inserted in several Commercial Treaties an Arbitration Clause for the settlement by arbitration of differences that might arise out of those Treaties; and in the Act which resulted from the Berlin Conference of 1885 a clause was also inserted providing, not exactly perhaps by arbitration, but by mediation, for adjusting any disputes that might arise between the signatory Powers in reference to territorial possessions on the Congo or in West Africa. Therefore in this matter we have a clean record. We have set a good example to the world. Whether this Resolution in favour of International arbitration is

    1261
    passed or rejected, the mind of the country is undoubtedly set upon carrying out the principle of arbitration, and successive Governments have applied it as far as it has been in their power to do so. I rather regret that the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution dealt so much in generalities. I am certain that no one on this side of the House would dispute their condemnation of the horrors of war, and the terrible expense it involves; but I am sorry they did not address themselves to the more practical question of how a Treaty of Arbitration with the United States would advance matters. I pointed to the fact that during recent years we have on no fewer than eight occasions entered into arbitration with the United States in cases where differences had arisen between us; and I say that if a Treaty of Arbitration had been in existence during those years no more could have been done than has been effected without the existence of such a Treaty. For it must be borne in mind that if such a Treaty was in existence, each separate question of difference as it arose must itself be the subject of a fresh Treaty. I do not suppose it is suggested that we should try to fix upon some tribunal which is for all time to settle differences that may arise between ourselves and the United States. That would be a very dangerous proposal to adopt. I need not go into the question of the reasons which make some Governments jealous of our own, nor need I go into the reasons why from time to time our relations with other Governments undergo a process of change. I think I may content myself with saying that it may very well be that the Government upon which the United States and ourselves may agree at the present time as a very proper and just tribunal to settle our differences may, in the course of a few years, become anything but an acceptable tribunal, either to the United States or to ourselves, before which to lay our differences. As each case of difference arises there will have to be a fresh tribunal, and the basis on which the arbitration is to take place will have to be settled. Remember, also, that an Arbitration Treaty in itself cannot compel arbitration. Suppose a grave question were unfortunately to arise between ourselves and the United States, on which
    1262
    the people of both countries felt very deeply—a question which was felt to be worth fighting for, it would be easy to tear up the Treaty of friendship we now have with the United States and the Arbitration Treaty besides. Arbitration does not necessarily preclude war. For instance, suppose one of the parties to an arbitration declined to carry out the award of the arbitration? A case of that kind actually occurred in 1839, when the Government of the United States and the Government of Mexico entered into an agreement to refer certain claims made against the Government of Mexico to four Commissioners, and in the event of the Commissioners disagreeing an appeal was to be made to the King of Prussia. The Commissioners met the following year; they allowed certain claims, and it became the duty of the Government of Mexico to carry out the award. They declined to do so, and the United States declared war against Mexico in order to enforce the arbitration. I do not say whether the Government of the United States were right or wrong in the course they took. I am not passing any judgment whatever upon it. I am simply laying down the general proposition that arbitration does not necessarily of itself preclude war. If I thought that by passing the present or any similar Resolution, and by entering into a Treaty of Arbitration with the United States, we would get rid of the chance—even the remote chance—of war arising, I would vote for it at once. But we have to look at the matter as practical men. Even with regard to the Government of the United States itself, and the Resolution of Congress in 1890, to the history of which the Prime Minister referred, there is a singular circumstance to be noted. The Joint Resolution of Congress was passed in February, 1890; but in June of the same year, only a few months afterwards, another Joint Resolution was passed by Congress authorising the President to take such measures as might be necessary to promptly obtain indemnity from the Venezuelan Government for injuries sustained in respect of a Steamship Company at the hands of Venezuelan belligerents in 1871. The professions of universal peace, which the month of February witnessed, were in the month of June, in the case of Vene-

