Commons Sitting of 23 June 1893

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  BIRMINGHAM CANAL BILL [Lords].
  As amended, considered.
  A Clause (Application of Section 24, of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888,)—(Dr. Farquharson,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
  SIR A. HICKMANsaid, the effect of this clause, if inserted, would seem to be to postpone the operation of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act as regarded the Birmingham Canal Company, and make the proceedings which were taking place entirely abortive—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that as objection was taken to the Bill it would stand over.
  Debate adjourned till Monday next.

LONDON, DEPTFORD, AND GREENWICH TRAMWAYS BILL (by Order).
As amended, further considered.
MR. A. C. MORTONrose to move the following new Clause:—
"Section 50, of 'The Southwark and Deptford Tramways Act, 1879' (42 and 43 Vic, c. 72), shall be amended by leaving out at the end of the section the words 'but in no case shall the Company be bound to charge a less sum than twopence,'"
He said that from time to time complaints had been made with regard to the sudden increase of tramway fares on public holidays and Sundays. He proposed, as far as possible, to prevent that by amending the Act of 1879, which gave the company power to charge fares not exceeding 1d. per mile, a fraction of a mile to be deemed a mile, and which then went on to provide—
"But in no case shall the Company be bound to charge a less sum than twopence."
It was the latter part of the clause he wanted to do away with by his Amendment. He did not desire to make any general attack on tramways, which were a great boon to the working classes. But they were a monopoly which existed through powers granted by Parliament, and as a monopoly it was their duty to see that these companies acted fairly towards the public. The tramways were in the habit of reducing their fares even below their legal limit. They charged ½d, 1d., and l½A. fares, but on public holidays they suddenly increased these three classes of fares to 2d. under the portion of the clause to which be had referred. It seemed to him that that was very wrong to the public. It was an absurd anomaly it should be stated in the clause of an Act of Parliament that the charge should be not more than 1d. per mile if these companies were then to be allowed to charge 2d. for one mile, which in the majority of cases was all the distance people desired to travel on the tramways. He desired to get this clause struck out in the case of every Tramway Company, and especially in London, for it was almost entirely in London that this excessive charge was made. He heard he was to be opposed by the Board of Trade in this matter. He was sorry for

1763
this, because it was the duty of the Board of Trade to protect the public in such cases. He had always noticed, however, that the Board of Trade had never done their duty towards the public with regard both to tramways and railways. They had allowed—in London, at any rate—tramways to be built in a most improper manner, and they had permitted such clauses as he complained of to be in-inserted in Bills without any attempt whatever to protect the public. Finding that the Board of Trade were not doing their duty, within the last 10 years the Local Authorities had turned their attention to these matters themselves, and Tramway Companies had been compelled to construct their tramways so that there would be as little danger as possible to the public. These remarks were even more applicable to the case of railways. He understood the Board of Trade wore going to contend that to do away with this right to charge 2d. for one mile or fraction of a mile would damage rather than benefit the public. He would point out that Tramway Companies did not reduce their fares for the benefit of the public, but for their own benefit. They found they made money by it, and they bad no right to increase these fares in the particular occasions of holidays. He disclaimed any animosity whatever against, this particular company, which, he was told, did not increase their fares on Sundays, as some companies did. He was obliged to bring the question forward now, because this company was before the House of Commons at the present moment. His idea was to get this clause altered in every Act of Parliament referring to tramways in this country. It was a great hardship that working men and their families should be compelled to pay double the fare they expected, which was a serious matter indeed to them with their straitened resources, which made every 1d. of the greatest possible importance. He begged to move the Amendment.
A Clause (Amendment of s. 50 of Southwark and Deptford Tramways Act, 1879,)—(Mr. A. C. Morton,)—brought up, and read the first time.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be now read a second time."
THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,)said, the hon. Member had prefaced his statement by some observations as to the Board of Trade, which he would hardly have made if he had had any experience of that Body. He would put the House in possession of the actual facts of the case, and they could then judge whether the hon. Gentleman had any grounds for his present proposal. The London, Deptford, and Greenwich Tramways Company was a company which was established in 1879. It ran through the very poorest districts in London; it had carried more than 50,000,000 of people, and had never yet paid a dividend of more than one-half per cent. For three years they paid no dividend at all, and they charged the lowest tramway fares in London. They had a statutory right to charge 1d. per mile, but, instead of doing that, they only charged 1d. for 2¼ miles and l½d. for the whole distance of 3¼ miles. The Bill now before the House had no reference to tolls whatever, but simply asked for an extension of time for completing certain works. The only complaint against the Tramway Company was that on three Bank holidays in the year, when large crowds went from London to Greenwich, and when it was impossible to measure short distances and take 1d. to be regulated by the distance, they allowed the passengers to go the whole distance for 1½d. Because the company did this three times in the year the hon. Gentleman wanted to introduce this Amendment into the Company's Bill, and to make it an exception to every other Tramway Company—although it was one which charged the lowest fares—by depriving it of the power of fixing a minimum fare of 2d., which they practically never exercised. He really thought the hon. Member had made out no case for interference, and he appealed to him to withdraw his Amendment. He would point out that Clause 55 in this Bill actually gave the power to any Local Authority—the London County Council to wit—to go before the Board of Trade and complain of this Tramway Company if it should at any time charge a fare in excess of its powers, and, what was more, the Board of Trade had a general power in such cases to reduce the fares. The hon. Gentleman should, therefore,

1765
be a little more careful and not make statements as to there being no protection to working men. He hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, these tramways were in the nature of monopolies, and when they came to ask for something beyond what had already been given, it seemed to him only reasonable that they on their side had a right to make a demand on the companies—
MR. MUNDELLA: There is nothing the company is asking for in this case except an extension of time to enable them to complete a portion of their line.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, they know perfectly well that an extension of time in such cases was an enormous concession. What was it his hon. Friend asked for by his Amendment? That these tramways should charge on holidays the same as they charged on other days. His right hon. Friend replied that this was a poor company which did not make a large dividend.
MR. BARROW: It makes none.
MR. LABOUCHEREwould like to know what was the capital of the company, and he should like to go into the amount of free shares given and all about the contracts. He did not believe in this sort of thing. When a company constructed a tramway on a public road they did it at their own risk and peril, and if they did not believe it would turn out an exceedingly good thing they would not do it. Then they came there and asked for further time, and that House had a right, as a condition to granting that further time, to require that the company should charge on holidays the same fares as it charged on other days. There was a special and legitimate reason why the charge should be the same on holidays. Persons on holiday were apt to spend a good deal of money. His right hon. Friend seemed to think that when poor people had a holiday money was going to rain upon them—
MR. MUNDELLA: This company does not charge more on holidays than on other days for the through distance, and the traffic is almost entirely a through distance traffic. All the charge is 1½. for 3¼ miles, although they have a statutory right to charge 1d. per mile.
MR. LABOUCHEREintimated that he should support the Amendment if it were pressed to a Division.
MR. BARROWsaid, this Amendment was moved altogether on indiscriminate grounds. The hon. Member for Peterborough said that whenever a Tramway Bill came up he felt it his duty to oppose it.
MR. A. C. MORTON: I said nothing of the kind. I simply said I should try to make in every ease the same Amendment as in this.
MR. BARROWsaid, the injustice and inequality came in in the Amendment, because the circumstances of the various tramways differed very much; and if the hon. Member were to discriminate in his criticism and treatment, they might have more tolerance for what he said in the matter. He was not aware that the hon. Member had or represented any interests in the districts concerned, and he should have attached more value to the matter if the hon. Gentleman had discussed the question with some of the Representatives of the district. He (Mr. Barrow) represented a great part of the district through which this tramway ran, and he was prepared to say that the inhabitants would very much like to see this measure carried. It was for their convenience that this tramway should exist and be maintained. The working men of the district would suffer, instead of be benefited, if this Amendment were passed. This Tramway Company had been in existence for many years, they had sacrificed their own profits in the interests of the poor working men of the neighbourhood, and they did not intend to take advantage, even in the holidays, of exacting the fares which their statutory powers entitled them to—of 1d. per mile. He had no interest in the company, but he certainly hail an interest in his constituents, and he considered that if the hon. Member for Peterborough were to have his way in the matter this Tramway Company would very soon cease to exist, and the people of Bermondsey and Rotherhithe would have no reason to be satisfied with the action of the hon. Member.
MR. ROWLANDSsaid, the point the hon. Member for Peterborough wished to bring before the House was that Tramway Companies were in the habit of increasing their fares at

1767
holiday times. This might be a very poor company, but if it increased its fares at holiday times it was the very poorest class who would have to pay these increased fares, and what they desired in Bills of this description was to protest against the alteration and increase of fares on the very days that the poorer classes were anxious to avail themselves of the tramways in order to visit the parks and other places. He thought if they were wise those companies which had been in the habit of altering their fares on the occasion of holidays would take a note of warning from the Debate of this afternoon, and would understand that they were not to be allowed to sweat the working classes by the imposition of increased fares on almost the only occasions on which the working classes had the opportunity of using the trams.
MR. E. H. BAYLEYexpressed the opinion that in the districts most specially concerned there was not the slightest feeling in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Peterborough, but quite the contrary. This tramway ran through districts inhabited by a poor population, and it carried people a distance of 3¼ or 3½ miles for l½d. It was in consequence of the smallness of the faros that he attributed the circumstance of the company paying no dividend. He pointed out that the effect of passing this Amendment would be, in all probability, to reduce the income of the company; and the result would be that the company would either be extinguished, to the great loss of the poor population of the districts, or the company would have to recoup themselves for increased expenses by reducing the wages of their employés, which he ventured to think would be a very undesirable state of things.
DR. CLARKobserved that the London Railway, Tramway, and Omnibus Companies were in the habit of charging double fares on holidays, which often led to a deal of trouble. In the Bill which related to this company it was laid down that they should not charge more than 1d. a mile, or a less minimum than 2d. All his hon. Friend by his Amendment wished to do was to take away the right to charge 2d. for any distance, and even if that were assented to the company would still retain the right to a fare of 1d. a mile.
SIR A. ROLLITsympathised with the desire of the hon. Member for Peterborough to reduce fares, and if he had proceeded by moans of a general Bill, as he had in some other oases, he should have supported the hon. Member, as he had done previously. In this particular instance, however, it was shown there was not room for a reduction, and the fares charged even on holidays were below the maximum. He did not think, under the circumstances, that this was a case in which such a proposal as the hon. Member suggested could be put in force; and he would, therefore, press upon him the desirability of withdrawing his Amendment, and dealing with the question as he had suggested, instead of by opposing each of several Private Bills introduced for other purposes.
MR. MORTONsaid, he should be glad to be able to adopt the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, but it would be impossible to get such a Bill passed within any reasonable time.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 103; Noes 118.—(Division List, No. 167.)
Ordered, That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the third time.—(Dr. Farquharson.)
Bill read the third time, and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  EXPENDITURE ON PUBLIC WORKS IN INDIA.
  MR. NAOROJI: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if he will state, out of the total expenditure (including capital expenditure on public works) of Rs.855,000,000 for the year 1890–91, what total amount (distinguishing Military and Civil Services) was paid in India and in England for salaries, pensions, and all sorts of allowances to Europeans in all departments?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): This question cannot be answered accurately without an elaborate, inquiry in India. But the

  1769
  total amount as to which my hon. Friend asks for information may be approximately estimated at 14,593,000 tens of rupees.

