COMMITTEE. [Progress, 21st June.]

HC Deb 22 June 1893 vol 13 cc1686-747

[TWENTY-SIXTH NIGHT.]

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Legislative Authority.

Clause 4 (Restrictions on powers of Irish Legislature).

MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, he had an Amendment, in page 2, line 34, leave out "(6)," but he would not move it. It was the desire of the House that they should proceed, and he would reserve his observations for the next Amendment.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, the next Amendment in Order was that in the name of the hon. Member for East Belfast (Mr. Wolff).

MR. BARTLEY

said, he understood the next Amendment to be moved was that of the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Wallace).

THE CHAIRMAN

called upon Mr. Wolff.

MR. WOLFF

said, he rose to move in page 2, line 35, to leave out from "Parliament" to "may" in line 37. He would draw the attention of the House to Sub-section 6, which read— Whereby any existing Corporation, incorporated by Royal Charter or by any local or general Act of Parliament (not being a Corporation raising for public purposes taxes, rates, cess, dues, or tolls, or administering funds so raised) may, unless it consents, or the leave of Her Majesty is first obtained on Address from the two Houses of the Irish Legislature, be deprived of its rights, privileges, or property without due process of law. Now, they would see that the Amendment applied to Corporations, such as Municipal Boards, Harbour Boards, and Water Boards. These Boards had considerable incomes derived from rates and tolls, and many of them had borrowed vast amounts from English and other Societies. He was afraid, unless this Amendment was accepted, that the confidence reposed in such Bodies would be done away with if the Irish Legislature were entrusted with the power which it was proposed to give to it. The various Corporations, he feared, would in that case be no longer in a position to raise the loans that were necessary to their carrying on the business which they had in hand. He would take the case of Belfast, with which he was himself connected. That City had three Bodies—the Corporation, the Harbour Board, and the Water Board. The Corporation of Belfast was not a favourite with the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton), who, when he represented one of the Divisions of Belfast, did everything he could to prevent the Corporation bringing forward Bills that were considered necessary for the improvement of the City, even going the length, he would remind the House, of stopping the progress of the Main Drainage Bill—a Bill which was much required at the time. Well, he fancied the hon. Member's opposition to the Corporation was political rather than anything else. He was opposed to the present political constitution of that Body. The Corporation, however, was an important Body. It had an enormous investment in improvements, and it had large financial relations with England. If the Home Rule Bill passed, might not the Irish Parliament interfere with that? At all events, they could understand that, in such circumstances, those who had advanced money in the past would be unwilling to do so again in the case of a Corporation which would be subject to the law as laid down by the Irish Legislature. The Harbour Board had £1,096,000 invested. They also feared the advent of the Irish Legislature. The Water Board had also great investments, amounting to many thousands of pounds, and they had at present a scheme before the House of Lords proposing a vast expenditure for a further water supply to meet the growing needs of the City. These Corporations, like the others, feared that under Home Rule they would not be able to carry out those improvements which were necessary for the welfare of the citizens. For these and other reasons, he thought it was very desirable that they should exclude these words from the clause. He did not say that the Irish Parliament would, immediately on its being appointed, proceed right away to do the things that were apprehended. But he felt perfectly convinced that they would try to do them as soon as opportunity offered to permit them; and the security which such Bodies now enjoyed would be endangered. They had the words "due process of law," but they did not know what they meant, and in the North of Ireland they had no confidence in the interpretation that would be put upon the clause as it stood by the Irish Legislature. If this were an ordinary Bill they might have confidence, but it was not ordinary. They wore satisfied that the administration of the law by the Irish Legislature would not be equal in fairness to that which prevailed under the Imperial Parliament. They accordingly hoped the Government would accept an Amendment which would give them greater security than had yet been provided for in the Bill.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 35, to leave out from the word "Parliament," to the word "may," in line 37.—(Mr. Wolff.)

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

* THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. RUSSELL,) Hackney, S.

said, the Government could not accept the Amendment. The hon. Member himself confessed that no one would think of proposing such an Amendment in any ordinary scheme of local self-government, where there was any confidence in the proposed Governing Body; in other words, the Amendment meant there was no trust to be placed in the Body proposed to be constituted. The Government did not share that view. Besides, the Amendment would have the effect of depriving the Irish Legislature of what he might call an elementary right with respect to local government. The Amendment was like that brought forward regarding Dublin University, and it would be impossible for them to agree to it.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, he would call attention to the wording of the clause and the general effect of the omission. This was an exception from what? It was an exception from a law being passed by which Corporations would be deprived of their rights, privileges, or property without due process of law. Some alteration was needed in the drafting of the clause.

MR. RENTOUL (Down, E.)

It is grammar.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, it was a question of drafting, and he thought the Attorney General would see that there must be an alteration made in the wording of the clause.

* SIR C. RUSSELL

said, the criticism of the right hon. Gentleman was well founded. The clause needed some alteration, and the Government would consider what alteration should be made, and bring it up altered on Report. They would introduce words which he hoped would be satisfactory to the House.

MR. PLUNKET (Dublin University)

said, this was a rather embarrassing decision. It was extremely difficult for them to move an Amendment until they knew what was to be done—what alteration in the wording was intended to be made. He would point out to the Government, with reference to the phraseology of the clause, that the exclusion referred to a Corporation raising for public purposes taxes, cess, dues, or administering funds so raised. He was afraid it might be held that a University was a Corporation raising dues in the form of fees for public purposes, on the ground that education might be considered a public purpose. Was there any question or doubt as to Dublin University being included in the exception by reason of its raising fees for a public purpose?

SIR C. RUSSELL

said, that the words would not apply in the sense indicated by the right hon. Gentleman.

MR. CARSON (Dublin University)

said, the Attorney General was probably acquainted with the case of the Louisville University, America; and, that being so, he thought he would acknowledge that, if there was to be any alteration in the wording of the clause, it should be of a nature and character that would strictly draw the line between public and private purposes. He hoped the words would not be left open to application in the case of the Dublin University.

SIR C. RUSSELL

said, the distinction was drawn in the matter of taxing powers.

MR. BARTLEY

said, as the clause was wrongly drafted, he thought they were entitled to ask the Government to leave out the words altogether and bring up a new sub-section. It was not business-like to pass from the point in that way. It would be very much easier, and more convenient, to bring in a new sub-section, so that the meaning in the mind of the Government would be properly understood.

MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)

said, it must be obvious that if the words were left out it would not improve the case. In his opinion the words in parenthesis clearly expressed the meaning.

MR. BARTLEY

said, the Government agreed that the words were doubtful, and it was reasonable to ask that they should be rendered clearer.

MR. SEXTON

said, that was in order that the Opposition might have a battle royal upon the question. He did not think they could assent to that.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, it was curious to observe the attitude of the hon. Member for North Kerry after the admission of the Attorney General—

MR. SEXTON

said, he supposed he had the same right as any other Member to state his views on the question before the Committee.

An hon. Member

More.

MR. SEXTON

said, every Member had a right to be heard in a discussion of that kind.

MR. GOSCHEN

said, the proposal before them was that the Government should introduce words which would enable them to understand something which they could not at present understand.

MR. SEXTON

said, if the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to make the wording of the clause clearer he could propose an Amendment. For his part, he thought there was no necessity for waiting till the Report stage.

MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

said, as he understood the matter, some Corporations would be exempted from the operation of the clause. The question was whether the restricted powers of the Legislature should also be made to apply to any Body Not being a Corporation raising for public purposes taxes, rates, cess, dues, or tolls, or administering funds so raised. He confessed that if they were to establish an Irish Legislature in Dublin, they ought to give it unrestricted powers over Burial Boards, Water Works Boards, and Boards of that kind; and therefore, much as he objected to an Irish Parliament, he thought these words ought to be retained.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 302; Noes 254.—(Division List, No. 162.)

*MR. TOMLINSON (Preston) rose to move that the words Unless it consents, or the leave of Her Majesty is first obtained on Address from the two Houses of the Irish Legislature be omitted from the section. He said that existing Corporations were by the clause as it stood to be handed over to the Irish Parliament absolutely; in case these conditions were satisfied it was the duty of the Committee to consider whether these restrictions were sufficient for the protection of these Corporations. It should be remembered that it was proposed, subject to the words he moved to leave out, to restrict the powers of the Irish Parliament to confiscate the property of those Corporations. On that point, he ought, perhaps, to speak with some reserve, for it was not at all certain that the words as they stood carried out the real intentions of the Government; but what he submitted to the Committee was that, whatever qualification ought to be introduced into the words, the words themselves only apparently restricted the power of the Irish Parliament, whilst it left the Irish Parliament with really effective control over these Corporations. The sub-section enacted that no Corporation was to be deprived of its rights, privileges, or property, Unless it consents, or the leave of Her Majesty is first obtained on Address from the two Houses of the Irish Legislature. He did not propose to dwell at any length on "unless it consents"; but the words were ambiguous, and he would like to know in what process was the Corporation to give its consent? Was it by calling a meeting of the Body for the consideration of the subject; and, if so, what was the majority by which the consent was to be given? He asked the Committee to consider the other alternative, providing for the leave of Her Majesty being first obtained on Address from the two Houses of the Irish Legislature. The question of an "Address from the two Houses of the Irish Legislature" was discussed during the Debates on the previous day, and he did not intend to say much about it. But it was quite obvious that if the Irish Legislature wished to deprive a Corporation of its property without due process of law, there would be no more difficulty in obtaining an Address of the two Houses of Parliament for that purpose than in obtaining an Act of Parliament with the same object. Then it was said the leave of Her Majesty must be obtained. That point also had been clearly stated on the previous day, and he would only say in regard to it that, in the opinion of hon. Members on that side of the House at least, the Government had made no effective reply to the arguments by which it was supported addressed to it. He begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 37, to leave out from the word "may," to the word "be," in line 39.—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

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

* SIR C. RUSSELL

We do not accept this Amendment. It will be observed that the whole of the clause is a restriction upon the legislative authority of the Irish Legislative Body. It sets out certain restrictions within the bounds of which the Irish Legislative Body cannot pass any Act. My hon. Friend does not raise any serious objection to the words "unless it consents." But I will put a case the words are intended to meet. An existing Corporate Body, if it has a Charter, is, of course, limited in its aims and purposes and in the appropriation of its funds within the terms of the Charter. It may itself be perfectly willing to devote some portion of its funds to other purposes which do not legally come under the Charter; and it is intended, if the Corporation consents, that the Irish Legislative Body shall be able to legislate so as to allow the Corporation to devote some portion of its funds to these other purposes. Then, as to the leave of Her Majesty. That is intended to meet a case in which a Corporation ought to consent to the appropriation of some of its funds for some purpose not contemplated by its Charter, but refuses to consent to any such appropriation. In that case the provision of the leave of Her Majesty must be complied with before the Irish Legislature can act at all. My hon. Friend will observe that in this context the leave of Her Majesty means not that Her Majesty is to veto the proposal, but that an affirmative leave is to be given. The context also means that leave is to be on the advice of the Imperial Executive whether there ought to be an appropriation of funds of a Chartered Body to purposes other than they are enabled to make such appropriation for under their existing authority. In that case, where an Address is presented by the two Houses, and the leave of Her Majesty on the advice of the Imperial Executive is given to it, then the road is clear for the Irish Legislative Body.

SIR H. JAMES (Bury, Lancashire)

submitted that it would save a great deal of trouble if words were put in which should clearly distinguish between Her Majesty acting on the advice of Her Privy Council at Westminster and Her Majesty acting on the advice of the Irish Ministry. He understood the Chief Secretary had intimated that this distinction should be made by the introduction of words in the Bill.

SIR C. RUSSELL

assented to this.