    1263
    zuela, unfortunately forgotten. There can be no doubt—the Prime Minister was very careful to put the point clearly—that cases may arise between nations which cannot be referred to arbitration; and I can only hope, if the Resolution is passed, and if the Government thereupon proceed to enter into negotiations with the United States for a Treaty, they will be careful to exclude such questions. There was one circumstance, by the way, to which the Prime Minister did not refer when he quoted the speech of President Harrison at the Œcumenical Conference. After dwelling on the advantages of peace at the Conference, President Harrison, I find it recorded, went straight to the arsenal and spent many hours inspecting the guns. In the great Debate which took place in 1849 Lord John Russell indicated very clearly those questions which no country would be prepared to submit to arbitration. He said—
    "There are questions which occur between nations that cannot well or fitly be submitted to arbitration—questions involving the dearest interests, the honour, or safety of a country, which if a Government proposed to submit to an arbitrator, the force of public opinion and public feeling would be such as to render it impossible for a Government to carry out such a purpose."
    I do not think I need detain the House further. I say the facts of the last few years are the best assurance as to the future. I think we can see in the fact that over and over during the last 60 or 70 years we have been prepared to refer cases of great moment exciting a great deal of feeling to arbitration, an earnest and a pledge that future Governments will be prepared to carry out the principle of International arbitration.
    Mr. STANSFELDsaid, he found some difficulty in apprehending the object of the hon. Gentleman, who seemed, while not professing any intention of opposing the Resolution, to throw cold water upon it. Instead of addressing himself to the great subject placed before the House, the hon. Member invited the House to consider the merits of former Governments in entering upon arbitrations in which they had been beaten, and propounded the proposition that it was better to follow the policy of
    1264
    the past than to enter into Arbitration; Treaties.
    Mr. J. W. LOWTHER: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I do not think my argument can bear that construction. I said the fact that though we had been beaten several times in arbitration we were quite prepared to accept it told very strongly in favour of continuing the principle of arbitration.
    MR. STANSFELDsaid, the hon. Member advocated the principle of being, ready to enter into arbitration when the time arose, but of not entering into an Arbitration Treaty. That position was precisely the reverse of the positions taken by those who supported the Motion. They felt that no greater benefit could accrue to general progress and peace than by arriving at a relationship between nations which would substitute the arbitration of competent tribunals for the arbitrament of the sword. He would address himself to the subject raised by the Resolution. His excuse for so doing was that he was one of the 234 Members who in 1887 signed a Memorial to the President and Congress of the United States, which was the origin of the proceedings which had culminated in the Resolution before the House. His right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had substituted for the original Resolution a Resolution of his own, with the consent of the Mover and Seconder. He believed that the amended Resolution was more binding upon the Government, by whose Chief it had been proposed, and would have far greater weight and value in European International discussions than if it had simply been assented to by the Government and accepted by the House in its original form. He was under no obligations; his free speech was unhampered, and he wished to say what he thought on this subject in the fewest possible words. He himself went further than the Resolution. What object or interest could compare in value for this country with the object and interest of peace? As the Seconder of the Resolution had pointed out, Lord Derby declared that peace was the greatest interest of this country. As far as International