  ENGINE-ROOM RATINGS.
  MR. PENN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there is a serious deficiency in the engine-room ratings of ships ordered to be mobilised in case of emergency at Portsmouth, Chatham, and Devonport; and, if so, whether he will state the numbers deficient in the several ratings, and whether he will take steps to increase the numbers; and whether any difficulty is found in supplying a sufficient number of engineers, engine-room artificers, and stokers to ships ordered to be mobilised for the Autumn Manœuvres?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,): With reserves called out, there is a sufficiency of engine-room ratings for all the ships to be mobilised in case of emergency. With reference to the second part of the question, no difficulty is found.

  DUBLIN, WICKLOW, AND WEXFORD RAILWAY.
  MR. DANE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade is he aware that great apprehension exists amongst the public in the Dublin Pembroke Township owing to the dangerous condition of the bridges carrying the Dublin, Wicklow, and Wexford Railway over Bath Avenue and South Lotts Road: and whether he will take immediate steps to enforce their re-construction in compliance with the recommendations contained in the Report of the Board of Trade Inspector?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I have communicated with the company, and they state that, a sketch plan for strengthening the bridge having been examined by the Inspector to the Board of Trade, a finished plan is now being prepared for transmission to him for approval, and that no time is being lost. I have given instructions that the company shall be urged to push on the work as fast as possible.

  THE RIVER SCARIFF.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he, is aware that portions of the river leading to Scariff are dangerous to navigation because of boulders appearing near the surface, and that a boat sustained injuries some time ago because of the dangerous slate of the river; and whether some steps can be taken to remove the obstructions complained of and make the river safe for boats?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLET,): The Board of Works have instructed their District Engineer to inquire into and report on this matter; but owing to other engagements be cannot do this for some days. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to repeat the question in a fortnight.

  EVICTED TENANTS IN IRELAND.
  MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.): I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he could state to the House how many evicted tenants were out of their holdings in August last, and how many have been reinstated up to the 1st June last; and whether he can give the figures separately of the Plan of Campaign estates?
  MR. J. MORLEY: For the reasons referred to in my reply to a somewhat similar question addressed to me on the 28th April last by the hon. Member for South Hunts, I fear it is not possible to supply the information now asked for.
  MR. BARTLEY: Then are we to understand that there has been no result from the considerable expenditure and inconvenience caused by the Evicted Tenants Commission?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Information is given in the Report with regard to the number of evicted tenants and new tenants, or planters as they are called; and if the hon. Member wishes that information brought up to date I will see what can be done. I do not, however, think it is expedient.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: May I ask whether the Returns appearing in the Report were furnished by the police, or were they merely sent in by the tenants?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am afraid I cannot answer that without notice.

  NEW MAIL SERVICE BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND CANADA.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has observed a cable message from Vancouver, announcing the arrival of the Miowera, the pioneer steamship of the new service from Australia to Canada, subsidised by the Canadian and New South Wales Governments; whether he is aware that the Miowera has brought a mail from Australia to England made up by the Sydney and Brisbane Postal Authorities; whether he has noticed that the Miowera accomplished the voyage from Brisbane, her last Australian port of call, to Vancouver in 19 days, being two days in advance of her advertised time of arrival; and whether, in view of the foregoing, and having regard to the fact that the steamers engaged in this new service connect with the Canadian Pacific Railway, and therefore offer exceptional advantages as a postal route, passing through no foreign territory, between Great Britain and Australia, he will consider the advisability of utilising this new service for Imperial postal purposes when opportunity offers?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): I have seen statements in the Press of the arrival at Vancouver of the vessel named in the question; but I have received no official information as to the despatch of mails from Australia for England by that steamer. According to the newspaper announcements, whatever mails may have been despatched for England on the occasion referred to have been sent from Canada to New York, and are to arrive in the German steamer Victoria Augusta. I am fully alive to the advantage of the Canadian Pacific route as a possible route through British Dominions between this country and some of her Eastern Dependencies, and shall watch with interest the development of the new service.

  BRIGADE-SURGEON JOYNT.
  DR. KENNY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether his attention has been called to the fact that, although Brigade-Surgeon Joynt, in 1883, was
  1772
  promised by the Bombay Government promotion to the rank of Deputy Surgeon-General on the expiration, in Juue, 1884, of the term of office of Surgeon-General Hewlett, who then held the post, on the expiration of his term of office in June, 1884, Surgeon-General Hewlett was re-appointed for another term of four years; (2) whether there was any precedent for such a course, and why was it sanctioned by the Secretary of State for India; (3) will he explain on what grounds, when the Indian Government recommended that a supernumerary Deputy Surgeon - General should be appointed for Bombay during the extra term of service of Surgeon-General Hewlett, their recommendation was adopted by the Secretary of State for India, and Dr. Cook was appointed to that position instead of Dr. Joynt, to whom it had been promised; (4) for what reason was Dr. Cook promoted, seeing that he had been previously declared ineligible for promotion; (5) is he aware that Dr. Joynt has been compelled by the Rules of the Service to retire at 58 years of age, his pension being £550 instead of £700, to which he would have been entitled had he received the promotion promised to him; (6) and whether, seeing that the Government of Bombay, with a full knowledge of his services and the facts of his case, recommended that Dr. Joynt should be awarded the full pension of £700, the Secretary of State for India will now advise the adoption of that recommendation?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: (1.) Brigade-Surgeon Joynt was never promised the promotion which he claimed. (2) The Secretary of State is not aware of any precedent, but the appointment was not contrary 1o any rule. (3) The Government of Bombay, in the exercise of their discretion, recommended Dr. Cook, the Senior Brigade-Surgeon, for the supernumerary Deputy Surgeon-Generalship created to compensate the Bombay Medical Service for the loss of promotion caused by Dr. Hewlett's reappointment. Dr. Joynt, as already stated, had not been promised promotion. (4) Dr. Cook had not been declared ineligible for the promotion which he received. (5) Had Dr. Joynt been promoted and allowed to remain in the Service he would have received a higher

  1773
  pension; but, as stated, he was never promised promotion. (6) The Government of Bombay recommended that Brigade-Surgeon Joynt should be allowed to have his service extended in order that he might then qualify for the higher pension of £700; but the Secretary of State in Council did not consider that such extension would be consistent with the interests of the Public Service.
  DR. KENNY: In consequence of the answer just given, I beg to give notice that I will, on the Estimates, call attention to this case of gross hardship and injustice.

  PRISON CLERKS AND STOREKEEPERS.
  MR. GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state to the House the result of his inquiry on 4th February last, into the case of the clerks and storekeepers of Her Majesty's prisons; whether, in view of the Report of the Departmental Committee of Inquiry of 1886 for the amalgamation of the first and second class clerks, but not yet carried out, he will now recommend such amalgamation; and whether, in the event of such amalgamation, he will recommend that the present second class clerks shall each be awarded the sum of £25 per annum, granted to the second class clerks on promotion in 1890, and thus remove the anomaly of clerks performing duties of signal responsibility, and in some cases only a few months senior, receiving a higher salary of £25 per annum in perpetuity?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): As regards the first paragraph, I have to say that my inquiries into the case of the prison clerks went to show that their grievance rested on a block in promotion. A similar grievance exists in varying degrees in almost every department; but as a matter of fact, in the case of the prison clerks only one second class clerk has, up to the present, attained the maximum of his scale. The case of the prison clerks has been fully considered both by myself and the Treasury, and the conclusion arrived at was that it had been met, so far as was reasonably practicable, by the material improvements in the position of the staff effected in
  1774
  1890, when the maximum of the second class was raised from £130 to £150, and the number of the first class was raised by promotion from the second from 43 to 92, while that of the second was reduced from 139 to 88. As regards the second and third paragraphs, I adhere to the view of my predecessor, that it is not advisable to amalgamate the first and second classes of clerks as recommended by the Committee which reported in 1890.

  EDINBURGH TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether be is aware that on successive occasions there have been recommended for promotion to the rank of second class assistant superintendent at Edinburgh two officers of the "clerks" class, who are not, and never have been, capable of performing the duties of an officer of the lowest grade of operators, but who, as assistant superintendents, will be called upon to supervise operators of all classes; whether he is aware that the vacancy has existed since August, 1892, and that the duties during that interval have been discharged by men whose practical knowledge is indisputable; and is it intended that these men, who, in some instances, possess longer service, shall be superseded?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The hon. Member appears to be under a slight misapprehension. The fact is, that last autumn a clerk on the Telegraph Establishment in Edinburgh was recommended for promotion to a vacancy then existing on the second class of assistant superintendents. This clerk was second on his class, and, although in other respects an excellent officer, I was not satisfied that he possessed the necessary technical knowledge, as the special duties he had been performing had excluded him from the opportunity of acquiring it. In this respect, he and the senior clerk on the class, who was also an excellent officer, stood on the same footing, and before deciding the matter I considered that an opportunity should be afforded to them both of showing whether they could acquire the necessary technical knowledge. For this purpose, a certain period of probation was fixed, and until that period has expired the matter will not be decided. It is obvious that until the

  1775
  technical knowledge was acquired, the clerk recommended could not he placed on the duty, and that, in the meantime, this duty had to be otherwise provided for.
  MR. DALZIEL: Thou, as a matter of fact, since the recommendation was made, the gentleman recommended has been engaged in acquiring the necessary knowledge for the post. Is it to the interest of the Public Service that he should be given a year in which to learn his duties?
  MR. A. MORLEY: He was allowed six mouths, and not a year. In all other respects he was thoroughly well qualified for the post.

  TIMBER RATES ON THE NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the North British Railway Company has increased the rate of timber between Leith and Kirkcaldy from 2s. 8d. to 4s. per ton, and of furniture from 12s. 1d. to 15s; and whether, in view of the fact that the General Manager of the North British Company stated before a Committee of the House of Commons, when the Kirkcaldy and District Railway Bill was under consideration, that the rates between the places named had not been, and would not be, advanced because of the erection of the Forth Bridge, he will take steps to induce the North British Company to revert to the rates formerly in force?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have communicated with the Company upon the subject of the hon. Member's question, and the Manager informs me that the former rates were unduly low for the distance, and their continuance could not be justified. He adds that in the general revision the Company found it necessary to increase the rates to bring them into conformity with other rates for similar distances. I have no power of further interference.
  MR. BARRY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the North British Railway Company have also advanced their rates for general merchandise from 30 to 60 per cent., and have, in spite of repeated promises, refused to revert to the old rates?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I must ask for notice of that question.