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

Of course, what the Government mean is not Her Majesty in Council; they mean Her Majesty acting on the advice of the English Ministry, which is a different thing. "Her Majesty in Council" is an ambiguous phrase. What my right hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir H. James) desires, and what we desire, is a distinction between Her Majesty acting on the advice of an Irish Ministry, and acting on the advice of an Imperial Ministry. I am not sure that putting in the words "in Council" really carry out that view, because Her Majesty in Council may mean Her Majesty acting on the advice of the particular Privy Councillors who happen to constitute the Cabinet. We understand the Government are pledged to bring forward an Interpretation Clause in which the matter is made clear. I earnestly press that that clause be put upon the Paper as soon as possible, and that some words should be introduced in each place when you mean Her Majesty acting on the advice of the Imperial Ministers to distinguish it from those occasions where she is acting on the advice of Irish Ministers. What words does the hon. and learned Gentleman suggest? An Interpretation Clause alone will not do. My point is this: You cannot, in a series of clauses in the Bill in which Her Majesty's name is introduced and it is stated that certain things can only be done with the consent of Her Majesty, leave it ambiguous in the clause whether yon mean Her Majesty acting on the advice of the Irish or English Ministry, and you cannot clear that up by the help of your Interpretation Clause. You must show in each clause whether you are dealing with the Imperial or with the Irish Ministers. What words does the hon. and learned Gentleman intend to introduce?

* SIR C. RUSSELL

It will need some consideration. One would have to go through the clauses and see the connection in which the phrase "Her Majesty" occurs. The Chief Secretary has promised that Avoids shall be introduced which shall indicate the cases in which we mean the leave of Her Majesty is not to be given except upon the advice of the Imperial Executive.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I should like to ask that the Government should as soon as possible tell us what form of words they mean to introduce, not in the Interpretation Clause, but in the clauses that are to be interpreted, so that we may be able to place on record our decision that it is the Irish or the British Administration that is intended. Such a course will greatly shorten the discussions on subsequent Amendments. As to the particular Amendment of my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. Tomlinson), I would suggest that it is not of importance, for really we are in such a muddle on this clause, and the clause is so nonsensical as it stands, and is admitted by the Government to be nonseuical—

SIR C. RUSSELL

No, no!

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Well, very nearly nonsenical. The clause as it is drafted means this: that any Corporation, the consent or leave of Her Majesty having been obtained, may then, without any process of law, be deprived of their property. That is what the clause means, though not what the Government mean; therefore the clause is nonsense as it stands, and no form of words we can introduce now will make it sense. I have endeavoured to think what Amendments would reduce this chaos to order, and I have totally failed. I also gather that the Government have found some great difficulty in dealing with them, or they would have been prepared to come forward with words to carry out the intention which they avow. This being the state of the case, I am not sure the Amendment will be any great improvement; and, on the whole, I would advise my hon. Friend to leave it to the Government to introduce order where they find chaos, and to bring up words to carry out the meaning they avow, at some later stage.

* MR. TOMLINSON

said, that though he did not wish to press the matter to a Division, he was bound to refer to the remarks of the Attorney General. He had stated that the object of the Government was to enable a Corporation to extend its powers to purposes not within its charter, in the first place with its consent, and, in the second place, where it did not consent, in a case where it ought to consent, to do so under this process. He must point out, however, that those were not the words in the clause, which were "be deprived of its rights, privileges, and property." That was not an extension of its objects, and it was clear that in all fairness the Government must admit that the whole of the sub-section required casting.

MR. SEXTON

wished to say that, with regard to the leave of Her Majesty, it was quite clear that in the case before them the leave of Her Majesty was not the leave of Her Majesty exercised by the Lord Lieutenant upon the advice of the Irish Cabinet, because the two Houses of the Irish Legislature had first to concur in the Address; and as one of these would govern the Irish Cabinet, it was obvious that the further leave to be given must be leave of another kind. That was quite clear. Then came the question of the Interpretation Clause. It would be a dangerous thing to deal by one Interpretation Clause with the various mentions of the name of Her Majesty, because whilst in one case the leave to be given might be the leave of Her Majesty acting on the advice of British Ministers or some analogous process, in another case, it might be, the operation of the power of Her Majesty would be on the advice of the Irish Cabinet, so that one Interpretation Clause would not apply to all the cases. The safest plan, therefore, was where they meant Her Majesty in Council to say so on the spot and not in an Interpretation Clause.

SIR H. JAMES

did not understand that Her Majesty would ever act on the advice of the Irish Executive, but her Lord Lieutenant would. Her Majesty would herself never be guided by the Irish Ministers; but when she delegated her authority, of course the authorised agent would act on her behalf. He suggested that whenever it was intended the Imperial Ministry should act, they should put in the words "Her Majesty in Council," and whenever it was intended the Irish Executive should act, they should put in that the Lord Lieutenant should act. Then when they put in the words "Her Majesty in Council," they should make it clear by one Interpretation Clause that Her Majesty would act on the advice of her Privy Council of Great Britain.

* MR. J. LOWTHER (Kent, Thanet)

said, it was apparently contemplated by the clause that a legislative act should take effect not by means of legislation through the ordinary forms of the proceedings of Parliament, but by means of Addresses of the two Houses of the Irish Parliament. [Sir C. Russell: No, no!] Then the words were absolutely unintelligible to anybody.

MR. BARTLEY

said, it seemed to him that time had been lost by the Government not agreeing to a previous suggestion that the clause should be withdrawn and re-cast; it was so crudely worded. To take these words out would be almost a mistake, and yet the clause meant nothing as it stood. He hoped the Government would withdraw the subsection and put in ordinary words which could be understood.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BARTLEY

moved the following Amendment:— Page 2, line 38, leave out "it consents," and insert; "nine-tenths of its Members, duly convened for the purpose, consent. He did not wish to press the number of Members or the proportion who agreed to it, but they ought to put in words distinctly to show what was meant by "consent." Great pressure would be put upon some Corporations to consent, and no doubt every conceivable means would be taken to bring that consent with some majority. In some Corporations it was decided what majority should do certain acts. It was a very grave step to give these Corporations, if they granted their consent, absolute power to be deprived of their Tights, privileges, and property without due process of law. That was to say, if they consented they could be handed over bodily in any way that was thought proper, and the whole of their privileges, rights, and property might be taken without duo process of law; therefore, this matter ought to be safeguarded in a proper way so as to secure that this consent should not be got at like a highwayman with a pistol at the Corporation's head. He thought the Government ought to put in words showing that this consent should be by an overwhelming majority of the Corporation, and not an accidental or snatched consent.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 38, to leave out the words "it consents," and insert the words "nine-tenths of its Members, duly convened for the purpose, consent."—(Mr. Bartley.)

Question proposed, "That 'it consents' stand part of the Clause."

CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND (Colchester)

considered they were entitled to an answer from the Attorney General as to whether the Government would accept this Amendment.

SIR C. RUSSELL

I have not had an opportunity of rising.

CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND

Then I will give the hon. and learned Gentleman the opportunity.

* SIR C. RUSSELL

No, we cannot accept the Amendment. The consent of the Corporation is expressed in the ordinary way by the majority of those who have been present at the meeting and who declare the will of the Corporation. I do not see what justification there is for the Amendment.

MR. RENTOUL (Down, E.)

said, this was really a very important matter, and he was rather surprised it was passed over so lightly in connection with the last Amendment. This was put in presumably as another safeguard providing that unless the Corporation consented they could not be deprived of their rights, privileges, and property. The Attorney General with regard to the last Amendment confined the matter to a small point—namely, the case where a Corporation wished to make some change in the disposal of portion of its own property. That was a small matter, but this referred to a very broad question. How was the consent of the people to be signified? The present Members of a Corporation, or even the present electors, were not absolutely the owners, but in a popular sense were the trustees of the lights, privileges, and properties which they were to hand over to their successors; and they would like to know how the consent, for example, was to be signified giving up the right, privileges, and properties, not of a Corporation, but of private individuals themselves? Might not the same pressure be easily brought to hear to give up properties, rights, and privileges in the case of a Corporation which was brought on the inhabitants of Tipperary, making them give up their own private rights, privileges, and property? Therefore, he thought there was a great deal of force in the Amendment in its desire that there should be a very full expression of opinion upon it, and that there should be nine-tenths, or some other large portion of people, whose voice would be heard in this matter, and not a mere scratch majority acting on the compulsion of a political Party.

* MR. T. H. BOLTON (St. Pancras, N.)

suggested that it was necessary that, in some form, it should be defined how the consent was to be given, because otherwise consent would have to be given in each particular case according to Charter or Articles of Association, or whatever the governing constitution might be. He doubted very much, however, whether the constitution of any Corporation provided for its being deprived of its rights, privileges, or property; and if there was no provision for dealing with the matter, it would be almost impossible to ascertain how this consent was to be given. It would be almost like a winding-up, and, as special provision was frequently made as to the way in which winding-up should be carried out, so they ought in this case to insert a special provision, though he did not quite agree that so large a proportion as nine-tenths of the shareholders should be required for the consent.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

recommended his hon. Friend not to divide, because he was not at all certain that this Amend- ment, if introduced, would not weaken the effect of the present restrictions—in other words, if certain Corporations would not be in a stronger position without the Amendment than with it. The Attorney General had implied that the universal method by which a Corporation signified assent to any proceeding was by a majority of voices; but, in many cases, he believed an absolutely unanimous decision was required; therefore, the positions of these latter Corporations would be weakened by the introduction of the words "nine-tenths."

* SIR C. RUSSELL

I did not state that it was the universal rule. If the constitution of a Corporation points out a particular way by which consent alone can be given that must be followed.

MR. BARTLEY

said, his object had been to secure that the consent should be the bonâ fide action of the Corporation as a whole, and perhaps it would be safer to leave it on the understanding that that was the case.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. PLUNKET (Dublin University)

moved the following Amendment:— Page 2, line 39, after "Legislature," insert "and after a copy of the proposed law has lain for not less than forty days on the Table of both Houses of Parliament. He said: I hope the Government will have no difficulty whatever in assenting to these words being introduced. I have put them down in consequence punctually of what was said by the Prime Minister in resisting the Amendment I proposed yesterday. The Prime Minister said the effect of this clause would be to give the British Parliament a distinct locus standi with respect to proposals that might be made affecting the Charter of Trinity College, and, of course, it would apply equally to other Corporations mentioned in this clause, and would, no doubt, also include the rights, privileges, and property which the Corporation enjoyed under its charter. But it is obvious there could be no such locus standi for the British Parliament in any effective sense, unless that Parliament had a full opportunity of knowing what the proposals were. I reminded the Committee yesterday with what difficulty Trinity College escaped in 1873, when we had a full opportunity of debating a Bill printed and laid before the House, and I can understand the difficulty there would be for any friends of Trinity College or any other threatened Corporation to bring such influence to bear as might prevent the British Ministry from advising Her Majesty to give the consent that was asked for. I will only further say that there would be this difficulty: that it might involve a conflict between the majority in the Imperial Parliament and the Legislature in Ireland whose addresses were to be dealt with, and that, too, on a point which by the very terms of this clause had apparently been conceded to it for its discussion and for the purpose of expressing its opinion thereon. All I have to ask is this: that either by the words I propose—and which are words introduced into very many Acts of Parliament—or by some other moans the Imperial Parliament should have an opportunity of fully considering the law which it is proposed to carry in the Irish Legislature in order that effective force may be given to what the Prime Minister described yesterday as the locus standi he wished the Imperial Parliament should have for dealing with such legislative proposals referred to in this case, and which he said would bean effectual protection supposing that the defence he referred to previously were not sufficient. What I desire by these words is that the Imperial Parliament should have ample opportunity for considering what the proposals are before it is called upon to interfere in the matter.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 39, after the word "Legislature," to insert the words "and after a copy of the proposed law has lain for not less than forty days on the Table of both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Plunket.)

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

* SIR C. RUSSELL

I think my right hon. and learned Friend must have misapprehended what the Prime Minister said yesterday. [Cries of "Speak up!"] The Prime Minister must have been referring to the power which resides in the Imperial Parliament.

MR. PLUNKET

I will read the words of the Prime Minister as they are reported. The Prime Minister had said that a threefold defence was provided in this clause for such Institutions as Trinity College, if there were any such danger, and what he said was this— First of all, the Irish Legislature could not be moved except with the consent of Trinity College. Beyond that there was another security—namely, the joint Address from the two Houses of the Irish Legislature. And there was a security which went beyond that still, because the language of the clause was that there must be the leave of Her Majesty upon an Address of the two Houses of the Irish Legislature. The effect of that must be to give to the British Parliament a distinct locus standi with respect to proposals that might be made affecting the charter of Trinity College.