    1265
    affairs were concerned, peace was almost the only interest of this country. What International Reform could conceivably compare with it? Unless they were to go further; and there was a further road to travel and a further goal to reach than the goal of Arbitration Treaties. No country was more interested in peace than ourselves, for we had given more hostages to fortune than any other country, and we had more vulnerable points—we had more to lose and less to gain by war, and it would be utter folly if we did not understand that it would be for our best advantage at the earliest possible moment to enter into a Treaty of Peace and Arbitration with the great Anglo-Saxon race on the other side of the Atlantic. But arbitration was not the goal. The ultimate ideal was an International Law, created by the society of nations, forbidding International breaches of the peace, and settling disputes between nations as the disputes between the citizens of individual States were settled. That was a distant ideal; but it was well to have it always in view. Diplomacy was the first step to its attainment. The assertion of neutral rights and interests was the second, with the consequent restriction of the rights of belligerents. They all knew that the old International Law was a law of belligerents, created by belligerents, and imposed upon neutrals; but the true International Law—the International Law of the future—must be settled by neutrals and imposed on belligerents, and must restrict the acts of individual nations in the interest of the world at large. Conferences and Congresses of Nations were useful as training them towards the ideal; and the highest example of these was the Alabama Treaty Conference, a part in which was the proudest privilege he had ever enjoyed. The Prime Minister referred to the great conception of some permanent Council of the Great Powers sitting to judge and adjust the quarrels of the nations of the civilised world. That was the future completion of the idea of Congresses of Nations. These Congresses would train the nations to the building up of a true International Law to find its sanction in the future. A general system of arbitration was a still
    1266
    further step towards that ultimate law which would mean a general disarmament, and the almost impossibility of war between the great civilised States of the world. Above all other things, it was the interest of Great Britain, as a peaceful, wealthy, and industrial nation, to lead the way in this matter; and the opportunity was afforded by the action and initiative of the Congress of the United States. No time could be more fitting. Some people might imagine that in the present condition of Europe the time was not propitious. He believed that the present condition of Europe made the present not the less, but the more fitting time for taking some step towards the goal of which he had spoken. Europe groaned beneath the weight of her armaments, and trembled beneath the tread of millions of armed men, and some way out of the present impasse must be found. If they did not find a way out of the difficulty, the greatest catastrophe, the most frightful loss, the greatest social ruin were the inevitable future of the civilised world. Everyone in Europe felt the future coming like a dread doom. As a matter of fact, these conditions of Europe which he had endeavoured to describe were already affecting the minds of men, and preparing them for a perfect revolution of ideas. They had a chance of setting an example; and he asked the hon. Gentleman who had endeavoured to chill their enthusiasm why should they not hope the most from arbitration, or what had they to fear from it? When the two Anglo-Saxon communities on both sides of the Atlantic had agreed together by Treaty for the constitution of Courts of Arbitration, they would feel a mutual sense of immense relief, and they would be setting a fruitful example of the supremest common sense to the world. He held the opinion that the opportunity offered them was the best possible opportunity. The Resolution, even as amended by the Prime Minister, did not ask the Government to open any general communications and negotiations with all the nations of the world or to undertake an initiative, but simply to lend a favourable ear and give a favourable response to an initiative propounded. The precedent of 1873, referred to by the Prime Minister, was of a

    1267
    different kind; the proposition, then, was that the Foreign Secretary should be authorised and requested to enter into general negotiations towards the composition of some International tribunal to settle International disputes. That proposition was open to many objections; but to what objection was this proposition open? Surely it was well worth while to try to make a sensible Treaty on the subject. Nothing could be easier than that proposed to be done. The United States were prepared to receive readily, any negotiations to which they might be invited by the President of that country, who had been requested by Congress to enter into such negotiations. Meantime, this was a subject not merely for the Government, but for the House. They had now secured the acquiescence of their own Government. Nothing could be truer and greater than the proposition that, in the midst of armed Europe, with millions of men crushing down the industries of the time, the still small voice of political conscience should be raised to say that all this was folly that should be put a stop to. When public opinion had once mastered this subject—and the people of the world were fast being driven to the conclusion that they should compel their Governments to this conclusion—they would have succeeded in creating at once a moral and physical European collective power, against which all the ambition of warlike nations and the tendencies and temptations of individual nations would strive in vain. He earnestly recommended the Resolution.
    SIR G. BADEN-POWELLsaid, he had not the capacity, even if he had the desire, to follow his right hon. Friend to the high level of what he could not but call an International Millennium, for he did not think that in his lifetime, at all events, they would ever arrive at it. But, as many Members of the House knew, he recently had had practical experience in a great case of arbitration, and from that practical experience he might be able to offer a few words which would have weight with the House. In two directions he thought his experience would be useful to them. In one of those directions they had to deal
    1268
    with the case not only of present danger to the peace existing between two great nations, but to deal with a case of uncommon perplexity of detail. The other direction in which they had to work was one in which his right hon. Friend who had just sat down would not have regarded arbitrations as always easy. They had to deal with a nation which they knew had already in Congress proposed that arbitration should always prevail between themselves and us. And although both nations and both Governments and the Commissioners on both sides were all of them anxious in this matter of arbitration, yet they found difficulties provided at every turn, which prevented them obtaining an adequate Treaty. He was not in a position to tell the House what was occurring and what had occurred in this arbitration; but he would say they had met with a measure of very considerable success, if only in the fact that they had obtained and secured that these very complex questions should be submitted to arbitration; and he ventured to say from his experience of that work, which had now occupied him personally since May, 1891, that he had far greater hope in the ultimate success of arbitration between nations than he ever had before. Hope and confidence were founded not on theory, on what they might wish to see in the future, but on actual practical experience, which was already matter of history. He would like to point out that in this, as in all other arbitrations, the one great difficulty was that of ultimate sanction, and it was a problem that remained yet unsolved. With regard to the 14 cases of arbitration which the Prime Minister had put before them as showing the difficulty of entering upon such a course, it was quite true that they had failed in a great many of those which affected their just interests; but he had been at some pains to study the history of those cases, and he ventured to assert that the lesson to be derived from those cases was that, as a nation, they had been too apt to enter upon arbitration without having acquired a proper and adequate knowledge of the facts of the case, and he might add that in the most recent case they had endeavoured to arrive at a full knowledge of the facts of the case before they entered the Arbitration