  RE-DIRECTED CIRCULARS AND POSTCARDS FROM ABROAD.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I beg to ask the Postmaster General if he will explain on what grounds circulars and postcards arriving in this country from traders, lottery agents, and others on the Continent, if directed to a place of residence which has been given up by the addressee, are re-directed and delivered free by the British Post Office, the whole of the postage on which circulars is retained by the Governments of the countries of origin, and in respect of which the English Post Office does all the work without remuneration; while the British Post Office refuses to re-direct and deliver free circulars and postcards from merchants and traders in this country, the whole of the postage on which is received by the British Government; whether he will give instructions to allow our countrymen the same advantages as are enjoyed by foreigners in this respect; and whether he is aware that a British postman frequently delivers free a re-addressed letter posted in this country, but is instructed to demand a fine for the delivery of a British circular re-addressed, and carried by him in the same bundle, or bag, with the letter referred to?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The free redirection in this country of postal packets of all kinds received from abroad is one of the obligations assumed by the Post Office of the United Kingdom under the Postal Union Convention, and I may point out that it is our own countrymen, and not foreigners, as suggested in the question, who are thus exempted from charge, although foreigners, of course, benefit from the reciprocal arrangements which apply abroad to correspondence sent out from this country. I stated only a few nights ago, in reply to the hon. Member for Peterborough, that I could not see my way to depart from the decision of the late Government confining the free redirection of inland postal packets to letters. In regard to the last question of the hon. Member, it must, of course, be the case that re-directed letters, on which no charge is made, and re-directed circulars for the same address, which are liable to charge, are sometimes found in the hands of the same postman.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: I do appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to re-consider his decision to take away that right with regard to the re-direction of letters which Members of this House and the public generally have hitherto enjoyed.

  INDIAN PENSIONS TO EUROPEANS.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India (1) whether a Mr. Willmott, holding the appointment of Assistant Political and Financial Secretary to the Nizam of Hyderabad, has induced that State to grant annuities of Rs.600 each per annum to his four sons for their lives; (2) under what circumstances the Resident of Hyderabad sanctioned these grants; and (3) whether the grants are in direct contravention of the Rules of the Secretary of State for India as regards the employment of Europeans in Native States?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: Mr. Willmott is not, and never has been, in the service of the Government of India; nor is he under its control. The Secretary of State has not heard of the grants referred to. (2) Such grants would not require the sanction of the Resident; nor has the Government of India any control over the details of the financial administration of Hyderabad. (3) The Secretary of State, as at present advised, has no reason to suppose that the persons to whom grants are said to have been made are in the employment of the Hyderabad State; nor is he aware whether or not they are Europeans.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I hope the hon. Gentleman will further inquire into this matter.

  OSTEND TRAWLERS AND LOWESTOFT FISHING BOATS.
  MR. HARRY FOSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been called to the fact that, on Thursday night last, a Lowestoft fishing boat, belonging to MR. T. E. Thirtle, while fishing about eight miles east of Lowestoft, had its nets trawled into by an Ostend trawler; and that, on Friday night last, two Lowestoft fishing boats, belonging respectively to Mr. W. Turrell and Mr. G. Watford, endured a similar experience from an Osteud trawler when fishing about
  1778
  seven miles east of Lowestoft; whether these facts were duly reported to Her Majesty's Customs at Lowestoft on Saturday morning, with the request that the one gunboat, now on I he station for fishing protection duty, should be reinforced, and a sharper look-out kept in view of the frequency of these depredations during the past few months; and whether any steps have been taken by the Admiralty, in view of these complaints and the serious loss to the fishermen which such occurrences frequently occasion?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Inquiry has been made respecting the facts stated in the first paragraph of the question, and they appear to be correct. They were reported to Her Majesty's Customs at Lowestoft on Saturday, and by them to the gunboat. The Admiralty greatly regret the loss to the fishermen, but are of opinion that for the protection of the fisheries the force at present employed is sufficient—namely, one gunboat and two sailing cruisers, besides H.M.S. Hearty.

  THE SCOTCH BOUNDARY COMMISSION.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland when the recommendation of the Boundary Commission, that Couaglen, Ardgour, and Kingairloch should be made into a separate parish, will be carried into effect?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN, GLASGOW,): The Boundary Commissioners found two very large parishes, Ardnamurchan and Kilmallie, situated side by side, and each lying partly in Inverness and partly in Argyll. They recommended that the Inverness-shire portion of Ardnamurchan, and the Argyllshire portion of Kilmallie, should each be formed into a new civil parish. By the 51st section of the Local Government Act of 1889 the Secretary for Scotland is empowered to carry out these changes, but only on the representation of a County Council. The County Council of Inverness have made the necessary representation as regards Ardnamurchan, and the Local Authorities interested are now being consulted about it. But no representation regarding Kilmallie has yet been made either by the County Council of Inverness-shire or

  1779
  Argyllshire. Conaglen and Ardgour are situated in the Argyllshire portion of the Parish of Kilmallie.

  BIDFORD TELEGRAPHIC FACILITIES.
  MR. FREEMAN-MITFORD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will take into consideration the disadvantage under which the town of Bidford, in Warwickshire, stands by having no telegraph office nearer than Broom Junction, a distance of nearly two miles; whether a promise was given by the Post Office that a telegraph office should be established at Bidford before the end of March last; and whether he will now give effect to that promise?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The telegraphic extension was sanctioned and would have been carried out before this, but a proposal has been under consideration to include the village of Welford. This has now been sanctioned, and, subject to difficulties in connection with wayleaves being overcome, the work will be carried out without delay.

  SCOTCH EDUCATION MINUTE.
  MR. RENSHAW: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether a decision has yet been arrived at in regard to the Education Minute of 1st May; and whether he can state, for the information and guidance of the County and Burgh Committees, what the precise change is which he has signified his intention of making on the Minute next year?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: With regard to the current financial year, during which a sum of £114,000 will be available for secondary education, the terms of the Minute of May I will be acted upon, and we shall accordingly ask the County Committees to frame and submit schemes in accordance with that Minute. Next year, before the grant is divided in proportion to population, a sum of £200 will be assigned to each County and Burgh Committee, which, if they so recommend, may be allocated to the higher class schools indicated as proper recipients of a special grant under paragraph 8 of the Minute of January 31. In any case, whatever they do with the money, each Committee will get the £200.

  LONG SERVICE DECORATIONS FOR VOLUNTEERS.
  MR. THEOBALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if, and when, it is intended to give long service decorations to non-commissioned officers and privates of the Volunteer Service who have served over 20 years?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (MR. CAMPBELL -BANNERMAN,): It has probably escaped the notice of the hon. Member that I stated last week, in reply to a similar question, that the matter is not being lost sight of. I fear I cannot at present say more.

  THE EXTRADITION OF DR. HERTZ.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the French Government have demanded the extradition of Dr. Cornelius Hertz, and upon what charge the demand for such extradition has been based; and whether Her Majesty's Government have decided to accede to the application; if so, what is the cause of the delay in surrendering Dr. Hertz?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): The extradition of Dr. Hertz was requested by the French Government on the 19th January last on charges of fraud and of obtaining money by false pretences, and the necessary instructions to the Chief Magistrate to issue a warrant for his arrest were issued by the Home Secretary on the same day. Hertz was arrested at Bournemouth, but it has as yet been impossible, owing to the serious state of his health, to bring him up for examination before the Chief Magistrate at Bow Street. Dr. Hertz cannot even be moved from one room to another, and two eminent French physicians who have seen him lately have confirmed the opinion of the English doctors.

  THE LIBERATOR SOCIETY'S FAILURE.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Solicitor General whether, in view of the widespread suffering caused by the failure of the Liberator Building Society, and the fact that if compelled to

  1781
  immediately realise the assets nothing like the full value will be obtainable, the Government can in any way intervene to protect the depositors and shareholders against the loss which would thus ensue?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,): The Official Receiver has taken all the steps in his power to protect the interests of the shareholders and depositors of the Society. Arrangements have been made by him and the Committee of Inspection to realise the assets to the best advantage, and the Government cannot further intervene.

  ALLEGED THEFT OF DOCUMENTS FROM THE FRENCH EMBASSY.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any foundation for the statement made in the French newspapers that important documents have been stolen from Her Majesty's Embassy at Paris, or for the statement that a document, alleged to have been obtained from Her Majesty's Embassy, was sent to the private secretary of Lord Dufferin with a threat to publish it if it was not purchased, and perceived by him to be a fabrication?
  SIR E. GREY: There is no foundation whatever for the statement that documents have been stolen from Her Majesty's Embassy, and what was read in the French Chamber is a gross and palpable forgery.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Is there any truth in the report that these forged documents were supplied to M. Millevoye from The Times office by our old friend, Mr. Walter?
  [The question was not answered.]

  LORD DE RAMSEY'S COMMITTEE ON PRISON SERVICE.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will lay upon the Table the Report of Lord De Ramsey's Committee of 1891, upon the position and terms of service of prison officers?
  MR. ASQUITH: It would not be in accordance with usage to lay upon the Table the Report of a Departmental Committee on an administrative matter
  1782
  after the lapse of two years, and when its recommendations have been largely carried into effect. But I shall be glad to supply the noble Lord, and any other hon. Member who desires it, with a copy for his own information.

  CHINA AND JAPAN MAILS.
  MR. PROVAND: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that mails from China and Japan are received viâ New York usually several days and sometimes a week sooner than viâ Halifax or Quebec; and will he therefore arrange for these mails to be seat forward by the New York steamers?
  MR. A. MORLEY: During the present year the average transit time from Yokohama to London has been nearly 32 days viâ Quebec or Halifax, and nearly 31 days viâ San Francisco. There are cases in which the mails sent viâ Vancouver might be expedited by being diverted from the Canadian Pacific Railway and carried to New York, there to be placed on board the United States packet for this country; but that result, even if it could always be secured, would deprive the service of the advantage of being wholly British, to which considerable importance has, I think, reasonably been attached.
  MR. PROVAND: Will the Postmaster General inform us to what extent the service would not be British? If letters were carried by the Canadian Pacific Railway to Montreal, thence by another railway to New York, and by British steamers across the Atlantic, is it not the case that the mails would only be for a few hours between Montreal and New York on a foreign mail route?
  [The question was not answered.]