SIR C. RUSSELL

Undoubtedly. [Cries of "Speak up!"]

SIR H. JAMES

If the hon. and learned Gentleman would speak up we should be glad, as we are very anxious to hear what he has got to say.

SIR C. RUSSELL

I cannot doubt that this House would be in a position to be informed from day to day, or, if necessary, from hour to hour, of what the proposed legislation is upon which the Irish Parliament may be disposed to enter. My only fear is that they may be disposed to try and meddle too much with it, which I should deprecate. I therefore do not see what object could be secured by the provision enacting that a copy of the proposed law should lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament for 40 days.

SIR H. JAMES

The Irish Legislature might act while this Parliament is not sitting. The Amendment provides that copies of the proposed legislation shall lie on the Table for 40 days, and that must be while Parliament is sitting, which would give 40 days in which Parliament could act.

MR. PLUNKET

I must say it is extremely inconvenient that a Member of the Government should endeavour to explain away and minimise the assurances that were given, upon the faith of which the Amendment was rejected. We were told distinctly we were to have a threefold protection—first, the consent of the Corporation, though afterwards the Prime Minister put that as an alternative. He said it was one way in which it might be done, but then there were left these two protections: First, you must get the consent of the Irish Legislature; in the second place, you have the protection that the Imperial Parliament is to have a locus standi to interfere, and how can it interfere except, by influencing the Minister who has to advise the Crown to consent, and how can it interfere in that way unless seised of the knowledge of what is going to be done? Either this Amendment, or some Amendment on the same lines giving the protection required, should be inserted in the clause.

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

It is very unfortunate that in the absence of the Prime Minister an assurance given by him should be brought forward, but the right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind that he did not suggest he would amend this clause. He said nothing about amending; he was saying what the clause, according to his understanding of it, now is. There was to be the leave of Her Majesty, which would involve the advice of the Ministry of the United Kingdom, and by reason of that advice, and not by reason of the matter being brought up for discussion hero, Parliament would get that control it has over all Ministries to prevent, if it has the power, or to censure if too late to prevent what has occurred.

MR. CARSON (Dublin University)

feared they must come to the opinion that they might have any amount of declarations of safeguards, but no method for enforcing them; and it was a most extraordinary construction to put on the deliberate words of the Prime Minister. Yesterday, when he declared they were to have the full power of taking the sense of this House as to the consent of Her Majesty to tell them now they were to be satisfied with the mere declaration of the Prime Minister, but that nothing was to be put in the Bill to enable that declaration to be carried out. That was hardly a serious way of progressing with the business of this Bill. What they wanted to know was, how was Parliament to exercise control over that consent? and, as was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James), if Parliament was not sitting, they would have no means of approaching the Government or the Executive in advising Her Majesty. The Government must see that they ought to have in this safeguard a real safeguard and a real power of Parliament interfering as to the giving or withholding of that consent. And he might suggest this to the Committee: that cases might arise where Her Majesty's Government might find dif- ficulty in themselves ascertaining what was the real view of Parliament as to the proposed legislation of the Irish Government, and surely in such a case as that nothing could be more reasonable than that Government should have the power, under the arrangement proposed by his right hon. Colleague, to take the sense of Parliament upon the proposed legislation. He hoped that the declarations that had been made would be carried out by the introduction of appropriate words in this section.

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

Are the Government not going to make any reply on this subject? There has been a double appeal made to them; an appeal on the importance of the case and an appeal upon the—I will not call them the pledges of the Government, but on the statements of the Government; both of these appear to me to be unanswered. On the merits of the case it is evident it is a safeguard inoperative so far as Ireland is concerned, but it is one in conformity with our practice and habits, and would enable this House and the other House to express their decision on the subject and give the direct guidance of public opinion to the Ministry of the day; and if that power be not granted, what hold has this House on these matters? It has the hold of a Vote of Censure on the Ministry; its power of stopping injustice is this: Some time in September the two Houses of the Irish Legislature pass a Resolution praying that Trinity College be disestablished; that comes before the Ministry in October; they give their consent, and in November it is disestablished. This House meets in February, and its remedy is to pass a Vote of Censure and turn the Government out of Office and appeal to the country. That kind of safeguard is a farce. Therefore, on the merits of the case—which, I suppose, may have some weight with gentlemen opposite—it appears to me it would be advisable, expedient, and perfectly safe from the Irish point of view that these words should be added. What is said about the second line of attack? We had a Debate yesterday, admittedly of the first importance, on the future of this great Educational Body. The Government assured us there was no danger. The Prime Minister explained what he regarded as the safeguards under which Trinity College might flourish. If the Government do not like the Amendment let them, at all events, suggest words of their own by which their own object may be adequately accomplished. I quite agree with the Solicitor General that the Prime Minister did not promise any Amendment, but he dealt with the Amendment before the Committee on the ground that certain safeguards were to be applied, and my right hon. and learned Friend showed it was necessary to adopt this or some Amendment like it. I will not say the honour of the Government is involved, but they are throwing some discredit on their own assurance if they prevent us relying with absolute confidence on the statements made by the Prime Minister. I am sure the Government would be consulting their own credit if they turn a favourable ear to the not unreasonable request of my right hon. and learned Friend.

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

I should not have intervened upon this Amendment, which, I confess, is an important one, if it were not that the right hon. Gentleman thought fit to challenge the good faith of the Government.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

No; I did not go that length.

MR. ASQUITH

At any rate, the Member for the University of Dublin stated that the Committee voted yesterday on the faith of the assurance given by the Prime Minister. I call that a charge of bad faith; and that charge having been made, I think it incumbent upon us to meet it.

MR. PLUNKET

I never said the Prime Minister promised any Amendment, but I said that he obtained a vote on the assurance that such a thing should be done, and I now ask that practical effect should be given to that assurance.

MR. ASQUITH

So should I if that were what the Prime Minister said. What he said was that the security existed, not that it would be provided; and what was the security he said existed? He said it was that this Imperial Parliament would have a locus standi in the matter. That has been construed by the Leader of the Opposition and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin as amounting, in effect, to a declaration on the part of the Prime Minister that something that did not exist in the Bill ought to be introduced. When the Prime Minister said that Parliament had a locus standi, what did he mean? He meant that this Imperial Parliament, in a matter which would depend on advice given by the Imperial Ministry to the Crown, would have the same power of checking, controlling, and censuring their action that it has in relation to any other action of the Executive. The right hon. Gentleman has put the case in which advice might be given to the Crown during the Recess. Is that the only case under the Constitution in which the same thing might happen? I will give a much more serious case. Parliament might not be sitting, and the Executive Ministers of the Crown might declare war, and what control have you except that of censure and dismissal. You may say that is an imperfect and ineffective control, but it is the control known to the Constitution, and is what the Prime Minister meant, and, I venture to say, was so understood by the Committee. ["No, no!"] Well, they ought to have so understood it. I say, therefore, the Imperial Parliament having that power could exercise it just as effectively in this case as in any other, and it would have, what has not hitherto been adverted to, the additional power of not only censuring the Ministry that has assented to an improvident exercise by the Irish Government of the power given, but of undoing by an Act of this Parliament that which ought not to have been done. A more complete security than that could not be required.

MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square)

The right hon. Gentleman has now plainly shown us this control we are supposed to have is practically a nugatory control. What we meant was that we should have an effective control. My right hon. Friend has shown how, if Parliament is not sitting, that control would be entirely lost and nugatory, and the Home Secretary replies that in case of war Parliament would not have the authority to stop it. Wars cannot wait for the action of the Imperial Parliament, and if matters of danger should occur to the nation the Executive must act; it is necessary that some expedition in repelling an invasion should take place, but in passing an Act for the disestablishment of Trinity College, what hurry is there? Take the case stated by my right hon. Friend—the matter has been dealt with by the Irish Parliament in September; Trinity College has been disestablished; new regulations have been made, and it is suggested that this Parliament can undo all that and put matters back to their former position. It is trifling with the Committee to quote such an argument as that. The right hon. Gentleman is a member of the University of Oxford. I would like to know what he would say of giving power to Scotland and Ireland to deal with the University of Oxford, and then six months afterwards put matters back in their former place, and repeal the Acts that have been passed.

MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)

said, that before the Irish Legislature could interfere with any Corporation they would first have to address the Crown by both Irish Legislative Houses. These Addresses having been obtained the Crown would have to give leave, and when that leave was given that would only be the beginning of the legislative process. After that, there would have to be a Bill which would have to pass both Houses, and receive the Royal Assent. If, after leave of the Crown had been given, it appeared that the Bill was in direct opposition to the will of the House of Commons, it was perfectly clear it could be vetoed. The safeguards already existing were amply sufficient, and the Amendment and the speeches that had been made by the Opposition was trifling with the patience of the Committee.

* MR. COURTNEY (Cornwall, Bodmin)

said, he would recall to the memory of some Members what appeared to him a complete illustration of the question at issue. In the year 1866 there existed a University in Ireland, with certain privileges and rights. The Government were on the eve of defeat, if they were not defeated, when they advised the issue of a Supplementary Charter, altering the rights and privileges of that University. The Government went out; the tiling was done; the mischief was complete.

MR. SEXTON

Did that require a subsequent law?

* MR. COURTNEY

said, that happily the thing came to nothing, because the Vice Chancellor held on appeal that the Charter was void in point of law. But what did Parliament do? It passed a Statute requiring that, in future, before a Charter of a University was issued it should lie on the Table of the two Houses. That was a precise illustration of what was now demanded, and he was ready to leave the argument there.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 261; Noes 307.—(Division List, No. 163.)

MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanark, Partick)

rose to move in page 2, line 40, leave out "without due process of law." He said, hon. Members would see his object by reading the sub-section dealing with Corporations. The sub-section was already very complicated, and the Amendment would have the effect of rendering it simpler. He might assume that the Government would be willing to accept the words used in the previous subsection, "in accordance with settled principles and precedents."

SIR C. RUSSELL

nodded assent.

MR. PARKER SMITH

said, he was glad to find that that was so, as it would strengthen the clause to have those words used. The Corporations would not have sufficient protection if the words were not included. The case of the Corporations was different from that of persons whose lives, liberty, and property would be affected, for that case could remain under consideration; the Corporations being few, there would be time to submit the whole case to the Government, and to settle it by the appeal to Her Majesty. He was not going to repeat what had been said, or to go over the same ground again in regard to the words "due process of law;" but he would impress upon the House that the vagueness of the phrase was much more serious where the Corporations were concerned than it was in the other case. He would like also to put a question to the Attorney General. "Due process of law" covered procedure, and procedure only. But in this case they wanted to deal with the substance of the law, and to make sure that the substance of any general law passed in Ireland by the new Legislature would not work injustice to any of these Corporations. The Irish Legislature might alter the law generally, and then two or three years afterwards declare that by the law thus altered Trinity College had lost its Charter. If they believed that the clause at present allowed the Irish Legislature to pass Acts upon questions of this kind, they would acknowledge that a very special check was required. There might be an Address to the Queen, or they might use the power of veto, a weapon which would cause much greater irritation than the method now proposed. He thought they would see the advantage of his Amendment, which he now begged to propose.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 40, to leave out the words "without due process of law."—(Mr. Parker Smith.)

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

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

said, the Government felt bound to insert the words "in accordance with settled principles and precedents;" but that was the extent to which they could go. When they could not assent in the case of Trinity College, how could they assent in the case of the other Corporations? The words "due process of law" had been discussed ad nauseam, and he thought the House would see that it was necessary to give some control to the Irish Legislature where these Corporations were concerned.