    1269
    Court. There were many cases in which we could obtain the settlement of disputes by arbitration, and by so doing we should be pioneers in a policy which would conduce to our own prosperity and to the saving of modern civilisation from the fate that wars had brought upon previous civilisations.
    CAPTAIN NORTONsaid, that having for years been connected with one of the great fighting professions, he did not wish that their motives should be misjudged in this matter. He held that under certain conditions—where the existence or freedom of a nation was concerned—war must be the ultimate issue; but he agreed with the distinguished soldier, the late General Sheridan, that things were moving in a very different direction now to what they did some years ago. They were told less than a century ago that to abolish duelling would be impossible; but duelling had now practically ceased to exist in this country, and the reason why it still existed in certain foreign countries was that it had become a farce. He believed with General Sheridan that the great precision of modern weapons—the destructiveness of which they might judge by a recent invention—would lead to such a state of things that among civilised nations war would become practically impossible. Neither France nor Germany had gained anything by the war of 1870. John Bright pointed out that if the case of the Crimean War had been referred to arbitration it would, in all probability, never have taken place. Of one thing he was convinced—that as civilisation and education advanced the democracies of Europe would certainly be averse to being pushed into war by diplomats before the matter had been referred to arbitration. It had been frequently stated that democracies were aggressive, and they were referred to the wars of France after the First Revolution; but that was a brutal and an uneducated democracy. America was then pointed to—the war between North and South; but there they were fighting, on the one hand, for great material interests, and, on the other, for a grand principle. He
    1270
    therefore maintained that, though there might be many instances in which it might be impossible to avoid war, there were also many in which, by means of arbitration, great and disastrous wars might be avoided. He believed that before a century had rolled by we should see a great people—the Anglo-Saxon race—numbering not 100,000,000, but in all probability 300,000,000 or 400,000,000, with such vast power, such vast moral influence, and such illimitable wealth that that nation would be practically able to dictate terms of peace to the world.
    SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he would not follow the hon. Member who had just sat down (Captain Norton) into his fairyland of day dreams, but rose to vindicate the eminently sensible, judicious, and practical speech delivered by the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs from the adverse criticism directed against it by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld). As a miserable sinner, he, of course, humbly accepted the doctrine preached by the right hon. Gentleman as to the horrors of war; but he felt that the difficulty lay in the application of the doctrine. The question was how were they to prevent war in certain circumstances? Would the right hon. Member for Halifax kindly instruct the House what we were to do if we were insulted nationally, if the just interests of our teeming millions were attacked, or if we were invaded? Nobody had a more tender or affectionate regard than he had for our American cousins; but would the right hon. Gentleman kindly instruct thorn as to how the desirable object they all had in view was to be attained if the United States were, unfortunately, to insist on an International dispute? It was not enough to preach to them the doctrine of general policy; they must be shown what they were to do, and how they were to do it. His hon. Friend the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs endeavoured to show some practical difficulties in the way of the proposal, whereupon the right hon. Member for Halifax accused him of throwing cold water upon it and giving it a chilling reception. He (Sir R. Temple) entirely demurred to that. His