  THE "PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES."
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is the intention of the Government to carry into effect the recommendations of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Debates?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): New arrangements could not in any case he made until the expiration of the contract for the present Session; and though the Government will give every consideration to the Report of the Select

  1783
  Committee, I do not think they could announce a final decision until the House has itself had an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the subject.
  MR. DALZIEL: And when will that opportunity be provided?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: In Committee of Supply, on the Stationery Vote.

  THE IRISH LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
  MR. SAUNDERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can now inform the House as to the number of electors in Ireland who would be qualified to vote for the Legislative Council under the proposed £20 rating franchise?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): The number of electors in Ireland who would be qualified to vote for the Legislative Council under the proposed £20 rating franchise is 162,007. From these, 18,384 women would have to be deducted, and 19,165 male owners, who have votes as inhabitants, added, giving a net total of 162,788.

  THE LOSS OF H.M.S. "VICTORIA."
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I wish to communicate to the House the deplorable intelligence that we have received of the catastrophe which has occurred in the course of the manœuvres off Tripoli, on the Syrian Coast, by which the Victoria, has been lost and the Camperdown injured to an extent not yet quite ascertained. I will read the telegram that has reached the Admiralty from Admiral Markham, the second in command, one of the sad features of this occurrence being the loss of the Admiral in chief command, Admiral Tryon, who was one of the most respected and ablest of the officers in the Navy. This is the telegram from Admiral Markham—
  "Regret to report, whilst manœuvring this afternoon off Tripoli, Victoria and Camperdown collided. Victoria sank IB minutes after in 80 fathoms, bottom uppermost.
  Camperdown's ram struck Victoria before the turret starboard.
  Following officers drowned.

  Commander-in-Chief.

  Clerk Allen.

  Lieutenant Munro.

  Chaplain Morris.

  Chief Engineer Foreman.

  Engineer Harding.

  1784

  Assistant Engineers Deadman, Hatherly, Seaton.

  Gunner Howell.

  Boatswain Barnard.

  Carpenter Beall.

  Midshipmen Inglis, Grieve, Fawkes, Lanyon, Henley, Gambier, Scarlett.

  Naval Cadet Stooks.

  Assistant Clerk Savage.

  Fleet Paymaster Rickcord.

  Two hundred and fifty-five men saved; will report their names by telegraph.

  Injury to Camperdown not yet fully ascertained, but damage so serious as to necessitate docking.

  Propose to send survivors to Malta at once. Await instructions.

  MARKHAM."
  The Admiralty state that, according to the latest return (May 25), there were on board the Victoria 718 persons (611 officers, seamen, and boys, and 107 marines). Of this number it is feared that upwards of 430 must have been lost. Until further information is received it is impossible to give a more accurate statement, and it is possible that at the time of the disaster certain men may have been lent to other ships. That is the only hope, Sir, of any mitigation of this sad intelligence, with respect to which we are certain that the deepest sympathy of the House will be excited, not only on behalf of those brave men who have found an early grave amid all the circumstances of peace, pomp, and splendour, but also on account of the surviving relatives and families of the large number of persons whose loss we have to deplore.
  LORD G. HAMILTON: Perhaps the House will allow me, as I bad during the time that I was in Office the honour of close personal relations with Admiral Tryon, and also commissioned the ship, the loss of which we have to deplore, to add my humble testimony to the tribute paid by the Prime Minister to those who have perished in this terrible calamity. Heavy as is the loss of men, Ave cannot gauge the extent of the disaster by simply enumerating those who have met with this sad fate, for that which I think oppresses and afflicts most those who are acquainted with the Victoria is the knowledge that the men who have perished were the pick and flower of the whole British Navy. The tribute of the Prime Minister to Admiral Tryon is well deserved. He was an officer of rare capacity. I had the honour of being associated with him during the whole

  1785
  time that I was in Office, and I can truly say that as a strategist, as a disciplinarian, as a seaman, he was greatly distinguished. In action and in council he was equally efficient, and those who knew him best predicted confidently that if he had an opportunity he would make a name and reputation second to none of those gained by the most distinguished men who had preceded him in a most distinguished Service. Such was the officer who in the zenith of his manhood and intellect has suddenly perished, and I cannot better describe the officers and men who were drowned with him than by saying that they were worthy associates of Admiral Tryon, for they formed part of a crew which, by the universal testimony of all who saw or inspected it, was one of the most efficient and best conducted that this country ever sent afloat. I feel sure the House and the country will re-echo and endorse that kindly expression of sympathy which fell from the Prime Minister. The mere knowledge that those who have perished were so gifted increases the grief of those who have to mourn their loss. We as public men can do little to assuage their sorrow, but whatever we can do I am sure we shall do heartily and spontaneously. Therefore, let us hope that the graceful and eloquent tribute paid by the Prime Minister—the expression of genuine public sympathy which this House is the first to utter, and, above all, that the recorded sense of the worth of those whom we have lost may hereafter be some small solace to those upon whom this calamity has so suddenly fallen.
  MR. KEARLEY: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Government will consider the necessity of making at once suitable temporary provision for the wives and families of those who have been lost?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That is a question which, of course, will come under the consideration of the Admiralty at once.
  SIR E. J. REED: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he will cause to be placed in the Library or the Tea Room of the House a drawing of this ship which will show the division of her watertight compartments, in order that those who have some acquaintance with the construction of ships may be able to form a judgment as to how it has
  1786
  happened that a single blow from another vessel has sent so costly a ship and so many valuable lives to the bottom?
  MR. MACFARLANE: When did this deplorable accident occur?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Yesterday afternoon.
  MR. MACFARLANE: In daylight?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Yesterday afternoon. I may say, with respect to the question of my hon. Friend, it is not only with regard to the important particulars he has named, but with regard to all the particulars, that it will, of course, as a matter of public duty be necessary to make the fullest investigation, and the results will be made known to this House and the country.
  SIR E. J. REED: I am afraid the Prime Minister has not heard my question. I have no doubt that a full and complete investigation will be made, and that its results will be laid before the House. What I asked was whether the right hon. Gentleman will cause to be placed in the Library or the Tea Room a profile drawing of the ship showing the division of the bulkheads, so that those who are closely concerned in matters of this kind might see how it is that a ship so largely sub-divided has been sunk?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to answer the question. The subject was considered this morning at the Admiralty, and I think I may say that the Admiralty will he perfectly prepared to put a profile drawing in the Library or Tea Room, and also other drawings, showing the very remarkably complete watertight compartments which existed in the Victoria, and which are almost unequalled in any other ship.
  MR. GOSCHEN: May I suggest that all these very important questions relating to this controversy may be postponed to some other day, and that the universal expression of sorrow and grief at this great catastrophe may not on this occasion be disturbed by premature views with regard to the cause of the accident?
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: Will the Secretary to the Admiralty place in the Tea Room a list of those who have been saved?
  SIR E. J. REED: May I be allowed to disclaim what the right hon. Gentle-

  1787
  man has said, for I assure the House it was not with the slightest desire to complain, or to blame, but solely for the satisfaction of our minds in studying such an accident as this that I asked for the drawing?
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the Tripoli mentioned on the African or the Syrian coast?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: Tripoli on the Syrian coast.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to answer my question?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: The earliest possible information will be given to the House as soon as we know the names of the officers and men who have been saved.

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

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 22nd June.]
    [TWENTY-SEVENTH NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Legislative Authority.
    Clause 4 (Restrictions on powers of Irish Legislature).
    MR. PARKER SMITHsaid, he rose to move an Amendment to add, after the 6th sub-section, the words—
    "Whereby the actions of any official of the Government shall be removed from the cognisance of the ordinary law."
    The object of the Amendment was to bar the introduction by the Irish Legislature of any system of droit administratif, such as was referred to by Professor Dicey in his Law of the Constitution. This system of droit administratif was not one which existed in England, but it was adopted almost all over the Continent, and Continental jurists who studied our law considered it a remarkable feature of that law that we had no such system. The principle of the system was to give to the officials of the Government a very special position, and rights and privileges in the deciding of actions brought against them, which were not possessed by ordinary citizens. In a previous sub-section they had adopted words to the effect that the
    1788
    powers of the Irish Legislature should not extend to the making of any law—
    "Whereby any person might be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, in accordance with settled principles and precedents, or may be denied the equal protection of the laws, or whereby private property may be taken without just compensation."
    That was the main fundamental protection which individual citizens required. It was further, however, a recognised principle in Great Britain that every man should be subject to the ordinary law, as administered by the ordinary tribunals; but he saw nothing in the Bill which would make that an essential part of the future rights of Irish citizens under this Bill. Liberty with us had been to a large extent established as the result of actions brought against officials—such as proceedings against Colonial Governors, and actions against the Serjeant-at-Arms, who had been brought before the Courts of Law for refusing to comply with the Habeas Corpus Act. It had been held that every official of the Government was subject to every tribunal, and could not defend himself by his administrative position. But this was an exceptional view—almost an insular view. But on the Continent—in France, Germany, Russia, and other countries—Government officials could not be made amenable to the ordinary Courts of Law. Acts done by them were questions of administrative law. It was before an Administrative Court, not composed of Judges of the land but of their own official superiors, that they were brought. And the case was stronger than this, because even in uncertain cases, where it was an open question whether the matter was one for the ordinary Courts or the Administrative Courts, it was not the ordinary Courts of Judicature which decided, but the Supreme Administrative Court. It seemed to him that these principles were principles which would be tempting to the Irish Legislature. They would have full confidence in themselves, and it was highly probable that they would frequently find the Judicature standing in their way. They would find that they had far more control over their own officials and the members of the Administration than they had over the Judges. It was not at all unlikely that they would resort to a principle of this kind—a principle which was not only a part of