MR. CARSON (Dublin University)

said, there was one matter that might be cleared up, and which might show that the difference between the Government and the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment was not so great after all. He would like to know was it the intention of the Government that where a Corporation consented, or the leave of Her Majesty was concerned, there was to be no "due process of law"? He thought they were to have "due process of law" in all cases; bat now they found that that was not so, because by reason of the Resolutions for which provision was made they would dispense with "due process of law." An Act of Parliament would be required to give that process; but the Resolutions would not give it. By that he gathered that they would be really in a worse position than they were in before, for by the Act they would have a safeguard of "due process of law." He thought they ought to have some method for dealing with rights under the clause. The House could not contemplate giving a power to the Irish Legislature to carry out without "due process of law." If the due process was to be applicable, he would advise the withdrawal of the Amendment, for then they would have an additional security. He hoped they would hear from the Government whether that was to be the construction of the section. If they had not due process, as he had said, they would be in a worse position.

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

said, he might put the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman in another form—were there three ways by which Corporations could be deprived of their rights—namely, by consent, by address, and by due process of law?

* MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

said, he would ask what there was left for "due process of law" to operate upon in this sub-section? The words of the previous sub-section were wide enough to include Corporations, and his understanding of the present sub-section was that it was intended to allow of arbitrary dealing with Corporations.

MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)

said, he thought the Solicitor General should reply to the questions addressed to the Government.

* SIR J. RIGBY

I have already replied on the Amendment.

MR. MACARTNEY

said, he was not aware of that.

* SIR J. RIGBY

I cannot hold out any hope that the Government would apply the words "due process of law" in the manner that has been suggested. It was felt that Corporations, if they were to be dealt with, were not to be deprived of liberty or property without due process of law. Why should a Corporation be better off than a private individual in that respect? It was intended to secure the rights of Corporations, but it may be that they are less secured than they were meant to be. The words used, we admit, are not quite an accurate definition of our meaning; but we felt there might be a number of cases in which legislation might take place by consent, because it might be considered desirable to change the constitution of a Corporation by giving up certain rights or adopting others. There may be cases in which the Corporation would not consent, and to deal with those we substitute the leave of Her Majesty. If we did not do that we should leave in "due process of law." We are ready to modify the clause, and to put in the words added to the preceding section.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I do not know whether my hon. Friend desires to go to a Division. My own feeling is that the sub-section is in such a state of hopeless confusion that it is impossible to make out what the Government mean to do or have done. The Solicitor General says it is the business of the Court of Law always to make sense of an Act of Parliament. Well, Courts of Law will have a very admirable field for their efforts if this sub-section over comes before them. Though I have devoted such powers of mind as I possess, first, to understanding the sub-section, and then the gloss the Government have put on it, and, again, the gloss they have put on the gloss, I have been unable to succeed. Therefore, I do not think we shall be doing any good to the Corporations we desire to protect by leaving out the words, especially as, when the matter is cleared up, we may find "due process of law" a safeguard. I do not know whether it will be or not. I think it will; at any rate, I feel some reluctance to vote against words which, when the dawn breaks in upon us and we know what the meaning is, and the sub-section is presented to us in grammatical and lucid English, we may find very useful. Under the circumstances, I doubt the desirability of asking the Committee to determine the Amendment by a Division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BUTCHER (York)

said, he had a proposal down to amend the clause by inserting in line 41, after the word "Law," the words— According to the settled principles and precedents from time to time existing in England. It might not, however, be necessary to move it, as the Government, he thought, intended to propose words to carry out the object in view.

* SIR C. RUSSELL

said, that doubtless some alteration of the sub-section had been rendered necessary by the Amendment the Government had accepted in the case of Sub-section 3, by agreeing to the insertion of the words "in accordance with settled principles and precedents." They were now willing that those words should be inserted in this sub-section.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 41, after the word "law," to insert the words "according to the settled principles and precedents from time to time existing in England."—(Sir C. Russell.)

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

MR. J. REDMOND (Waterford)

said, he did not wish to renew the controversy that took place the other night on these words; but it must be remembered that a strong feeling was entertained by a large number of Irish Members as to the insertion of the words, that a Division was taken, and that a large number of English Members agreed with them. Objectionable as the words were in the previous sub-section they were more so now. He was not sure what the exact effect of them would be; but if the effect should be to prevent the Irish Legislature from dealing with the property of Corporations in Ireland, such as the London Companies, on the principle, say, of compulsory purchase, which it might be held was not in accordance with "settled principles and precedents," the insertion of the words would be extremely objectionable.

MR. GIBSON BOWLES[Cries of "Divide!"] (Lynn Regis)

said, it had been rendered quite clear by what the Solicitor General had told them that whatever else might be the effect of the clause, one effect would be to enable Her Majesty's Government to dispense with "due process of law." The hon. and learned Gentleman had told them that either in case of the consent of the Corporation or of the Queen following on an Address being obtained "due process of law" would not have to be observed. The object of the provision in the American Constitution was precisely the reverse. In this Bill the words would enable the Legislature to dispense with due process of law; but in the American Constitution their effect m the only place in which they were present was to pre- vent the Executive from interfering with due process of law. [Cries of "Divide!" and "Question!"] He hoped the Committee would appreciate the extraordinary muddle the Government had got themselves into by dragging in these words from the American Constitution.

MR. SEXTON

said, he only wished to say that he did not think the insertion of the words here added anything material to the great harm already done by their insertion in Sub-section 5, because he believed that the insertion of the words in Sub-section 5, so far as the land was concerned, would prevent the application of the principle of compulsory sale upon any reasonable terms either to the lands of the London Companies or of any other landlord in Ireland.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. CARSON (Dublin University)

said, he wished to amend the clause by inserting— Provided always that in the case of Corporations constituted for the purpose of holding property of any Church or religious denomination, or the ministers of the same, the said Irish Legislature shall not he at liberty to make any law affecting or otherwise to interfere with such Corporation or the property vested in the same. This Amendment had been put down with a view to excepting from the powers of the Irish Legislature the Representative Church Body of the Church in Ireland. Of course, he had not framed the Amendment in those terms, because he was willing that the same exception should be given to all other Corporations who held property for any Church, for any creed, or for any religious denomination, or for the ministers of the same. Having regard to the discussion which had taken place on the previous portions of the section, he hardly thought that the Government had any intention otherwise than to exclude from the Irish Legislature any power whatsoever over the Protestant Church in Ireland. He did not know what they intended to do in regard to the Amendment; but he hardly thought for a moment that the Committee would sanction the Irish Legislature—which had been already prevented from making any law respecting the establishment or endowment of religion whether directly or indirectly, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof —interfering either with the constitution of the Representative Church Body or their mode of dealing with their own endowments. This Representative Church Body was formed at the time the Irish Church was disestablished as a Corporation for the purpose of holding the funds given as compensation, and other funds received from private donors. All he asked was that this Body should be allowed to continue unimpaired; and if the concessions the Government had made on the third sub-section had covered the point he should not have moved the Amendment. No doubt it would prevent the property being put to any other than religious uses; but whether those uses need be the same as those to which it was at present applied he could not say. The Government, he thought, would admit that that was their intention; but that did not sufficiently effect the protection he desired to see effected, and without his Amendment it would be possible for the Irish Legislature to interfere with the Representative Church Body in a way which would make the position of that Body absolutely intolerable. They might make a law dealing with the constitution of that Body in many ways, and interfering with its discipline and regulations.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 41, after "law," insert the words—"Provided always that in the case of corporations constituted for the purpose of holding property of any Church or religious denomination, or the ministers of the same, the said Irish Legislature shall not be at liberty to make any law affecting or otherwise to interfere with such Corporation or the property vested in the same."—(Mr. Carson.)

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

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, that every word the hon. and learned Gentleman had said about the Church Representative Body applied to the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church. That Body also held property for the benefit of the Presbyterians of Ireland. He cordially joined in the Amendment proposed as safeguarding the rights of that Body.

MR. J. MORLEY

The Amendment, as it stands, is obviously too wide, and I think the hon. and learned Member will perceive this when I point out that under the Amendment it would not be competent for the Irish Legislature to enact any land legislation affecting, for instance, the Church of Ireland. More than that, the Irish Legislature would not be able to make any law affecting Railway Stock; for, as I am informed, that Church possesses investments in such Stock. The Irish Legislature, under the Amendment, would, therefore, have to make a special exemption of Railway Stock held by the Church of Ireland or any other Church Body. Such a prohibition as that can hardly be seriously defended. I am glad the hon. and learned Gentleman admits that his object is more than partly met by the words which have been introduced into the 3rd sub-section. I agree with the hon. and learned Member that the word "divert" is probably not the most felicitous word that the draftsman could have chosen. So much for property. As to the remark of the hon. and learned Member that the Government have not used words affecting the constitution of the Church Body, I would only say I do not conceive it to be possible that the Irish Legislature would be at all likely to even try to pass any law prejudicially affecting the constitution or organisation of the Church of Ireland, or of any other Religious Denomination. That is the intention of the Government, and I believe it is the intention of all sections of the Committee; but I am inclined to think, and I am advised by legal authorities, that the possibility of making any law so affecting the constitution or organisation of the Church against the will of that Church is provided for under the clause as it stands. The Government, however, will not be disposed to refuse the insertion in the sub-section, after the word "diverting," of the words "or prejudicially affecting the constitution." That addition would probably meet the object of the hon. and learned Member. It would carry out the intentions of the Government, and it would not, I believe, be unwelcome—certainly not repugnant—to the wishes of any section of the House. Therefore, when the proper time comes, I shall be prepared to insert the words I have mentioned.

MR. CARSON

said, he did not quite agree that the making of a Land Law would be subject to the provision he proposed; but as his only object was to secure protection for the Representative Body of the Church of Ireland, he would suggest that the word "prejudicially" should be withdrawn, and that the words "diverting the property or affecting the constitution" be inserted. He would also propose that the words "without consent" should be included.

MR. J. MORLEY

thought they ought to adhere to the word "prejudicially," which had been used in the Bill in two other instances.

MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD (Cambridge)

wished to know if it would be possible to add after "constitution" "and rights "? There were at the time of the Disestablishment of the Irish Church in many parts of Ireland burial grounds adjacent to the churches, in respect of which certain fees and tolls were levied. It seemed to him that under the clause, even as proposed to be amended, the Representative Church Body would be out of court in regard to those fees.

MR. SEXTON

The Governing Bodies of Churches are Corporations, and their rights are protected under the clause as far as they need be. At any rate, I should greatly object to so vague a term as "rights" in a paragraph which proposes that the Irish Legislature shall not, under any circumstances, deal with these matters. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Penrose Fitzgerald) goes far beyond the scope of the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin, who has never yet erred in being too limited in his proposals. The hon. and learned Gentleman points out that we have really agreed that legislation as to the property of any Religious Bodies should be shut out, and he desires that the Governing Bodies of the different Protestant communities in Ireland should be free to continue to discharge their functions as such Governing Bodies without any intervention by the Irish Legislature. I am certain that neither the Irish Legislature nor the Catholic people of Ireland would ever desire to interfere in the slightest way with the government of Protestant Religious Bodies in Ireland. The only doubt I have is whether cither of the words proposed accomplish what is desired and do nothing more. We all know that the individuals composing the Governing Body are subject to the ordinary law, and that the Governing Bodies, except in the discharge of their functions as such, are subject to the ordinary law. I would suggest that the words which should be put in are that "the Governing Bodies as such Governing Bodies" should be excluded.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, the words "prejudicially affecting" were certain to give rise to legal proceedings which would be costly, whereas the words "with the consent of the Body" could not be misunderstood by anybody. He was not quite sure that the Presbyterian Church was in the same legal position as the Representative Church Body; but, at any rate, it held a great deal of property.

MR. J. MORLEY

As the hon. Member for North Kerry has said, we are all agreed as to the object in view, and I will promise to consider the point between now and the Report stage, and to see whether the words "without consent" can be inserted.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I trust that that statement will be accepted. I hope that in considering the words to be inserted the right hon. Gentleman will recollect that it would be inexpedient to entrust the Irish Legislature with power to affect the constitution of these Bodies, leaving it to the Courts afterwards to determine whether or not the Bodies were prejudicially affected. The majority in the Irish Parliament very naturally and properly will be Roman Catholics, and they should not have power to deal with those Bodies prejudicially or beneficially.