    1271
    hon. Friend did nothing of the kind. What he did was simply to point out some of the practical difficulties, and to show how hard they would be to overcome. This Resolution proposed by the Prime Minister was in general terms; but if it was to lead to any result there must be some agreement. There must be something in writing. He did not suppose any hon. Gentleman would wish them to be content with a mere verbal understanding, a mere interchange of diplomatic communications; but they would wish to see something definite proposed. He supposed they must be in the shape of diplomatic Protocols, following by some agreement terminating in a Treaty. He concluded that a Treaty, in some shape or other, sooner or later there must be. The tenour of that Treaty would be to set forth that whatever disputes should arise between us and the United States should be settled by arbitration. What happened then? Were we to be subject to a general system of arbitration? If it were a question of boundaries, or territory, commercial relations, or the seal catching in the Behring Sea and the fisheries in the Pacific Ocean, no doubt these questions would form fitting subjects for arbitration. But, as his hon. Friend (Mr. J. W. Lowther) had pointed out, they had that already, and there was no dispute of that sort which had arisen within the last two generations but had been referred to arbitration; and, no doubt, whatever dispute of this nature arose in the future would be so referred. But behind all this there were greater questions which might arise between two high-spirited nations; and, no doubt, of all disputes the most serious were family disputes. Now, disputes between Great Britain and the United States were essentially of a family character. Looking to questions of that kind, he would just again refer to a passage from the speech of President Harrison. What did the President say? He said—
    "It is quite possible to apply arbitration to a dispute as to a boundary line. It is quite impossible, it seems to me, so to apply it to the case of International feud. If there is present an aggressive spirit to seize territory or a spirit of national aggrandisement which does not stop to consider the rights of other people, in such a case and in such a spirit International arbitration is a remote and difficult operation."
    1272
    He had no doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite would say that these remarks applied merely to us—to that nationality which was symbolised by the British lion. No doubt they did apply to us as much as to any nation; but surely they did not apply to us alone, and they certainly applied as much to our American cousins. The dispositions of the two races were very much alike. The spirit was equally high in both, and in all these matters it would be found that the Americans were very British indeed. Were we prepared to say, or to ask the United States to say, that any conceivable matter which might form the subject of dispute between the two nations should be referred to arbitration? ["Why not?"] Some hon. Gentleman asked, Why not? If the hon. Gentleman would consent to such a proposal, he apprehended that neither his countrymen nor their American cousins would. While sympathising thoroughly with the object of the Resolution, he felt bound to point out the practical difficulties which had already been indicated by his hon. Friend below him. He yielded to no man in the House; in regard, indeed, in affection for the Americans, and war with them would be fratricidal, indeed suicidal, to both parties. And having pointed out the difficulties in detail, he subscribed heartily to the general terms of the Resolution.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I only rise for the purpose of asking the House to pass this Resolution. The Resolution, which is of immense importance, was supported by the authority of the Prime Minister, and it affords me the greatest satisfaction to know that the House is about to pass it unanimously. I trust that the House will now take such steps as are necessary to place upon the Journals one of the most important Resolutions that can be submitted to it.
    MR. SNAPEobserved, that as the speech of President Harrison had been quoted by the Prime Minister and other speakers, he (Mr. Snape) wished to say that he was present at the (Ecumenical Conference at Washington, at which it was made, having been invited to read a paper there on the subject of Inter-

    1273
    national arbitration. He could testify that President Harrison expressed the greatest sympathy with International arbitration. The United States Legislature had committed itself again and again to the principle of arbitration; and no country in the world was so advanced upon this question as the United States.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Resolved, That this House has learnt with satisfaction that both Houses of the United States Congress have, by resolution, requested the President to invite, from time to time, as fit occasions may arise, negotiations with any Government with which the United States have or may have diplomatic relations, to the end that any differences or disputes arising between the two Governments which cannot be adjusted by diplomatic agency may be referred to arbitration and peaceably adjusted by such means; and that this House, cordially sympathising with the purpose in view, expresses the hope that Her Majesty's Government will lend their ready co-operation to the Government of the United States upon the basis of the foregoing resolution.

  IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 385).
  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTobjected.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MARJORIBANKS,)observed that the Bill was supported by Members on the other side of the House.
  MR. DAVENPORTsaid, that was not enough. They should have some statement as to the object of the Bill.
  MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, the object of the Bill was to place landowners in Scotland in the same position as they were in in England with regard to the planting of trees.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, surely the right hon. Gentleman could give them some explanation as to the details of the Bill.
  SIR J. GOLDSMIDsaid, that a Bill of this sort might be very useful, but it certainly should be explained. The Government at present offered no explanation of any Bill except the Government of Ireland Bill.
  SIR C. PEARSONsaid, that although the right hon. Gentleman had stated that the Bill was supported from that (the Opposition) side of the House, he observed there was a Notice on the Paper to the effect that it be read a second time that day six months; therefore, there was at least some necessity for some explanation being given about the Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX-CHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman represents himself as an opponent of the Bill—
  SIR C. PEARSON: Certainly not.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The hon. and learned Member for Wigton, I am informed, is the principal promoter of the Bill, which is the outcome of the deliberations of the Committee on Re-afforestry. The whole Bill is contained in one clause, which states that the—
  "Enumeration of the improvements contained in Section 9 of the Improvement of Land Act, 1864, is hereby extended to the purpose of applications made to the Board of Agriculture after the passing of this Act, so as to include the planting of woods and trees."
  It appears from this that the Act only applies to England, and does not apply to Scotland, and surely no one can object to extending it to Scotland so as to facilitate the planting of woods and trees. Dr. Johnson said himself there were no trees in Scotland, and if that is so, it is very desirable that this particular Bill should be passed.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  NEW LICENCES (IRELAND) BILL (No. 94.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 22nd February.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Question again proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill."
    MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTsaid, as there appeared to be no one present who had charge of the Bill, he moved to report Progress.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Bromley Davenport.)
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, this measure had been in charge of the hon. Member for North Louth for a long time He (Mr. Russell) opposed it last Session because it contained clauses that he considered objectionable. Those clauses had been removed, and as the measure in no way affected present licence-holders, but only affected new licences, he hoped his hon. Friend would not persist in moving to report Progress.
    MR. CONYBEAREremarked, that the Bill had been before the notice of the House for a considerable time and had been fully explained. He believed that it was favourably viewed by both sides of the House.
    MR. DAVENPORTsaid, his recollection was that on the Second Reading objection was taken from those (the Opposition) Benches, and the hon. Member in charge of the Bill made a protest and an appeal, stating that hon. Members from Ireland were in favour of the measure, and under those circumstances they allowed the Bill to be taken after 12 o'clock. It transpired, however, that there was an objection to the Bill from the colleagues of the hon. Member in charge of it.
    MR. M. J. KENNY: What colleagues?
    MR. DAVENPORT: I am unable to say. I know there was an objection by one hon. Member—I think the Member for South Down.
    MR. CONYBEARE: It was withdrawn.
    MR. DAVENPORTknew nothing about it being withdrawn, but the notice of objection was on the Paper. Shortly after the occasion to which he referred it was proposed to take the Committee
    1276
    stage, and they were told there was no objection, but again it transpired that the objection had not been removed. The Second Reading having been taken under circumstances not exactly in accordance with the manner in which Bills ought to be taken, after 12 o'clock, he must persist in his Motion to report Progress.
    MR. CONYBEARE: May I point out to the hon. Member, who has a faculty for opposing, in an unwarrantable manner, every kind of Bill, that every Notice of Motion for opposing this Bill has been withdrawn, and that there is not now a single Notice on the Paper in opposition to it.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the hon. Member who was referred to as having objected to the Bill was present, and he showed no disposition to object now. There was no opposition on the part of the Irish Members, and he took it that whatever objection there had been before was more to taking the Bill after 12 o'clock at night than anything else.
    MR. DAVENPORTdeclined to withdraw his Motion.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 19; Noes 108.—(Division List, No. 150.)
    It being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL.—(No. 374.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.—(No. 367.)
  Read the third time, and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) BILL.—(No. 375.)
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 370.)
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.—(No. 368.)
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16) BILL.—(No. 369.)
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (POOR LAW) BILL.—(No. 256.)
  As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
  WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 2) BILL (by Order).
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Water Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill that they have power to insert a clause into the Llandrindod Wells Water Order empowering the Llandrindod Wells Local Board of Health to purchase the Llandrindod Wells Water Company's rights, powers, privileges, works, and property at a price to be agreed upon by the parties, such price in case of dispute to be settled by arbitration in the usual way.—(Mr. Edwards.)