    1789
    the existing law in France, but which was according to French ideas previous to the Revolution. Was the Irish Legislature to have power, subject only to the invidious control of the veto, to set up a droit administratif of this kind? Did the Committee desire that they should have that power, and did they consider that under the Bill as it stood they would have that power? On many Amendments the Solicitor General had got up and had said that the proposal was covered by words already in the Bill, and the hon. Member for North Kerry had risen and said it was an insult to the Irish people to suppose that they would ever do the particular thing it was sought to prevent, and, at the same time, that it would be an insult to deprive them of the power of doing it if they chose. Well, in regard to this particular matter, the only words he could see in the Bill which could possibly bring it within the purview were the words by which every citizen was given equal protection of the law. He would ask the Solicitor General whether he considered that those words covered the matter? [Sir J. RIGBY made no response.] The words did not seem to him to cover the matter at all. Those general words covered cases of personal injustice or inequality. They had been considered and dealt with, of course, under the American Constitution; but too much stress was not laid on them. For instance, they were not held to cover laws made against a special race—the Chinese. But, to put it on a wider ground, he did not see how it could be maintained that in France and Germany men had not the equal protection of the law. And he did not see how it could be urged that it would be an insult to Ireland to suggest that she might desire to follow the example of Continental jurists. It seemed to him that this was not only an extremely important provision, but that it would prevent what might very easily arise in Ireland. The Irish Legislature would have the Administration practically under its control. According to the desire of every active Representative Body, it would seek to get more and more power into its hands. It would find droit administratif a very straight and easy and measured path to that result, and no one would be able to say that its action was unjust, seeing that, after all, the principle
    1790
    of giving special privileges to servants of the Government was a principle recognised as in the best interests of the country by countries such as France and Germany. That being so, it seemed to him that his Amendment was simply a corollary of the new and most important Sub-section 5. He hoped the Government would see their way to accept it.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, after line 41, to insert as a new subsection, the words, "(7) Whereby the actions of any official of the Government shall be removed from the cognisance of the ordinary law; or."—(Mr. Parker Smith.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. and learned Member has described the method in which the Amendments moved by himself and others have been met by Her Majesty's Government; and I think I might, if I were so minded, make some remarks of a recriminatory character on the hon. and learned Member. He has been endowed, I hope I may say without discourtesy, with the gift of length. The hon. Member brings forward something out of the American Constitution, or, as in this case, out of a book by Professor Dicey, and he deals with it at a length entirely out of proportion to its importance, then he objects because we do not answer him at corresponding length. I do not propose to alter the course we have taken on previous occasions, and I will give him as short an answer as I possibly can. I quite agree with what Professor Dicey has said as to its being a distinction to our Constitutional system that we have not, and have not for many generations, had a droit administratif. But why are we to assume that the Irish Legislature will be less sensible of the superiority of our system than we are? The hon. Member talks of Russia, Germany, and France. As far as France is concerned, it is quite certain that the droit administratif is part of the old system of France, which has not been got rid of any more than many other portions of that system have been got rid of. But in Ireland they will start anew, and the whole habit of thinking about these systems has been formed on different models. We are told almost with one breath that the

    1791
    Irish Parliament will be a body of Anarchists, and that they will resort to the customs of centralised despotism inherited from old France and Prussia. My hon. Friend has done here what he and his friends have done in other Amendments. He has picked out a single imaginary, though not conceivable folly and iniquity, into which he says the Irish Legislature might fall, and, in order to meet it, has drawn up an Amendment in terms ludicrously and recklessly wide. My hon. Friend says that the actions of the officials of the Government are to be dealt with as the actions of any other citizens are dealt with. Is he aware that there is at this moment before Parliament a Bill for the consolidation of the laws protecting Public Authorities? That Bill consolidates hundreds of Acts which give to public officials a certain priority and protection, and absolve them from laws which affect ordinary citizens. My hon. Friend does not desire to prevent the Irish Legislature making laws of the kind now before Parliament. Why, then, does he use words which would shut out legislation of that kind? We entirely object to the Amendment, and regret that so much time has been occupied by it.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Without complaining of the argument with which the Chief Secretary has met that of my hon. Friend, I would venture to point out to him that it was quite unnecessary that he should have introduced into that argument the acrimonious attack he made on my hon. Friend. He has singled out my hon. Friend's speech as a special illustration of a type of opposition to which he objects. He says my hon. Friend speaks with unnecessary length. I will make two remarks on that. The first is that the longest speeches made upon any Amendment on this Bill have been made from the Treasury Bench, whilst the speeches of the Opposition in support of that Amendment have been extremely short, and gone closely and directly to the question before the Committee. I do not, therefore, think it lies in the mouth of my right hon. Friend to make such an attack upon my hon. Friend. It is quite true that we do not agree with the Government as to the time that ought to be occupied in the consideration of Amendments. Thirty minutes, out of
    1792
    which 20 minutes were occupied by the speech of the Prime Minister, were considered enough to deal with the interests of the Freemasons.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: My right hon. Friend has entirely mistaken the time.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The total time occupied by the Debate on the Freemasons last night was 39 minutes. I cannot say what was the exact time occupied by my right hon. Friend, but it was about 20 minutes.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Well, I expect my watch does not keep the same time as that of my right hon. Friend. The particular illustration, however, is really of very slight consequence. It cannot be denied that on the matter to which we are referring the Government took themselves a large portion of the short time which they considered sufficient for dealing with a subject that interests, as they will discover, an enormous number of the voters of this country. I come to the arguments of the Chief Secretary in reference to the Amendment. He asks why we should assume that the Irish Parliament will establish anything in the nature of a droit administratif? I venture to say that it is the duty of this Committee and of the Government to protect Ireland against serious mistakes of that kind on the part of the Irish Parliament. The Chief Secretary admits that it would be a great mistake, and that it would be thoroughly wrong to establish anything in the nature of a droit administratif; and, that being so, why not prevent it in the Bill? How is it possible that the Chief Secretary can be prepared to answer not only for the Irish Legislature of to-day, but for the Irish Legislature in perpetuity? Will he say that the Irish Legislature will under no circumstances do foolish or wrong things? If so, that will be an argument against taking any precautions whatever. But the Government have themselves introduced certain precautionary provisions. We have not had a single point raised yet as to which the Government have not said that they do not believe the Irish Parliament would do so foolish and wrong a thing. What is the ground for the confidence of the Chief Secretary in this matter? It is, apparently, that we have alleged that the Irish Legislature

    1793
    will be anarchical, and he thinks it contrary to the experience of Anarchical Bodies that they should establish a droit administratif. I would refer him to his own writings about the French Revolution. The Government of Robespierre and his friends was revolutionary enough, and yet never was the droit administratif more strongly insisted upon than by them. In those days the officials were the only persons who could not do wrong. The other objection which the Chief Secretary takes to the Amendment is that it is too wide, and he seemed to think that the Opposition deliberately made all their Amendments altogether too wide for their purpose. That may be the case, and I am not particularly concerned to justify the Opposition in such a respect. But why do the Government make it a crime against the Opposition that our drafting is not as good as theirs? The Government have all the greatest talent at their disposal in the matter of drafting, and yet even they fall into very considerable mistakes. They managed to draft Sub-section 6, for instance, so that, as they themselves admit, it is a mass of confusion, and is so ungrammatical that it will have to be re-drawn upon Report. Why, then, should they be so hard upon us? In all former cases, when the Government have agreed with the object of Amendments, but the Amendment is badly drawn, the Government have undertaken, with the assistance of their draftsman, to correct the wording. If the Government think this Amendment goes too far, they have only to suggest to us what changes should be made, and, provided such changes meet our object, we shall accept them. I do not think it necessary or desirable that a Debate on a point of this kind should be carried on at any great length. I would only point out, in conclusion, that the Amendment seeks to prevent what it is admitted it would be wrong to do, and yet the Government will put nothing in its place.
    Viscount CRANBORNEsaid, he did not think the Chief Secretary realised the importance of the Amendment. Its importance consisted in the fact that, even with the best intentions, the Irish Legislature was certain to pass a great many laws which would transgress the exceptions laid down in the Bill.
    1794
    What the Opposition feared was that the officials of the Government would be placed in such a position as to save them from the evil result of their action, or to deprive any party aggrieved by such action of his proper remedy. It was a most amazing thing that this point, had not occurred to the Government. They had removed many things from the cognisance of the Irish Legislature, but they had not removed what was, perhaps, the most important of all—namely, the Courts that must protect aggrieved parties. The Irish Legislature would have the power in its hands of altering the law under which the legal tribunals in Ireland would administer justice in such a way as to prevent them giving a remedy even under the excepted eases in Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill. For instance, he submitted that the Irish Legislature would be able to pass an Act which would relieve Executive officers acting in the bonâ fide execution of their duty from liability to be fined for any mistake they made or wrong they did. It would also be perfectly possible for the Irish Legislature to change the whole Law of Contempt of Court, so as to deprive the Exchequer Judges of the power of enforcing their decisions by imprisonment for contempt of Court. It might also take cases of grievances arising out of illegal action on its part out of the purview of the Magistrates, and insist upon such cases being tried before the High Court. This would, of course, amount to a denial of justice to poor persons. He thought it a most extraordinary thing that, whilst the Government excepted certain subjects from the jurisdiction of the Irish Parliament, they did not also remove from their power the remedies to which aggrieved parties might resort in case the law was broken.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 230; Noes 272.—(Division List, No. 168.)
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, the next Amendment stood in his name. It was:—Page 3, line 1, leave out "(7)." The sub-section dealt with the deprivation of equal rights respecting sea fisheries. He believed the Government were willing to accept the Amendment. The sub-section was a limiting one, and he thought it should be omitted.
    Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 1, to leave out "(7.)"—(Mr. Bartley.)
    Question proposed, "That '(7)' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. GOSCHENasked what words the Government proposed to cover the various branches? It might be well to omit this sub-section, but it was but right they should understand the attitude of the Government.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, they proposed to insert the words "or of business," and they would bring the amended form up on the Report stage.
    MR. HANBURYsaid, this was a case of resident or non-resident, and it seemed to him that the Government did not propose to give "equal rights" to "any inhabitant of the United Kingdom." He thought the Amendment introduced should enable them to discriminate in the case of a landlord owning property in Ireland but living in England.
    MR. J. MORLEYwas understood to say that the Government would make ample provision for safeguarding all rights.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Do I understand that the Government are willing to introduce the words "or business"?
    MR. J. MORLEY: Yes.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, in that case he should advise the withdrawal of the Amendment. The concession of the Government went much further than he had hoped for, and they were entitled to acknowledge the manner in which they had been met.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, they were quite well able by this time to appreciate the amiable motives of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham in the overstrained praise which he bestowed on the concession of the Government. They were not able, however, to appreciate the force of the contention which had been advanced, and they reserved to themselves the right to deal with the ultimate form of words.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, the words would be "place of birth or business."
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the "business" of fishermen was in the great waters. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Morley) seemed to be under the impression that fish coming into Ireland from Scotland were articles
    1796
    of Scotch manufacture imported by way of trade, and could be defined in the Bill under "trade"; but that was not so. Scotch and other fishermen might catch fish in the sea, and Irish fishermen might object to the competition, and might place them under some disability when they came in to land their "catches." Was the fisherman's place of business to be considered the place where he went in to deliver the fish?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, it was undesirable there should be any misunderstanding. When the Chief Secretary spoke first he used the words "or business," and the restriction would then have read:—"On account of place of birth, parentage, or business." On his speaking a second time, he understood his right hon. Friend to speak simply of "place of business." He thought they should hoar from the Government what the words really were to be.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, the words would be "place of birth or business."
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, that was not a safe meaning. He hoped his right hon. Friend, upon whose good faith they wished to rely, would give an undertaking that the object of the sub-section would be carried out as clearly as possible.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he was willing to do that.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, in that case the Amendment might be withdrawn.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, they should know exactly what words were to be added.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, the Government were willing to introduce words which would carry out the meaning of the sub-section.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, the Government would do what it was intended should be done when the sub-section was introduced into the Bill.
    MR. SEXTON: So far as concerns sea fisheries?
    MR. J. MORLEY: Yes.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was of opinion that they should allow the words to stand until the next stage. He was at one with the Member for North Kerry in saying that they did not know what the effect of the new words would be, and, if they accepted his suggestion, they could at the proper time introduce words to give effect to their object.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, his point was that the sub-section should be so wide as to include not only fisheries, but all trades. This sub-section limited the restrictions in the Bill. They were assured by the Government that they wished to prevent any undue preference being given, and he wanted the words to be as wide as possible. He hoped the words the Government would insert would render undue preference an impossibility.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he would suggest "place of abode" instead of "place of business." The Division called last night had placed hon. Members in a difficulty; but he thought if the Chief Secretary would go a step further he would carry out his object.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he had already explained what the Government were willing to do. He could only say that the word "abode" would be clearly out of place.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Place of business would apply generally?
    MR. J. MORLEY: Yes.
    Question put, and negatived.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The decision of the Committee disposed of several of the Amendments which stand next on the Paper. The Amendments standing in the names of the hon. Member for York and the hon. Member for Wandsworth are out of Order.
    MR. KIMBERsaid, in reference to his Amendment which proposed to prohibit the Irish Legislature "altering its own constitution," he wished to explain—
    MR. SEXTON: I rise to Order. I wish to know is it in Order for a Member to interrupt the ruling of the Chair by making a speech?
    MR. KIMBER: I do not wish to interrupt the ruling of the Chair. I abide by the ruling; but I think it competent for an hon. Member to ask for an explanation why his Amendment has been ruled out of Order.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask you, Mr. Mellor, whether you have not already ruled that it is perfectly in Order to ask the Chair to be kind enough to tell the reason for its ruling?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have already said that I am prepared to answer such a question, so Ions: as there is no in-
    1798
    tention to dispute my ruling or to raise an argument. With regard to this particular Amendment, I have to say that, as the Irish Parliament will derive its existence from this Bill, it will be incapable of altering it when it becomes an Act. The Amendment proposes to prevent the Irish Legislature doing what it cannot possibly do, and is, therefore, out of Order. The next Amendment in Order stands in the name of the noble Lord the Member for Rochester.
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNErose to move—
    In page 3, line 2, at end, add, "(8) Affecting the remedies of any person aggrieved by anything dune in omitted to be done in pursuance of any Law made in contravention of this section."
    He submitted that the common-sense reading of Clause 9, which related to the Exchequer Judges, was that the power and jurisdiction of the Judges were to a large extent left subjected to the Irish Parliament. But he did not confine the meaning of his Amendment to the Exchequer Judges. The Committee should recollect that every Court of Justice in Ireland, from the highest to the lowest, would be called upon to decide whether any particular law passed by the Irish Legislature was ultra vires or not. Therefore, any subject of the Queen who felt aggrieved might be obliged to bring an action, in the first instance, before the Magistrates' Court, and if the procedure and power of that Court were controlled by the Irish Legislature, it would be possible for the Irish Legislature to alter that power and procedure and thereby render the safeguards in Clauses 3 and 4 nugatory. He begged to move his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 2, at end, add "(8) Affect -ting the remedies of any person aggrieved by anything done or omitted to be done in pursuance of any Law made in contravention of this section." —(Viscount Cranborne.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,): We do not think that the result apprehended by the noble Lord is likely to arise. Clause 19 establishes the Exchequer Judges as the Judges who will have to decide matters outside the jurisdiction of the Irish