MR. KNOX (Cavan, W.)

moved the insertion in line 41, after "law," of the words "or, in the case of property, just compensation." He said, that after studying the sub-section for a long time, and referring to, he supposed, several hundred American decisions, he had come to the conclusion that as the subsection now stood it would be impossible under it for the Irish Legislature to take the land of a Corporation even for a railway. He felt convinced that if they wanted to make a railway, say through the property of Trinity College, Dublin, they would have to obtain permission from the Imperial law.

MR. CARSON (Dublin University)

So you ought.

MR. KNOX

said, whatever was the hon. and learned Gentleman's opinion, he thought the majority of the Committee was of opinion that the Irish Legislature should be authorised to take land for railways in Ireland. The words he proposed could do no harm, and he earnestly hoped the Government would accept them, as the sub-section as it stood might otherwise give rise to great trouble.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 41, after the word "law," to insert the words "or, in the case of property, just compensation."—(Mr. Knox.)

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

MR. SEXTON (Kerry, N.)

expressed a hope that the Government would, if they could not accept the words now, consider them before Report.

* SIR J. RIGBY

said, that should be done. He was not prepared to say that the words would be adopted, because there might be cases to which they would not apply. But if any form of words or any modification of the Amendment could be put into the clause on Report, he would communicate with the hon. and learned Gentleman on the subject.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Of course, I make no objection to the course; proposed by the Government, but I would point out that if the words are accepted as proposed, there would be power on the part of the Irish Legislature to kick Trinity College out of its present buildings and to take St. Patrick's Cathedral from the Church of Ireland—of course, after giving just compensation. I hope the Government will take this point into view in considering the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)

said, he begged to move, in page 2, after line 41, to insert— Whereby any undue preference, benefit, or advantage is given to or conferred, directly or indirectly, upon any person, body of persons, class, body corporate, or institution; or. In an earlier Debate be had moved to delete the word "prejudicially" as applied to Sub-sections 3 and 4 in the sense referred to a few moments ago. His object had been to prevent the Irish Legislature from interfering with the right to establish or maintain any place of denominational education, or prejudicially affecting any Denominational Institution or Charity, or from affecting the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending the religious instruction at that school. His Amendment had not been accepted, though there had been indications of assent on the part of the Prime Minister. Well, the Irish Legislature could not legislate "prejudicially" affecting these Institutions; but it was still open to them to legislate beneficially for certain schools or scholars or Denominational Institutions. Obviously, great injustice might be done by a preferential use of this power. In the Debate on his earlier Amendment the First Lord of the Treasury had indicated his willingness to accept some comprehensive Amendment dealing clearly and unequivocally with the subject of preference. The right hon. Gentleman saw the injustice of undue preference, as also did the Chancellor of of the Duchy of Lancaster, judging from what he had said in the book which had been so extensively quoted in these Debates, and which he (Mr. Cochrane) himself had read and re-read, and which he took every opportunity of advertising in the interests of the Unionist Party. In the chapter on Social Institutions the right hon. Gentleman said— Religions persecution, even in its milder forms, such as disqualifying the members of a particular sect for public office, is, it conceives, inconsistent with the conception of individual freedom, and the respect due to the primordial rights of the citizen which modern thought has embraced. Even if State action stops short of the imposition of disabilities, and confines itself to favouring a particular Church, whether by grants of money or by giving special immunities to its clergy, this is an infringement on equality, putting one man at a disadvantage compared with others in respect of matters which are not fit subjects for State cognisance. That showed clearly how, if the Irish Legislature had power to grant preferences, and beneficially affect certain schools or scholars or trades or industries, they would thereby be imposing a hardship and an injustice on other schools and scholars, and other trades and industries. Therefore it was that he (MR. Cochrane) brought forward his present Amendment. The Prime Minister on the previous occasion had said— We ought to legislate clearly and unequivocally against preference. He went on to say— And what we do think is that it is much better to legislate against preference by one comprehensive provision than to do it piecemeal and in fragments. He (Mr. Cochrane) ventured to submit that his Amendment was a comprehensive one, embracing all cases that were likely to arise; therefore, it exactly chimed in with the view of the Prime Minister. He should have been gratified if the small Amendment he had brought forward on the previous occasion had been accepted, but he could quite understand the Prime Minister with his superior knowledge and experience taking a broader view of the subject and desiring to see it dealt with in a more comprehensive and businesslike way. Speaking in the Debate to which he had already referred and following the Prime Minister the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had said— Even if the word" (that was "prejudicially") "were struck out it would be possible, indirectly, to give preference to one denomination over another. And it was to avoid this indirect preference that the First Lord of the Treasury subsequently added in explanation of what he had said— What I said was that the most effective manner of proceeding was to deal with the question of preference in one enactment and not in several; and that the Government were not so attached to their own language as to refuse, if that language required enlargement, to give a favourable consideration to an Amendment having that object. These words of the Prime Minister led him to hope that the Amendment would meet the right hon. Gentleman's views. He believed that it would meet the views of hon. Gentlemen who supported the Government. They would note that he used the words "undue preference," and he had no doubt they would sympathise with his desire to prevent unfair and unjust advantage being conferred either on individuals or Institutions by premiums or grants or other methods. He was not asking the Committee to assent to anything which was not to be found in our own laws. The words he had adopted occurred constantly in some of the most salutary Statutes that existed in this country. For instance, in the Ele- mentary Education Act, c. 75, sec. 97, dealing with religious instruction, they found the words— Shall not give any preference or advantage to any school on the ground that it is or is not provided by a School Board. And very striking words were also contained in the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1854, 17 & 18 Vict., c. 31, namely— No such company shall make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage. So that the words he proposed were words which were directly present in their own legislation, and the adoption of them could not be putting an insult on the Irish Legislature. The Amendment was proposed merely for the purpose of making the measure more effective, and in bringing it forward he was dealing with the Irish Members as men of common sense and with the Irish Legislature as an Institution which should be restrained as the British public were themselves restrained. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London had given an illustration of undue preference which would be apposite in this instance. He had said that premiums might be put upon whisky in Ireland which would increase the consumption, the Excise Duty would be receivable in Ireland, and the Customs of the Imperial Parliament would suffer. The statement they had heard to-day as to the Financial Clauses would upset anything of that kind; that it would be possible for undue preference to be given to certain districts in the form of Poor Law relief. Scandals of this kind, it would be remembered, had been exposed by the Inquiry Commission in 1886, when it was shown that in the Turlough Electoral Division more persons had been relieved than the gross population. Finally, he would give an American illustration of preference. The Report of the New York Commissioners of 1876 stated— Cities were compelled by legislation to buy lands for parks and places because the owners wished to sell them; compelled to grade, pare and sewer, streets without inhabitants, and for no other purpose than to award corrupt contracts for the work.… Laws were enacted abolishing one office and creating another with the same duties in order to transfer official emoluments from one man to another, and laws to change the functions of officers with a view only to a new distribution of patronage. He would not accuse the Irish Members of having any desires in the direction pointed to in that extract, but it was clear that abuses which had arisen under the American Constitution might arise in Ireland unless sufficient precautious were adopted. He moved the Amendment standing in his name.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, after line 41, to insert the words "whereby any undue preference, benefit, or advantage is given to or conferred, directly or indirectly, upon any person, body of persons, class, body corporate, or institution; or."—(Mr. Cochrane.)

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

MR. J. MORLEY

The hon. Gentleman has given, on the whole, an accurate account of the circumstances which no doubt led him to move this Amendment. What happened was this: We were discussing under Sub-section 2 the question of excluding from the competency of the Irish Parliament preference on account of religious belief. We are agreed that preference of that kind was not one which the Irish Parliament would be likely to exercise, or, at all events, ought to be allowed to exercise. Thereupon, my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham pointed out that the preference on account of civil matters ought to be excluded from the legislative field of the Irish Parliament as well as preference on account of religious belief. The Prime Minister accepted that as a perfectly just criticism, and as one which was not at all absent from our own minds, and my right hon. Friend agreed that we ought to adopt some sub-section which would carry out that intention—namely, that we should extend to preference in civil matters the same prohibition which we had already applied to religious beliefs. But my right hon. Friend's words do not carry so much as the hon. Member who moved the Amendment said they do carry. They did not go beyond what I have said, and I do not think I have diminished their meaning or extent in any degree. Sub-section 2 of the clause as it now stands enacts that the powers of the Irish Legislature shall not extend to the making of any law imposing any disability, or conferring any privilege, advantage, or benefit on account of religious belief. But I think, instead of accepting the Amendment of the hon. Member, we would be carrying out the undertaking of the Head of the Government by moving to add to Sub-section 2, or if it should seem better, to insert between Sub-sections 4 and 5, some such words as these:— Or imposing any disability, or conferring any privilege, benefit, or advantage on any subject of the Crown, on account of parentage or place of birth, or upon any corporation or institution carrying on its operations in Ireland on account of the persons by whom or in whose favour such operations are carried.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN (Birmingham, W.)

In the first place, I have to recognise the spirit in which the Government have met the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and to say that they have endeavoured very fully to carry out the understanding which was arrived at when we were discussing this question of preference under Sub-section 2. I am speaking of intention only; but I believe there is no difference between the two sides of the House on the two points which are raised by the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. First, on the minor point as to the place the Amendment should go, I would remind my hon. Friend that Sub-sections 1, 2, and 3 deal with religious or denominational preference, and the object of the Committee and the Government is to deal with preference generally. Therefore, it would be extremely inconvenient and incorrect as a matter of drafting to insert a general provision between two particular provisions. It would be much better if the Amendment came as a separate sub-section after those dealing with religion and before the one dealing with Corporations. But that, as I have said, is not a matter of importance. We can deal with it easily if we are entirely agreed as to the meaning of the Amendment itself. I must remind my right hon. Friend of the intention of the Government as expressed by the Prime Minister. I think my right hon. Friend intended, in the first place, to prohibit legislation showing undue preference generally—not undue preference on religious or denominational grounds alone; but undue preference between persons, parties, classes, sects, Corporations, and Institutions; and, in the second place, my right hon. Friend thought there might be undue preference of an indirect kind, and against that he expressed himself desirous of legislating. I will read what I said on June 14, when we were discussing this question before. I said— Indirect preference was to be feared not merely in the case of different sects, but also in questions affecting persons and parties and trade. It was possible to give undue preference to a particular trade, and he took it that the Government would desire to prevent that. There was a parallel case in our railway legislation, which raised one of the most difficult questions of preference that could be considered. His right hon. Friend was doubtless aware that in the Railway Acts there was a clause providing against undue preference, and the definition of what was undue preference was left to the decision of the tribunal. It was well that they should not deal with the question ad invidiam as against possible sectarian preference, but should have regard also to other forms of preference in other matters. This view was assented to by the Government, and thereupon my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire withdrew the Amendment he had moved. At a later period of the same Debate the Prime Minister, referring to my remarks, said— The right hon. Member for West Birmingham had referred to the question of indirect preference as well as direct preference. There was considerable force in the contention of his right hon. Friend, and indirect preference was not an improper object for the consideration of the Committee. But whether indirect preference or not, there ought to be the means of bringing under the consideration of a public tribunal the question whether that indirect preference existed or not. There might be instances where interference with indirect preference would be most, vexatious; but if it were real, and could be established before a tribunal under proper conditions, there was no reason why it should not be considered. Later on my right hon. Friend said— The faces of the Government are set against preference on behalf of any section. And he also said— It was better to legislate against preference by one comprehensive provision than to do it piecemeal. I think I have made it clear from these quotations what were the intentions of the Government, and what were the promises made to my hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment. I wish now to call attention to the words proposed by the Chief Secretary. I do not think they go so far as even he himself intends. It will be observed that there are two limitations in these words. In the first place, the words "undue pre- ference" are not used. It would be well, I think, to retain the words "undue preference." But the chief limitation in the words proposed by the Government is contained in the words "on account of parentage or birth." Accordingly, so far as persons are concerned, we would be dealing with undue preference, whether it was directly made in consequence of parentage or birth or not; and the person aggrieved would have to show that the preference was on account of parentage or birth, which in many cases it would be difficult for him to do. What the Government have in view is undue preference to Irish as distinct from British citizens; but, of course, the Irish Parliament would not put it on the face of an Act of Parliament that it was on account of a man being British that they proposed to use undue preference against him. Therefore, it will be impossible for the aggrieved person to show that there was undue preference against him on account of birth or parentage. It is the same with regard to Institutions and Corporations. The words of the proposal dealing with Institutions and Corporations are wide enough; but when the undue preference is limited to preference conferred on account of persons or place the Institution aggrieved would have to show that the preference was distinctly given on account of their personality or the place where the Institution is carried on, which would also be a difficult matter. In Sub-sections 2 and 3 the Government dealt with direct preference; and that the Committee have still to deal with indirect preference. Indirect preference, such as to one denomination over another, cannot be proved, because it would be given, not on account of the persons or the locality of an Institution, but on account of their creed or religious opinions. I have shown that the understanding arrived at cannot be carried out by the words moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire. There is one objection that might be taken to the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, which otherwise seems to cover everything and not to go too far. It might be said that it would cover cases of foreigners; but a little alteration would limit its operation to subjects of the Crown and Institutions carried on in the United Kingdom. With that exception I do not think the Amendment of my hon. Friend too wide; but I see clearly that, under the words proposed by the Government, undue preference could be exercised in a large number of cases.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had supported the Amendment in a very temperate speech; but in his first speech on the subject—which he remembered very well—the right hon. Gentleman used very strong language indeed. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the manufacture of boots and clothing in Ireland.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

I beg the hon. and gallant Gentleman's pardon. I remember well the speech to which he refers. It was not on this question it was made, but on the question of bounties.