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 17) BILL.—(No. 376.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order relating to the City of Coventry not to be proceeded with; remaining Order confirmed] [Title Amended.]
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 9) BILL.—(No. 378.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Order confirmed]; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.—(No. 365.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL.—(No. 336.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; Report to be upon the Table, and to be printed.
  Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  SEAL FISHERY (NORTH PACIFIC) BILL. [Lords]
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 393.]

  MIDWIVES' REGISTRATON.
  The Select Committee on Midwives' Registration was nominated of,—Mr. Albert Bright, Mr. Tatton Egerton, Dr. Farquharson, Dr. Fox, Sir Frederick FitzWygrarn, Sir Henry Howorth, Mr. Fell Pease, Mr. Priestley, Mr. Rathbone, Mr. Stephens, and Mr. Arthur Williams.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  Ordered, That Five be the quorum.—(Mr. Henry Fell Pease.)

  PRISON (OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION) (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 359.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  SOUTHERN RAILWAY (IRELAND) BILL.— (No. 364.)
  Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.—(No. 383.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
  CHAFF-CUTTING MACHINES BILL. (No. 302.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
  INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES BILL.—(No. 294.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—North Sea Fisheries Bill, Local Government Provisional Order Bill, Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill, Local Government Provisional Order (Housing of Working Classes) Bill, Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order [Cranbrook and Paddock Wood Railway, &c.] Bill, without Amendment.
  That they have passed a Bill, entitled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Reading." [Electric Lighting Provisional Order (No. 5) Bill [Lords.]

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 394.]

  PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS. (STANDING ORDER APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH.)
  MR. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Order which is applicable thereto has been complied with, namely:—Salmon Fishery Provisional Order Bill.
  Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time upon Monday next.

  EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY (SHIPPING INTERESTS ABROAD).
  Return [presented 15th June] to be printed. [No. 257.]
  ARRESTS FOR DRUNKENNESS (SCOTLAND).
  Return [presented 15th June] to be printed. [No. 258.]
  GREENWICH HOSPITAL AND TRAVERS' FOUNDATION.
  Paper [presented 15th June] to be printed. [No. 259.]
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD.
  Copy presented,—of Supplement, in continuation of the Report of the Medical Officer for 1891–2, to the Twenty-first Annual Report [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  ARMY (YEOMANRY PAY AND SOLDIERS' PENSIONS).
  Copy presented,—of Further Regulations relating to the Pay of the Yeomanry Cavalry and to Pensions of Soldiers [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 9, 1893).
  Copy presented,—of Agreement between Great Britain and Germany respecting the Rio del Rey, on the West Coast of Africa. Signed at Berlin, 14th April 1893 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Resolution reported from the Committee; "That, in the case of the East Fife Central Railway Bill [Lords], the Standing Orders ought to be dispensed with:—That the parties be permitted to proceed with their Bill, on condition of the name of the Anstruther and St. Andrew's Railway Company being struck out of Clause 49."
  Resolution agreed to.
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.