    1799
    Legislature. I do not say these are the words, but that is clearly the result—
    VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: Why not use the words?
    SIR J. RIGBY: Because we have drafted the clause far better. Why should we alter every section to please the fancy of those who do not give us much assistance? I say that the Exchequer Judges are the persons who will have to decide those points, and, therefore, this Amendment is unnecessary. There can be no doubt that the suggestion made by the noble Lord has been made without sufficient consideration.
    Question put, and negatived.
    THE CHAIRMAN: All the other Amendments to the clause on the Paper are out of Order. The Question I have to put now is "That Clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It may be in the recollection of the Committee that when we were discussing certain rather important matters connected with Trinity College and higher education in Ireland, I put certain questions to the Prime Minister, and the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that those questions would be more appropriately put when the Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill was put from the Chair. In conformity with the wishes of the Prime Minister I adjourned those questions to the present stage of the clause. But before I put these questions let me, without at all going into the subjects we have already decided on this clause, point out that our decisions cannot really be said to have left the clause in a very satisfactory condition. We have been discussing the clause now for some days, and yet I find that the Government have postponed from this stage to the Report stage all kinds of questions of importance connected with the drafting of the clause, and some questions substantially connected with the clause. So far from the labours of the Committee leaving the clause in its final shape, I find, on looking to Sub-section 3, that the Government admit that the word "diverting," with which that sub-section is opened, will have to be altered. The Chief Secretary told us the Government would be able to
    1800
    provide a more satisfactory word, but evidently that word has not yet been found, notwithstanding the great talents that are being devoted to its discovery. It is also admitted by the Government that Sub-section 6 as it stands, whatever definite meaning it may have, is not the meaning the Government desire to attach to it; and again, notwithstanding the long time the sub-section has been under discussion, the Government have failed to find words to express their own meaning. Again, I find that the Government expressed their intention early in the discussions on the clause to find words which would prevent anything in the nature of undue preference being shown by the Irish Legislature on any matter that might arise; but though words were thrown out tentatively yesterday, and again tentatively amended to-day, they do not seem to carry out the object which the Prime Minister had in view. Therefore, despite all the labour we have devoted to this clause, it still remains in the condition merely of a noble ruin, or perhaps I should say an incomplete edifice, and we do not yet know by what steps, in what manner, and by what method its final shape will be given to the clause. I have had a great deal of experience in dealing with Amendments to Bills, and I cannot recollect any Government or any Ministers in charge of a Bill who would have been let off so easily if it had ventured to adopt the course which the Government have adopted on the present occasion. But I pass from that to the questions which I propose to put to the Prime Minister. Let me first remind the Committee that on Sub-section 2 and Sub-section 3 a controversy was raised as to the power of the Irish Legislature with regard to the Training Colleges in Ireland. It was pointed out to the Committee that two of the existing Training Colleges were strictly Denominational Institutions. It was further pointed out to the Committee that these Institutions are supported by public moneys; that, these public moneys are annually voted by an Appropriation Bill, and that, therefore, there will have to be an annual legislative measure passed by the Irish Parliament if these Denominational Institutions are to continue. I put it to the Government whether they think or do not think that Sub-sections 2 and 3 would permit the

    1801
    Irish Legislature to vote and appropriate money for the support of those Institutions. It is quite true that the Prime Minister did say that, in his opinion, it would be competent for the Irish Legislature to continue to support these Colleges in the future as we have done in the past. But the matter was not argued at length, and no question was asked as to the bearing of that decision upon the maintenance and support of Denominational Institutions as sot out in the sub-sections. The next act of the drama, if I may use the expression, arose on the subject of Trinity College and the establishment of a Catholic University in Ireland. When the fate and fortunes of Trinity College were under discussion the Irish Members pointed out with considerable force that they considered they had a right to an Institution for the higher education which should be under the control of the Catholic clergy, and they did not think it would be necessary, in order to obtain that object, that Trinity College should be despoiled. They argued that it was not necessary, in order to establish a University or College under Catholic control, to despoil Trinity College. Of course, their contention is that they can obtain that object by voting money for the establishment of such an Institution under the powers given by this Bill. Thereupon, I asked the Government whether, in their view, it would be in the competency of the Irish Legislature under this clause to establish a catholic college or Catholic University, and that was the Specific question which the prime Minister desired me to postpone to this stage of the clause. If the right hon. Gentleman is going to answer this question about the Catholic Training Colleges, I Wish to ask him further Whether he thinks this clause does or does not prevent the establishment by the Irish Legislature out of public funds of primary schools all over the country of a strictly denominational character? I am quite certain that the effect of the whole clause taken together is practically to prevent any change in the existing undenominational system of education in Ireland—seeing that Public funds are obtained by taxation from Catholics and protestants alike—in the
    1802
    direction of establishing Catholic places of education throughout the country. Speaking for myself personally, I desire to give the Irish Legislature the power of supporting the Denominational Training Colleges. Speaking again solely for myself, I should hesitate greatly before forbidding the establishment of a Catholic College; but I could not approve of the general system of education—primary and secondary—supported as it is out of public funds—to be placed on a denominational basis. It is true to say that in a great many of the primary schools there is a system in vogue not very easily distinct from a denominational system protected by a Conscience Clause; but it is not true to say that the system in Ireland generally is a denominational system. We want, therefore, to know whether the existing system is protected by the clause as it stands?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am anxious to meet the right hon. Gentleman, who at hit request, or at all events in conformity with the regular rule of business, postponed his questions on this subject until the present stage. In the little I have to say I shall not be argumentative, but simply explanatory. It would be of little value to be argumentative, because we have passed the point when we could amend the clause or discuss Amendments to the clause. I shall, therefore, simply meet what I think is the question put to the Government—namely, as to their view of the effect of the present provisions in the clause with regard to the system of undenominational education in Ireland, embracing the primary schools and reaching up as far, at any rate, as the College. With regard to the University, I do not pretend to say anything, because there are so many ways in which the question might be brought forward that I would require to see the particular form before I could possibly venture to give an opinion on the subject. The restraining provisions on the Irish Legislature in this important matter are two in number. First, there is the provision preventing them from endowing a religion; and, secondly, there is the provision aiming at undue preference in religious matters. It is in the light of these two provisions that I consider the questions which have been put to me by the right hon. Gentleman.