COLONEL NOLAN

apologised for the mistake he had made. As to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire, he thought it most objectionable. The hon. Member said a great deal of money had been abused by Irish Poor Law Boards. That was so; but one reason why the money was squandered was that the Imperial Parliament was unable to look closely after these Boards, a matter which the Irish Parliament would be able to do much better. These Poor Law Boards were voted large sums of money because there was great scarcity, amounting almost to famine, in some of the Western districts of Ireland. Periods of exceptional distress might occur again, and was the Irish Parliament to be debarred from taking measures to cope with the distress? But he looked upon the Amendment suggested by the Government as much more dangerous. He had no objection to raise to the first part of the Amendment. He thought it perfectly right that every Englishman or Scotchman who lived long enough in Ireland to qualify himself for the franchise should have all the privileges of an Irishman; and that the Irish Parliament should not be able to pass any law which would do him injury of any kind or description. But he should like to know clearly the effect of the second part of the Amendment, which referred to Corporations or Institutions. Would it prevent the Irish Parliament establishing a fishery school in the West of Ireland, or opening agri- cultural schools throughout the country for the purpose of showing the peasantry how to make the most of their land, or of teaching them how to make peat in competition with the Dutch production of that article? If the Amendment would prevent the Irish Parliament doing these things he would object to its insertion in the Bill. He did not think the Irish Parliament would have a large amount of money to spare under the financial proposals, but they would try to the extent of their abilities to improve the industrial productions of the country.

MR. RENTOUL (Down, E.)

said, the hon. and gallant Member for Galway always addressed the House in a fair and conciliatory spirit. He did not think the matters referred to by the hon. and gallant Gentleman would be touched in the slightest degree by the Amendment. He did not think that any tribunal could possibly hold that the establishment of a fishery school at Galway, where fishing was a great industry, to the exclusion of an inland county like Armagh, would be undue preference. It was the same with regard to schools for the teaching of agriculture. The establishment of an agricultural school in an agricultural district would not be a case of undue preference; but suppose there were a dozen of such schools established in a Nationalist county and not a single one opened in a Unionist county, that would decidedly be a case of undue preference, and he was sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman would prevent the Irish Legislature from taking such a course.

COLONEL NOLAN

I would vote against it in Dublin if I had a seat.

MR. RENTOUL

said, he was perfectly certain the hon. and gallant Gentleman would vote against it, and in voting against it he would be restrained by feelings of morality. Why not restrain the Irish Parliament by law? With reference to the necessity for the Amendment, he would remind the Chief Secretary that there was more danger of undue preference being shown on account of political opinions than on account of religious belief; and yet, when an Amendment had been moved to prevent undue preference on account of political opinions, it was negatived by the Government. There might be a tendency amongst some people in Ireland to prosecute a man on account of his religious belief; but unfortunately there could be no denying that there were a large number of persons in that country who were inclined to prosecute a man on account of his political opinions. Speeches by Irish Members had been quoted in the House over and over again to prove that. In one case a Nationalist Member had said— When we come out of the struggle we will remember who have been the people's friends, and who have been the people's enemies. That most certainly referred to political opinions, and not to religious belief; and, therefore, it was necessary to have a clause in the Bill covering political opinions as well as religious beliefs. It had been frequently said that the Roman Catholics had been subjected to many disabilities and grievances in the past. If that were so, surely there was all the more reason why the Irish Parliament should be restrained from passing, while smarting under the memory of those grievances—if they had ever existed—laws of retaliation against persons whom they might think accountable for the grievances. He could well imagine that if any of them, rightly or wrongly, thought they were suffering from past injuries, they would need to be safeguarded with regard to the future. Reference had been made by the Mover of the Amendment to the matter of outdoor relief. A few nights ago, while talking to a Nationalist Member, he happened to remark on the strange figures with regard to Poor Law relief in Ireland—only 1 in 98 receiving such relief in Ulster, as compared with 1 in 24 in Leinster, and 1 in 28 in Minister. His reply was that Ulster had not done its duty in that matter; and that, when the Nationalists got the power, they would make Ulster pay a vast deal more for outdoor relief than it did at present. Surely, when such opinions were held, it was well to have such an Amendment as this introduced into the Bill, which would prevent any undue preference being afforded to persons on account of political opinions.

MR. H. HOBHOUSE (Somerset, E.)

said, that those who represented British constituencies were grateful to the Government for the concession which they had made, and which went at least three-fourths of the way to meet the necessities of the case. With the ad- dition of a few words, he thought it would probably satisfy their legitimate demands for the safety and prosperity of British trade and industry. He thought the words "undue preference" would be an important addition to the Government's clause. Nobody could wish to interfere with the relief of distress in any part of Ireland; what they wished to prevent was any undue preference being given to any particular Institution or trade, and which would violate economic principles now recognised in this Imperial Parliament. It could hardly be doubted that an Irish Legislature would wish to foster certain industries in Ireland. He had noticed remarkable instances of the way in which the Irish Parliament of 120 years ago fostered special industries. At that time, in 1770, they wore spending no less than £14,000 a year in fostering the linen industry. But a still more remarkable instance was that they spent no less than £60,000 a year on the internal carriage of corn. One of their first acts might possibly be to repeal the "undue preference" clause in the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, and allow or encourage the railways to give special and undue facilities for the carriage of goods. He thought the agriculturists of this country might have some reason to view with alarm the possibility of special facilities being given to Cork butter. They had legitimate reason for viewing with alarm the action of the Irish Parliament in many respects; and if the clause the Government proposed were extended not only to Corporations and Institutions carrying on their operations in Ireland, but also to trades and industries carrying on business in Ireland, their fears would be greatly lessened, and almost entirely removed.

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

said, he wished to speak with regard to an industry with which he had been connected for the last 12 years—the fishing industry. The Amendment as drawn by the Government would not meet their case at all, and he regretted that the Government had not accepted the words. "undue preference," and "class and body of persons." If the Government had done that they would not only have carried out the spirit of the promise given by them on a former occasion, but they would have saved a good deal of time. When the 7th sub-section came to be considered, it would be shown that there was absolute necessity for protecting the fishermen of Great Britain against regulations which might be laid down by the Irish Government. What was the object of the Government in objecting to the words proposed? He hoped the Government would re-consider this question, as they had not gone far enough. If they did not, he and other Members representing fishing towns would have to discuss the 7th sub-section when it came on. The question of territorial waters would arise; that was a very large subject, and the discussion could be got rid of if words were inserted in the Amendment dealing with the question now.

MR. CLANCY (Dublin Co., N.)

said, he thought that the Irish Nationalists were generally agreed that all the restrictions in Clause 4 were absolutely unjustifiable in principle; but they recognised now, as they had always recognised, that some portion of the Protestants of Ireland held extraordinary ideas and unfounded fears as to the intentions of the Nationalists with regard to them, and every Nationalist was willing to go a long way towards allaying and, if possible, banishing those fears and to submit to some restrictions in religious matters to prevent an undue preference from being shown to persons of one religious denomination, or any privilege being conferred on any other denomination. Beyond that they were, however, not inclined to go, being of opinion that the Irish Legislature ought, in every other respect, to be allowed to do as it liked. If it was not to be entrusted with that power, the Irish people ought not to be trusted with the privilege of self-government at all. The addition now proposed by the Government went further than the Nationalists had ever been prepared to concede, and, if adopted, it would go a long way towards crippling the Irish Legislature in matters concerning which it ought to be loft perfectly free. Therefore, when the time came, they should oppose it, unless they saw better reason than they now bad for giving it their favourable consideration.

SIR H. JAMES (Bury, Lancashire)

said, that, after the concession of the Government, they ought to be gentle in their criticism; but he thought, nevertheless, that the Government would do well to adopt the general words "undue preference," as the simpler method of achieving the object in view. The words "parentage and place of birth" were very limited, and would apply to the burning question between Irish and Scotch fishermen. Further, the words proposed by the Government would not touch the great English and Scotch Assurance Companies, which, though registered in England, carried on business in Ireland. The Irish Legislature might object to those companies on account of their being formed and registered in Great Britain. All these objections, though comparatively small, pointed in the direction of the desirability of adopting the more general words "undue preference," which he hoped the Government would accede to.

* MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

considered it very important that they should have before them in black and white what the actual intentions of the Government were, and suggested that the proposed words should be at once inserted, leaving for Report merely the question whether they were in the most appropriate part of the clause.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I think that in the observations which have just fallen from my hon. Friend there is something well worthy the attention of the Committee. Let it be noted that the drafting of this clause has by common consent been shown to be hopeless. We wish to produce sense in it before it is remodelled prior to Report. In the first place, I would point out that the Amendment which the Government desired to introduce falls very short of the promises or, at all events, the indications of intention, given by the Prime Minister; and, in the second place, it falls very far short of the real necessities of the ease. I would remind the Prime Minister that when the matter first came on for discussion he expressed his absolute concurrence with the views of the Member for West Birmingham on the subject of "undue preference." he said that "undue preference" was a difficult subject, and perhaps the most difficult branch of that subject was in the direction of railway rates. The right hon. Gentleman gave the Committee to understand that he was prepared to accept or propose words by which "undue preference," not limited to this or any particular subject, but generally, should be excluded from the powers and purview of the Irish Parliament.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