    1803
    As regards the present undenominational schools in Ireland and the Training Colleges, we accept in full the incompatibility of denominational schools in Ireland, and, of course, all future denominational schools, if such should be founded with the provisions of this clause; but we excepted the Training Colleges, though they are strictly of a denominational character, just as in England under our undenominational system, protected by a Conscience Clause, we have Training Colleges which, though they receive support from the State on liberal terms, are of a denominational character, and so much so that if they were set up as independent Institutions, and not purely ministerial to the schools, it would be a question whether they did not come within the meaning of undue preference. Then we are asked to consider the provisions of the clause with respect to Colleges or higher education. It is quite clear that to establish a religious endowment, or anything that is liable to the charge of undue preference, as described by the Bill, cannot he done by the Irish Legislature; but I am not prepared to say on that account that a College establishment of a denominational character, bound by certain conditions, is excluded by the Bill. On the contrary, it would be consistent with what we have done—perhaps it is required in consistence with what we have done with regard to denominational schools—that we should hold this ground: that the Irish Legislature should not be precluded from founding any Denominational College which shall put no compulsion or those outside the denomination in respect to instruction or worship, and which shall elect to its professorships and other appointments, supported by public endowment, irrespective of creed, except such as in their nature are associated with denominational duties. So far as I can judge, that would be in clear analogy with respect to the undenominational schools, and it would, in a sense, correspond with the arrangements of Trinity College which undoubtedly as it stands, however free and open to Roman Catholics it may be by Statute, is, for certain purposes, and especially for the purposes of the Christian ministry, a great Protestant Training Institution. We are all of opinion that under the
    1804
    conditions we have described the founding of such a College would be within the provisions of the Bill as it now stands.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has read us out the carefully-considered judgment of the interpretation which he and his friends are disposed to put upon the clause. Would it be asking too much of the Government to consider whether, when the subject comes on again on Report, they could not introduce formal words to put it beyond doubt in the clause itself that the interpretation the right hon. Gentleman puts on the clause is the interpretation which the Courts will put upon it? I think the distinctions the right hon. Gentleman has drawn are of a subtle character, and upon so important a question as this it is inexpedient to leave it to the Courts to go upon the narrow line which the right hon. Gentleman travels so easily; and I think the Courts would take a broader and probably a cruder view of this clause. The present system of primary education in Ireland is undenominational in this sense: that it belongs to a Board constituted by Protestants and Catholics, which absolutely manages the whole system; and though there is nothing in the regulations of that Board to prevent a clergyman or parish priest being a manager of a school, the system in Ireland is distinctly an undenominational system. I am anxious to know whether the right hon. Gentleman finds it would be impossible for the Irish Legislature to alter that system, and to carry out what hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have never concealed their desire to carry out, and that is, to hand over the schools in which Catholic children attend entirely to Catholic authorities?
    MR. SEXTON: That never was demanded. What was suggested was that where there was a school for different denominations in the same locality attended only by the children of one creed, that such schools might be treated as what they really actually were—namely, as denominational.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I was aware that that was the particular demand put forward by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, on the supposition that the present Board of Education was to go on as it is, and the present system of administra-

    1805
    tion was to last. But what I want to know is, is it to be in their power to modify from top to bottom the whole system of primary education in Ireland in a denominational sense? I am convinced that if the Government answer in the affirmative, they will be raising a hornets nest in this country and in Ireland, and they do not know what they are doing. There is a large section of the people attached to the present system; vast bodies in this country of Nonconformists and others, who certainly would not look, without the gravest suspicion and the greatest fear, on any proposal for allowing this question to come under the influence of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway; and these people, both in Ireland and England, are under the impression at present that their views are carried out and their interests protected in this clause. I understand, however, that the Government do not take that view, and their contention, hitherto uuexpressed—up to this date quite unexpressed—is that the Irish Legislature should be handed over, without any other control than that requiring the imposition of a Conscience Clause, the whole machinery of primary education, from top to bottom, in Ulster as well as the rest of Ireland.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We have never stated that primary education is to be handed over unconditionally, except under the protection of a Conscience Clause. In point of fact, the Government have followed the guidance of the discussion which took place in the House the other day. The right hon. Gentleman says that the system of Irish education is undenominational. In my opinion, it is practically pervaded by a strong denominational taint. If the right hon. Gentleman asks me whether it would be in the power of the Irish Legislature to carry the denominational principle to whatever length they please, I should say it appears to me humbly, and speaking perhaps hastily, upon my own view of the clause, that if they did so they would certainly come into conflict, if not with the provision as to the endowment of religion, certainly with the provision as to undue preference.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There would be no preference in that ease.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I think there would be. With regard to the
    1806
    Education Board in Ireland, I am aware of no feeling hostile to the existence of that Board or of any intention to disturb it.
    MR J. CHAMBERLAIN: Two questions arise from the very important statement of the Prime Minister. The first is, as to whether the interpretation the Government place upon the Bill is the correct interpretation?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE (interposing): Allow mc to interpose just for one moment. I ought to have said, in answer to the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, that, of course, I give no pledge on this matter, and I am not convinced that further precision and further definition is required in the clause. Of course, we ought not to leave this matter in a state of uncertainty, and it is a very fair question for consideration whether the intention of the Legislature did or did not require to be made more distinct and clear.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The first question is, whether the interpretation the Government put upon the Bill is the correct interpretation, and one that would be likely to be upheld it' ever questioned in the Courts? and the second point is, whether the interpretation which the Government now put upon their Bill is in accord with the feeling, the sentiment, and the intention of the majority of the Committee and of the majority of the country. I gather this is the interpretation of the Government: they consider that primary education in Ireland is at the present time denominational, and they consider there is nothing in the Bill to prevent it from being denominational, at all events to the extent to which it is at present, and they think that, in regard to secondary education and the highest education—University education—both these will be controlled by reference to the state of things with regard to denominational education—that is to say, governed by what the Government believe with regard to primary education; and they therefore hold that, provided in principle a Denominational College does not go further in regard to denominationalism than primary education at present, the Irish Legislature under the Bill will be permitted to regard Training Colleges as ancillary to and connected with denominationally-provided schools and will have power to provide such Colleges.

    1807
    Is that the case? The Government, in accordance with that view, holds that the Irish Legislature might found and endow at the public expense—that is to say, at the expense very largely of Protestants, who, although not the most numerous proportion of the population, are at all events the largest taxpayers—a Roman Catholic College, provided conditions were laid down, including a Conscience Clause, which would preclude the idea of compulsion in regard to education in that College. I suppose, in effect, if it gave a Conscience Clause so that anyone might stay away from any particular class or instruction, and, secondly, that it did not make specially favourable regulations with regard to the employment of teachers. I need scarcely say that neither of these conditions could be regarded as of the slightest conceivable value as safeguards. Without making a single regulation in respect to the creed of the teachers to be employed, it is perfectly certain that a Roman Catholic University, governed by a Roman Catholic administration, would of course only employ Roman Catholic teachers. Therefore, if the view of the Government is correct, the Irish Legislature will have the power of founding a purely Denominational Roman Catholic College at the public expense. My first question is, is that interpretation correct? In the interests of the Irish themselves it ought to be made perfectly clear whether they are or are not to have this power. I should have thought that the words which prevent the Irish Legislature from establishing or endowing religion, whether directly or indirectly, would absolutely preclude such a state of things. To say that a Roman Catholic University or College founded in Dublin is not an indirect endowment of religion seems to me to be ignorant of the meaning of the words; therefore, I should say it is a most doubtful point whether the Government interpretation put upon their own view would be upheld in the Courts. I assume the Government will take care to make that clear. We know what their intention is. Their intention is, in the first place, that the Irish Legislature shall have practically full power over the primary system. That is a course which goes against the views of almost everyone who has written or spoken on
    1808
    this subject—against the views, strongly expressed, of all Nonconformist Bodies in England and Scotland, because they (the Government) say that the present system is a purely denominational system; therefore, they will put no restrictions upon the Irish Legislature to prevent it making it more denominational. They can alter the whole administration of this denominational system, whereby every safeguard at present given to secure the unsectarian character of the schools will be taken away. That is the intention of the Government; that is the interpretation of their view. When we come to Training Colleges, absolutely no interference with the Irish Legislature is to be allowed; and not only are the existing Colleges to be supported, but the Irish Legislature are to have a free hand to establish as many more Denominational Training Colleges as it pleases, becauses this is ancillary to primary education. When they have done all this, and when they have made the primary system thoroughly denominational, and handed it entirely over to the control of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, and established as many Training Colleges as they please, they may then go on and make a Roman Catholic University and College, provided only that the Roman Catholics consent that they will not have printed regulations ordaining the creed of the persons whom I hey will select as instructors in the University. I say, the country was not prepared for that. This is a most important change. It shows the necessity of having this great Bill discussed in the country. We have been for more than 20 days upon this Bill, and it is only now, at the end of the 4th clause, that we learn from the Government that they intend to give to the Irish Legislature the power of reversing the legislation which has hitherto prevailed on the subject of sectarian education. When the Bill of 1870 was brought forward, one of the strongest points which I and others urged was that, by the measure the Government were proposing for this country, they were likely to undermine the unsectarian character of the Irish educational system. I do not hesitate to say that at that time you would not have found throughout the whole of England a Nonconformist who was not

    1809
    prepared to go any length to maintain in its entirety the existing educational system in Ireland. I am not prepared to say what the Nonconformist conscience is now; but this I will say, that there must have been many Nonconformists who voted for Government candidates at the late Election who would not have done so had they known that the tin-sectarian system of education in Ireland is to be revolutionised under this Bill.
    MR. PLUNKET: I do not intend to press further the argument just addressed to the Committee by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. It appeared to me his argument was conclusive, and showed that whatever might be the pretences of this section or of any other part of the Bill, there is really no substantial restriction whatever upon the power of the Irish Legislature, which it is proposed to create, to deal as they may please at any future time with the rules and principles which have hitherto controlled, and are still supposed to control, the educational system as at present established in Ireland. I desire to say a word upon another point of view. This clause has been held out to us from the first introduction of the Bill up to the present time as that part of the measure which would give ample protection to the minority in Ireland. There is not a particle of substantial protection in the clause. There is nothing whatever to allay the just apprehensions we feel as to what may be our fate under such a Legislature if it were ever established. Attempts have been made to create a feeling that something was really being done for the protection of the minority by importing certain clauses from the American Constitution. These clauses have been proved to be utterly inappropriate to the situation to which they were to be applied, and utterly valueless as any protection whatever. There is, for instance, "due process of law," that enfant terrible of the Bill which, wherever it occurs, creates the greatest confusion, and upsets all the other arrangement of the drafting of this clause. It is utterly valueless as applied to the system of a country where it really has come, in the truest sense, in a foreign garb, and is wholly unintelligible. Whenever we did ask for a clause from the American Constitution which might have afforded some
    1810
    real protection, we were flatly refused it. We desired that the Petition of Right should be preserved; that the writ of habeas corpus should be preserved, and that other protections, which were introduced into the American Constitution to control the action of State Legislatures—where such protection was much loss needed than it would be in Ireland—should be introduced into this Bill, and in every case our request has been flatly refused. The matters borrowed from the American Constitution are nugatory so far as the protection of the minority in Ireland is concerned, and those which would have some protection have been refused to us. That is, I think, a most unsatisfactory state of things, especially as regards the Institution which I personally am here most directly to represent. We have been refused the adoption of an Amendment which would have given some protection to Trinity College and to the Dublin University, and we were given in exchange only a sub-section which was unintelligible enough when first put upon the Paper, but which has been rendered more unintelligible by the alterations made in it. The words "due process of law" will produce an opposite effect to what was intended by those who framed the Bill, and that is the only protection left to us in the circumstances of danger and difficulty which are admitted by the introduction of the clause into the Bill at all. But it is not only the Dublin University and all the other great Chartered Corporations which are left in this condition of abject terror and danger. There is another matter to which I should like to refer. Yesterday evening an Amendment was brought before the Committee framed for the purpose of protecting perfectly lawful Societies. I will not go into the question of what other Societies would have been protected by that Amendment if it had been introduced, but I do say the way in which the great Society of Freemasons in Ireland has been dealt with is simply scandalous. A clause intended for their protection was introduced in a speech, I think, of great ability and great force. What was the answer given by the Prime Minister? Nothing but a sneer at the Institution which he said himself he hail never thought it worth his while to inquire into the character of, and knew and cared nothing about; and, therefore, he would refuse