I said we would go as far as we could in that direction.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Then the right hon. Gentleman does not dissent from the account I have just given of the view which the right hon. Gentleman expressed that he would limit all forms of undue preference. What is the actual suggestion of the Government with regard to undue preference? Does it cover the wide field indicated by the right hon. Gentleman? Does it attempt to cover the whole ground indicated by the Prime Minister? On the contrary, it is strictly limited, so far as I understand the words, to undue preference arising out of parentage or place of birth; so far as individuals are concerned, one of the narrowest points in relation to which undue preference may be shown. Neither do I think that the danger does reside principally with birth or parentage, nor is that the danger we anticipate. It is possible that the Irish Legislature, in their unwisdom, may say that persons of English or Scottish birth are not to be eligible to hold office in Ireland; but I think they will take the more convenient course, in exercising their Executive authority, never to select persons of English or Scotch birth for employment, and it would not be in the least necessary to advertise their intention and determination that nobody who is not an Irishman will occupy any office in Ireland. Therefore, though quite possibly there may be undue preference in an Executive point of view in the selection of Irish officers, I do not think the danger we have to apprehend is undue preference that will be embodied in a Statute. But there are other forms of undue preference not based upon birth or parentage from which I think we ought to guard ourselves. It is quite possible, though I hope it is not probable, that divergence from the religion of the majority may be made a bar by legislation to holding office. [An hon. MEMBER: Look at Section 2.] That, I think, will be very likely to be avoided by Section 2. But take the case of the absentee landords. The absentee landlord has been the object of denunciation for generations, though I am bound to say that if by absentee landlord you mean the landlord who does not spend the greater part of his time in Ireland my personal experience in Ireland has taught me that some of the most liberal, generous, and enlightened landlords that Ireland or any other country has ever known have been men who might be attacked by an Act which imposed some special disability on those who resided out of Ireland—men like the Duke of Devonshire and Lord Leconfield and others I can mention, who have lavished upon their Irish estates, though they are not habitually resident there, money which the most liberal of English and Scotch landlords, might be inclined to grudge. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister will deny the truth of the statement I have made; but, at all events, whether it be just or unjust to impose special disabilities so far as concerns the Irish landlords who do not reside upon their estates, whether it be just or unjust to treat holders of that, kind of property as you treat the holders of no other kind of property in the world, those disabilities should be imposed not by the Irish, but by the Imperial Parliament. If you are going to indulge in exceptional legislation of this kind—which I should deprecate to the utmost of my power and ability—at all events, let those disabilities be imposed by men who do not represent any of the personal interests concerned, but let it be the impartial judgment of an impartial tribunal; not the partial action of a Legislature elected entirely at the bidding of one particular section of the community. It you wish to exclude this special and partial legislation at the cost of one particular class of the community, that is not covered by the Amendment which you propose to introduce after Sub-section 3; but it is covered by the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire, and I fail to see why the Government decline that Amendment with the principle of which they agree. They must themselves admit that the words they propose to substitute are narrower even than their own promises, and than the necessities of the case demand. Under these circumstances, I think it would be impossible for this Committee to concur in the rejection of the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Ayrshire, having nothing to look forward to but the introduction on Report, possibly, of words objected to by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland, words which will not be assented to unanimously by this Committee, which do not cover the ground, which do not enable us to feel that the Government have done all that they promised to do, and which certainly do not protect those individuals in Ireland who have most to fear from the exercise of that partial legislation, which the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ayrshire is intended to protect us against. For these reasons, I hope the Committee will hesitate before they give up the Amendment of the hon. Member for Ayrshire for the very inadequate proposal which the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.

MR. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

said, they began the discussion of this Amendment upon the question of undue preference to be shown to fishermen; but, before the Amendment was finally disposed of, the invariable landlord came up. The question was, could the Irish give preference in employment in their own country to Irishmen? Had they (the English) not done that in this country? ["No, no!"] He had, with his own eyes, seen advertisements in the newspapers of that city, at the, bottom of which was the statement, "No Irish need apply." He had seen a good many Irish newspapers, but he had never seen any advertisement which contained the statement that no English or Scotch need apply. He only rose to point out that wherever a discussion began it invariably ended with the landlords.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

rising—

MR. T. M. Healy

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Debate resumed.

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

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

was received with loud cries of "Divide!" followed by cries of "Order!"

THE CHAIRMAN

I must beg hon. Members not to interrupt. If they do so it will be impossible to carry on the discussion.

MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN

I should be sorry that a Debate which began very quietly, and in a most amicable spirit, should end in any contentious way, and I do not intend to refer to what I conceive to be matters of contention between the two sides of the House. The Chief Sectetary, when he introduced the words of the Government, did so tentatively, fully intending they should carry out the understanding at which the Committee arrived. He has not asserted that they did so, but he rather left to us to criticise them and show they were in any way insufficient. In some respects, at any rate, the Amendment does not go far enough. The Government desire to stop undue preference as much as it is within their power. Of course, there are many kinds of undue preference. There is conceivable undue preference on the ground of religious bigotry or prejudice. I am not going into that to-night. There is conceivable undue preference on account of political opinions. That, again, is a serious form of undue preference, but neither will I go into that to-night. What I want to show is that in much loss contentious matters, especially in matters of trade, the words of the Government will not cover the various forms of undue preference which might easily be conceived of. The Government limit undue preference to undue preference on account of parentage and birth. The hon. Member (Mr. Macfarlane) who has just spoken seems to think that would be unfair, because he believes that on account of birth undue preference has been shown against Irishmen in this country—not so far as the State is concerned, at any rate, because I undertake to say that in proportion to population a vastly larger number of Irishmen are employed in Great Britain than Englishmen and Scotchmen in Ireland: and if there is to be legislation of this kind in Ireland against Britons, and it were to be followed by vindictive legislation on this side, there is no doubt Irishmen would be heavy losers. Therefore, I agree with the hon. Member below me that it is not particularly necessary we should legislate against undue preference on account of birth. I do not believe it would be in the interests of the Irish Parliament to make such legislation, and if they did I think we have the matter in our own hands. But, looking at other cases of undue preference, take the case of fishermen, and especially the case of fisheries. If we cannot cover that question, and if the promise of the Government does not cover fisheries, we shall have to discuss it as a separate subject; whereas, if the words do cover it, a good deal of time will be saved and a good many of the Amendments may at once be withdrawn. Take one case. What is to prevent the Irish Legislature from imposing landing dues on fish brought in Scotch and English bottoms? That will not be on account of the birth or parentage of the fishermen; but still a distinct preference would be created for Irish against British fisheries, and no doubt, as the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Bryce) has said, this is a burning question in Scotland, and Scotch Members will bear me out when I say that their constituents are extremely sensitive as to what may happen under Home Rule to the detriment of Scotch fishermen. Take another case, and that a case not as between Ireland and Great Britain, but as between the different classes of persons in Ireland. There is a constant feud between the line fishermen and the trawlers. What is to prevent the Irish Legislature from taking the side of the trawlers against the line fishermen, or vice versâ? [An hon. MEMBER: Not very likely]. No; it is much more likely they will take the side of the linesmen against the trawlers. But in case they take the side of one or the other, there is no doubt that undue preference will be set up, and it is very desirable that some impartial law should do justice as between the two parties. Again, take the case of separate ports. There was an Amendment on the Paper on this question which has been taken off in view of the understanding that the Government wore going to deal with undue preference generally; but I do not think that question is met by the words which the Government propose. What is to prevent preference being given to one port in Ireland as against another, either by means of special grants to one port and not to another, or by a difference in dues allowed to be taken, or, if you please, by special rates from that port for conveyance of goods upon a particular railway? In that and other ways you may practically create a port by undue preference given to it over others. It is perfectly well-known in England that the prosperity of certain ports and towns depend upon the preference given by railways in their rates. I am not saying they constitute an undue preference, and preference may be given to a port or place which is not undue. All I say is, that very serious injury might be done to one port in Ireland against another by preference which any impartial Court would declare undue, and you could not touch it by the words which the Government have proposed. There is one other class of questions that I will only broadly allude to, and that is the questions arising out of a desire to protect or give advantage to any particular industry. If it be desired to give an advantage to an industry in Ireland as against any industry in England or Scotland, or an industry in one part of Ireland as against a similar industry in another part, all preferences of that kind might be created, and the words of the Government would not touch them. I think I have said enough, at all events, to induce the Government again to consider the words which they have proposed. I do not know whether they would be prepared to make any change in them at the present time, or whether the Debate has gone far enough to bring conviction to their mind. If not, I do not think it wise to deal with words which involve a difficult question of drafting, at a moment's notice, and all I would ask from them is some assurance that before the matter conies up for Report they will impartially consider the matter in the light of the information and the arguments we have put before them, and we are not to consider they are pledged to the language which they put forward, as I said, tentatively.

MR. J. MORLEY

It is quite true, as my right hon. Friend said, that this proposal of ours, with the view to carrying out the understanding given to the Committee by the Head of the Government, is, to a certain extent, a tentative proposal. But I am bound to say to him—and I was not surprised to hear him admit it—that it is not an easy matter to draw up a clause which shall, while excluding really undue preference, not be so wide as to leave the door open to cases which no sensible man of the Committee would desire to see included. The word "undue" in the Amendment is one of the most uncertain and one of the most dangerous words that can be used. If the hon. Member had said plainly that no preference should be given, then the Committee could readily understand it; but I should like to know by what standard we are to go in fixing as "undue" the preference which is given? But it is said that there are many kinds of preference not dealt with by the words of the clause. The case of religion has been mentioned as an illustration. The Government, however, have excluded religious preferences in the most formal way in the 2nd sub-section. Then the right hon. Gentleman gave an illustration of various trade preferences which might possibly be enacted by the Irish Legislature, and he instanced the case of discriminating and preferential landing dues. Take the case, be mentioned, of dues upon boats bringing fish from certain ports. I would point out to him that that is an undoubted evasion of the prohibition which prevents the Irish Legislature from making laws affecting trades outside of Ireland. That is our construction of the clause. I will not go further into the matter, for perhaps we have been long enough on this subject. The Debate, on the whole, has been conducted with great good humour. I am sorry I cannot include the speech of the Leader of the Opposition—

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

Was I not good-humoured?

MR. J. MORLEY

I am bound to say I think not. The Debate has been conducted with a desire to arrive at a reasonable solution of what, undoubtedly, is an extremely difficult matter. We shall not go beyond the exclusions in the words which we have already accepted; but the words are not very satisfactory, and we shall do our best, before the Report stage, to bring them up in a more complete form.

MR. COCHRANE

would certainly have preferred the words of his own Amendment to those suggested by the Government. With reference to the objection that had been taken to the word "undue," the same objection might be to the words "due process of law" which were certainly as vague and indeterminate as the word "undue." He might suggest one simple solution of all difficulty as to the latter word. The Solicitor General bad told them that whatever meaning there might be in a Statute, or whatever meaning might not exist in it, the Judges were to find some meaning for them. He had no doubt that, acting on the same principle, they would also he able to find some meaning for the word "undue." He would, however, take the advice of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, and ask leave to withdraw his Amendment, in the hope that the Chief Secretary would consider the words of the Amendment between this and the Report stage.

THE CHAIRMAN

The Question is, "That the Amendment be, by leave, withdrawn." ["No, no!"]

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

The Committee divided:—Aves 218; Noes 260.—(Division List, No. 164)

MR. COCHRANE

said, he had the permission of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill), who was unavoidably prevented from being in his place, to move the Amendment which stood in his name— Page 2, line 4, after 1; "sub-section (6)," insert "Whereby any voluntary institution, association, or society, lawfully constituted according to the laws of the United Kingdom in force for the time being is prejudicially affected. He would explain that the Amendment was designed for the protection of the Freemasons—a Body for which he might claim to speak, as he was a member of one of the most influential Lodges. The Freemasons were less able than the Orange Body or other Societies to take care of themselves in the event of the Irish Legislature wishing to do them injury. The Freemasons existed entirely for benevolent and charitable purposes, and they were precluded by their rules from taking part in political or religious matters. In Ireland they numbered between 9,000 and 10,000, and they feared that under a Home Rule Parliament they would not have justice or fair play. They had there several excellent Institutions—Institutions of a purely benevolent character—a Boys' School, a Female Orphanage, and other Institutions. In these large sums of money—many thousands of pounds, indeed—had been expended, and a great deal of good was accomplished by the work which the various Institutions performed. He would show the House the kind of treatment that had been meted out to the Freemasons in Ireland—treatment which they would agree was scandalous and disgraceful. Some time ago a bazaar was organised in Dublin in connection with the Masonic Female Orphan Asylum. Archbishop Walsh, who had shown the greatest hostility to Freemasons, issued a Pastoral which, according to The Daily Express of May 2, 1892, was read in the chapels throughout Ireland. In this Pastoral the Archbishop said several questions had been addressed to him as to the duty of Catholics in reference to this Masonic celebration. The Holy See, he said, in its repeated condemnation of Freemasonry, had forbidden to Catholics not only membership of the Society of Freemasons, but everything that could in any way tend to the furtherance of the interests of the Society. He admitted that the object in view was one naturally calculated to appeal to the charitable sympathies of Catholics; but he added that, faithful to their duty as Catholics, they would respect the stringent obligation under which they were placed—an obligation binding them, under the penalty of incurring the severest strictures of the Church, to abstain, not merely from membership of the Freemasons' Society, but from everything that could in any way tend to the advancement or the promotion of any of its objects. That was exceedingly strong if the Archbishop had said nothing further. But that did not satisfy him. A lady interested in the bazaar wrote—not knowing of the attitude which the Archbishop had assumed—asking him for his portrait, to be exhibited with 400 others, including one of His Holiness the Pope, which, she informed him, had been presented by a Roman Catholic gentleman. That was a very innocent request, to which the Archbishop replied that— Any Catholic who may act in disregard of the law of the Church in this particular matter of encouraging in any way a Masonic proceeding is, by the very fact, excommunicated from the Catholic Church. These were not idle words. They bore a peculiar significance, and showed the spirit in which the Roman Catholic Church would act towards the Masonic Body under an Irish Parliament. They had, indeed, already carried their threats to extremity in some cases, even recently. He had a letter which had been written by a gentleman—written for the purpose of this Debate—complaining that the rites of burial had been refused by that Church to his father, only because he had long been and had died a Freemason. [Cries of "Name!" from the Irish Benches.] He would give the name and full particulars. The letter stated that not only were the rites of burial refused by the parish priest, but that he prevented the chapel bell being rung during the procession, as was usual on such occasions, and prohibited some nuns from sending a wreath, as they wished to. That he regarded as boycotting of the cruellest kind. An appeal was made to the Bishop of Elphin to allow the service to be held for the sake of the widow and her daughter; but the Bishop refused, sending a telegram stating that "the law forbade Catholic rites and attendance of the clergy." [Cries of "Name!" and "Question!" from the Irish Benches.] The letter was signed "Lawrence Burke," and was dated "The Abbey, Roscommon, 6th June, 1893." Surely these facts afforded sufficient reason why the Committee should enact some effective safeguard in the Bill for the protection of the property, rights, and liberties of Freemasons in Ireland before they were placed under the domination of Archbishop Walsh? He could quote other cases of the same kind, but would only trouble the Committee with one more. It occurred in Belfast, in the centre of Protestant Ulster. A local solicitor named Michael Buckley, who was a Roman Catholic and a Freemason, was refused the Sacrament, and all the rites of the Church were denied him until he withdrew from the Society. He refused at first to do so, and then the priest threatened to extend the displeasure of the Church to his wife and daughters, and, for their sake, he had to yield. Most hon. Members of that House were unable to appreciate the terrible consequences of a Roman Catholic's being denied the rites of his Church. This man and his family were thrown into a condition of the most painful distress, and it was entirely for the sake of his family that he consented to withdraw from the Freemasons. Such a condition of things in a free country was simply monstrous. It was a gross violation of the liberty of the subject, and he hoped the Radical Members of the House would take note of the facts. These facts, let them remember, were not things of the past. They had occurred only recently. Again, a Catholic newspaper, The Catholic, published an article on the 3rd of June, 1893, in which it said— The attitude of the Roman Catholic Church to Fremasonry is once more made manifest by a recent decision of the Holy Office, published in reply to questions submitted to that august tribunal by the Bishop of Bayonne.…The reply of the Sacred Congregation has been clear, distinct, and unequivocal. Between the Prelates of God's Church and Masonry there can never be either peace or pact. No circumstances can secure the Secret Society toleration at the hands of a Christian Bishop. No law of any Parliament, no usage, can relieve Masonry from the censures so often fulminated against it by so many Pontiffs, and which no Bishop can alter or suppress. And the article concluded— To the Church Freemasonry remains, as it has ever been, anathema. That being so, would the Committee give no special protection to the Freemasons? Here they had a paper representing the Catholics of Ireland stating their opinion on the subject not later than the 6th of the present mouth. Could the Committee submit to that? Could they say there was any justification for this attitude towards a Body that did no harm, but, on the contrary, did much good? He thought the Committee would take the view he had put before them, and he, therefore, begged to move the Amendment.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 41, after the word "or," to insert, as a new sub-section, the words, "(7) Whereby any voluntary institution, association, or society, lawfully constituted according to the laws of the United Kingdom in force for the time being is prejudicially affected."—(Mr. Cochrane.)

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

THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (MR. W. E. Gladstone,) Edinburgh, Midlothian

I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member, and understood it to be a speech addressed to the Committee in regard to the character of the Society calling themselves Freemasons. When I look at the Amendment, however, I see that it takes no notice of Freemasonry, but lays down a proposition of enormous breadth—that no Society whatever of a private and voluntary character, which is not in itself illegal, shall ever be subject, whatever be its errors, its defects, or its offences, to any description of interference by the Irish Legislature. Well, in the first place, hon. Members will see that the Amendment is a hundred times too wide for its object. Societies legally constituted may, nevertheless, fall into great and gross abuse. There are, for instance, Societies connected with insurance and with the pecuniary transactions of the working classes which may have been legally constituted. [Turning round to his Colleagues]: What is the name of the Society which recently failed?

Several hon. MEMBERS

The Liberator.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

For all I know, the Liberator Society was quite legally constituted. But under the Amendment, if some of the transactions of that Society had been brought to light and it had been proposed to correct or prevent them by legislation, it would have been impossible. I cannot conceive any justification for an Amendment of such enormous scope, interfering with an important branch and duty of any Legislature in the direction either of prevention or reform. So much for the Amendment, and I really hope that that is a conclusive reason against its adoption; but I will not pass without notice the speech of the hon. Member. I will assume, for the sake of argument, that we are discussing an Amendment really in conformity with the speech—though the two are as distant as the poles. What is the case of the Freemasons, supposing we were really discussing it? The hon. Gentleman says that the Society of Freemasons has been denounced in the most vehemently condemnatory terms by the Papal authorities. For my own part, though I have been accustomed to hear of Freemasons all my life, there is not a man who is in a state, I will not say of more sublime, but of more complete, impartiality about them. I have never known their constitution or proceedings, and, having been amply occupied, I have never felt any vivid curiosity in the matter. Therefore I can speak on the subject with impartiality. What is the state of the case? The Freemasons have been denounced vehemently—I imagine with unlimited vehemence. I presume, and I am bound to presume, that those who have denounced them have acted under the most conscientious motives and beliefs. They may be right or wrong. I have not the slightest knowledge whether there is ground for the denunciation or not. [Cries of "Oh!"] I suspect not. Now, I imagine that 99 out of 100 or, at any rate, that 19 out of 20 Members of the House are in the same condition of blissful ignorance as myself. [Cries of "No!"] An enormous proportion are without knowledge of this Society. [Cries of "No!"] But what I want to point out is that the question before the Committee is not the rectitude or error, the propriety or impropriety, of these denunciations. They are strictly spiritual and ecclesiastical, and they are exclusively the affair of those who think fit to submit to them. What have we to do with them as such? Nothing whatever. "But then," says the hon. Gentleman, "I am dreadfully afraid lest the Irish Legislature should convert these spiritual denunciations into temporal instruments of oppression. Without that allegation the Amendment has no foundation whatever. Is that a just or proper supposition? I have sat in the House of Commons for 60 years, and for 60 years I have known nobody of the Members of the House more uniformly opposed to the use of temporal penalties for spiritual purposes than the Roman Catholic Members from Ireland. [Cries of "Oh!"] The Government conscientiously and emphatically refuse to cast in their teeth or to charge upon them the probability of their committing a form of offence most gross in itself, and contradicted by all that they have said or done in my whole knowledge and experience of them ever since they first found their way within the walls of Parliament. Therefore I oppose this Amendment.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

There are some parts of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which I will pass over in silence. I hardly think it worth while to raise the point suggested by the right hon. Gentleman's interesting com- parison of the Liberator Society with the Society of Freemasons. I am not a Freemason myself, and I am as impartial as the right hon. Gentleman in his judgment of that Society. But though I have only the ordinary means that all have of judging its worth, this, at all events, I know—that the body of Freemasons in these islands, whatever they may be on the Continent, is a Society which has devoted itself to good works, for mutual assistance, and I think it outrageous to compare the Freemasons to a fraudulent Society like the Liberator.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

The right hon. Gentleman has charged me with something which he knew, or ought to have known, is unjust. That portion of my remarks which referred to the Liberator Society had no connection whatever with the Freemasons. Reference to the Liberator Society was introduced in that portion of my remarks in which I was commenting on the Amendment which I said had nothing specifically to do with the Freemasons, but covered all these voluntary Societies. The connection between the two Societies existed only in the right hon. Gentleman's imagination.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

—[cries of "Withdraw!" "Shame!" "Dishonest!" and other interruption]: I accept with the utmost satisfaction the disclaimer of the right hon. Gentleman, and if it was my fault that I misunderstood him I apologise.

An hon. MEMBER

If it was.

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

I come now to that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which was, at all events, more pertinent to the Amendment, in which he referred to the action of the Roman Catholic Church with regard to Freemasons. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment gave us a series of illustrations of the view taken by the Roman Catholic Church upon the subject.

An hon. MEMBER

Are you going to legislate for it?

MR. A. J. BALFOUR

The hon. Gentleman showed beyond doubt or question—and the right hon. Gentleman in no sense challenged the statement—that the Roman Catholic Church has consistently declared that the Freemasons are a body altogether outside the pale of the Church, which refuses her sacraments to the members of all Societies which are called secret. Now, the question is whether this is a purely spiritual matter, or whether it is likely to be translated into practice when we hand over to the Irish Legislature the conduct of affairs purely Irish. We are agreed as to the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church. There is no dispute between the right hon. Gentleman and the Mover of the Resolution on that question. The States in the world in which the Roman Catholic hierarchy have the control of temporal matters are very few indeed. Certainly in the Roman Catholic States on the Continent the Roman Catholic hierarchy only count in political matters like the heads of any other Ecclesiastical Body. The question is, would the Roman Catholic hierarchy in Ireland be able to impress upon the Irish Legislature their own policy or not? ["No, no!"] Well, I have to consider the methods by which they have returned Members to Parliament. I know the history of Ireland during the last few years, and I call to memory the action in secular matters taken in every district in Ireland by the parish priest and his curate. I recollect how the Catholic hierarchy—and I make no attack on them—are not merely a spiritual body engaged in spiritual affairs and anxious to advance the spiritual welfare of their flocks, but also a political committee. They wield powers of the most tremendous character through the length and breadth of Irish Society, in every town, village, and country district, and I ask myself whether this House is going to intrust men with the power of legislating upon subjects as to which their spiritual guides have committed themselves to extreme opinions; and in which their political position gives them the power and, with the power, the right and duty to carry out and embody in legislation the duties and principles their spiritual allegiance requires. If I have not misinterpreted the present condition of Irish Society—and who will say I have?—but have honestly considered the facts of the last 12 or 15 years in Ireland, will any one, looking at these facts in the dry light of historical research, deny that the danger which my hon. Friend desires to avoid by the Amendment is a real and substantial danger? I speak to a body of Englishmen not prejudiced, I believe, in favour of the Roman Catholic religion or of Freemasons, who will look at this matter from outside as judges of the case to which they are not parties; and I ask them, as men of common sense and of political honesty, whether, if they really believe what the Prime Minister says—that interference by political means with the freedom of Freemasons will be an act of infamous political tyranny—they are not bound to vote for an Amendment which takes away from an Ecclesiastical Body which will undoubtedly be dominant in Ireland the power to deal according to the declared views and morals of their Church in a manner which cannot be approved with a body known to be worthy of the respect of all connected with philanthropic undertakings.

MR. MACARTNEY and Mr. TOMLINSON

rose.

MR. J. Morley

rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 277; Noes 243.—(Division List, No. 165.)

Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Aves 243; Noes 278.—(Division List, No. 166.)

MR. RENTOUL

I beg to move an Amendment which is not on the Paper, namely, to insert after "or," in line 41, the words— Whereby the Society known as Freemasons might be prejudicially affected.

THE CHAIRMAN

That is clearly out of Order.

MR. RENTOUL

Then might I be permitted—[Cries of "Order!" and "Name!"] On a point of Order, Mr. Mellor! I was under the impression—[Renewed cries of "Order!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

I have explained to the hon. Member that his Amendment is out of Order. The reasons are obvious, and I cannot allow an argument on the point.

COLONEL WARING (Down, N.)

I move, Sir, that you report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

was understood to rise to a question of Order, but his remarks were drowned by cries of "Order!" and "Progress!"

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

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.