    1811
    protection to it against the efforts and influence of those who have again and again denounced it, and, so far as their language conveys any meaning, have uttered most determined threats against its existence. I can tell the Prime Minister this: there are many people in Ireland and England who will be offended and insulted by the way he deals with that great Institution; but every man who does know it—for I had the great honour once of holding high office in that Order—and knows what it is feels the deepest sympathy and greatest respect for it as a Charitable Institution doing a great and good work for orphans and disabled old people, administering large funds in Ireland, and having no enemies in that country except those who might have been made so by that unfortunate opposition which in modern times had been raised against it by the heads of the Roman Catholic Church. That Institution in Ireland is part of the great Institution of Freemasonry in this country presided over by the Heir to the Throne. It is an Institution in which the deepest interest is felt by thousands and tens of thousands in Ireland, and by greater numbers in England, the United States, and all over the world who sympathise and honour a Society for which the Prime Minister yesterday could find nothing but words of obloquy and contempt. ["No, no!"] In answer to a request modestly put forward, the Prime Minister spoke of it as an Institution of which he knew nothing, and about which he cared nothing. ["No, no!"] I can assure those who say "No, no!" that the words of the Prime Minister have produced the greatest possible feeling of irritation and disappointment. However, I do not wish to pursue the subject further. As to this Clause 4, which is offered to the minority in Ireland as a fulfilment of many pledges, not only to them, but to the electors throughout the Three Kingdoms, every so-called protection put into the clause is introduced in such a way as to be wholly worthless, and every protection asked for by those who best know what they have to fear has been ignominiously rejected.
    MR. ROBERT WALLACEsaid, he had put down an Amendment to each sub-section of the clause, as well as a collective Amend-
    1812
    ment to the whole, for the purpose of rejecting each and all of them; but he thought it right to spare the time of the Committee by only moving the rejection of the whole clause. He regarded this clause as anti-Home Rule in its spirit and character. As it stood until an hour ago he read it as a declaration that, while Home Rule was equal to every other political problem that might be presented to it, it curiously and inexplicably broke down in face of the problems raised by the heterogeneous quartette of religion, American extracts, Corporations, and fish. One of these had been withdrawn, and to that extent the character of the clause was less singular; but the spirit of it had in no way been changed or improved by that alteration. The policy of the Pill was most properly to give to Ireland the freest possible hand in the exercise of her own self-government, on the ground that the honour and interests of a self-governing people are perfectly safe, and, indeed, most secure in their own hands; but the policy of the clause was in the teeth of that description. Its policy was, to his mind, one of distrust of the Irish people, and to tie their hands. The Committee had intrusted already to the Irish people far greater powers than those which were restricted by this clause, and had refused to protect the Irish Legislature from temptations far more powerful than any from which they would be protected by this clause. A Catholic people who could be trusted with Divorce and Marriage Laws and a people, whether Catholic or not, who could be trusted with the whole Criminal Law, were qualified to be trusted with any problem or any social question, civil or religious. He might be asked whether he was to allow the Irish people to be absolutely free in their self-government. He would say that he believed far greater evils would arise, and perhaps in the not distant future, out of the restrictions in this clause, than would have arisen from giving the Irish people complete freedom. If he were asked whether he would allow Ireland to begin at once in the possession of her full freedom, or whether she must not be compelled to creep before she walked, he wanted to know why should Ireland be dealt with as a baby nation—put in legislative leading strings and administrative bib and tucker? It might be said it was necessary to conciliate opposition,

    1813
    possibly on both sides of the House. With respect to conciliating hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, he had carefully observed their proceedings during the discussion of the clause in Committee, and he was of opinion that nothing would reconcile them. And he was not surprised at it, because they were debating the Radical distinction between the two Parties—between the Party whose watchword was "Trust in the people" and the Party whose watchword was "Distrust in the people." It was impossible that there could be any reconciliation between Parties with these respective watchwords when any question arose that brought them to close quarters. Even if there had been a desire to conciliate the Opposition, he wished to know why the Government had systematically refused things for which they had expressed the strongest desire, and put upon them things for which they had expressed no desire whatever. He had not seen the conciliatory temper advancing as the discussion proceeded on the other side of the House. He had watched with a great amount of ethical interest the development of virtues in the public characters of the right hon. Gentleman the Loader of the Opposition and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham as these controversies proceeded, and he had not noticed that sweet reasonableness was the virtue that made the most rapid progress in the course of that development. Was the action of the Government intended to conciliate the weak brethren on their own side? He had never thought it was a wise policy to trouble much about weak brethren; but he refused to believe in the existence of many weak brethren on that (the Liberal) side. The weak brethren were getting very much stronger, especially in the power of digestion. They were tired of the prolonged character of the discussions and of their evil effect in preventing the House from dealing with questions of political, industrial, and social reform, and were getting more and more ready to swallow almost anything—a most dangerous and fatal disposition—that was put before them in the shape of Home Rule that would pass in any way in order that they might get to these problems. He wished to refer to the religious sub-sections of the Bill, and he
    1814
    wanted to ask with respect to them, What was the principle upon which these provisions rested, if it was not that Ireland was not fit to be trusted with the control of the State relations to religion? He denied that with respect not only to Ireland, but to every self-governing people. For his own part, he was an uncompromising advocate of the principle of religious equality and an opponent of every form of religious disability; and if he were asked his opinion of the merits of the sub-sections considered merely by themselves, he approved of them, so far as they went, most cordially. But he was equally attached to another great Liberal principle—a principle which was paramount to the principle of religious equality, and, indeed, paramount to all other Liberal principles—he meant the doctrine that a self-governing people ought to be allowed to govern themselves exactly as they pleased. If such people asked him he should advise them to have nothing to do with any religious endowment with religious disability, or educational sectarianism; still, if they refused to take his advice, whilst he should be sorry to think they had made a mistake, he should have no right to interfere; it was the community's own business, and it was for them to say what they were to do with their own resources and to order their own arrangements. He should like to ask his Scotch Home Rule friends a question on this matter. He was not at the present moment an aggressive Home Ruler. He had not received quite enough provocation even yet. The cup of Governmental iniquity was not yet quite full. He was a contingent Scotch Home Ruler, contingent upon the ultimate deliverance of the Scotch people—by no means yet authoritatively declared—as to the whether, and what, or when, of any Home Rule they might desire. He knew there were other friends of his who had gone further ahead. They had gone, it seemed to him, in front of the people; and in a spirit of what he ventured to call anti-democratic self-will they were calling out for Home Rule legislation for Scotland precisely upon the footing of the Home Rule legislation for Ireland. He wanted to ask them how they would like this clause, and how they could consistently press upon the Irish people a clause of this description? Were they

    1815
    prepared to see the control of religions questions and of ecclesiastical questions denied to the Scottish people? If not, why did they press upon Ireland a measure which deprived her of the absolute control of her religious relations? He might be told that the Irish people were willing to accept the clause. He was not sure that that was entirely the fact; but if it were, that was not enough for him. Home Rule had its duties as well as its rights; and if they took great pains and made certain sacrifices in that House to put Ireland in possession of Home Rule, the Irish people were bound to carry away with them every subject that was capable of being an obstruction or aggravation and an irritation in the Imperial Parliament. He wanted to ask what had been the policy of the Liberal Party in connection with these religions and ecclesiastical questions? Was it not that the Scotch ecclesiastical question was to be left to Scotland, the Welsh ecclesiastical question to Wales; and if the English ecclesiastical question had not been proposed to be left to the English people as yet, he presumed it was because the subject was not within the range of practical politics; and in the same spirit he asked ought not the religious and ecclesiastical questions of Ireland to be left entirely in the hands and the control of the Irish people themselves? They might tell him the Irish people did not want religious endowment and educational exclusivism. If that were so, what was the danger of leaving them in the formal control of a matter they were not going substantially to meddle with? He was not sure that the confidence in this matter rested on a sound foundation. He did not see why the Catholic Church should not in the course of time—although at the present moment she might not—desire something in the nature of religious endowment. Other Catholic countries called for and had State support for Churches and State support for educational exclusivism, and why should not Ireland, as its history proceeded, desire the same, more particularly as they were continuing to keep up in England, and possibly in Scotland also, an Established Church and a system of education which, though undenominational in name, was substantially sectarian in character? If such controversies as these were to be raised at
    1816
    all, let them be raised in Ireland where they had a right to settle them. Do not let them be raised here where, after giving Home Rule to Ireland, they had a right to expect they should be delivered from the trouble of dealing with Irish problems. There would then be less chance of danger being done in Ireland, because the expenses would come out of the Irish pocket; whereas if they had to do with the matter in the Imperial Parliament, they would have to pay for it. Let him say a word on one other clause of the Bill. He referred to the 5th subsection, which from its parentage he hoped he might not be considered irreverent if he said it might well be called the "Yankee-Doodle sub-section." They had heard a great deal about insulting Ireland and the Irish people. He took it upon him to say that if ever there was an insult offered to any people as betraying a want, of confidence in them and suspecting them of deficiency in the most elementary principles and faculties of self-government this was exactly the clause. If language had any meaning, the only meaning that could be put upon the clause was that there was a probability (so strong that it required to be legislatively guarded against) that one of the first measures of the Irish Legislature would be to pass an Act for hanging, say, his hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone without due process of law, and with nothing but due process of hemp, and that there might be continual appeals to the country on the question of the Plunket Decapitation Bill, or the Carson Cremation Bill, or the Johnston Chains and Slavery Bill. He could not understand how the clause came to be in the Bill. He supposed it might have been out of compliment to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy in recognition of the splendid success of the American Commonwealth—he meant, of course, the book, not the Republic. He would only say in this connection, "Oh that my right hon. Friend had not written the book!"—at all events, until after the Home Rule Bill was passed; for when an author had written a splendidly successful book, it was not in human nature for him not to desire that the world, or some part of it, should take a leaf or two out of it, to say nothing of the whole edition. He hoped that the responsible editor of the Bill, the Prime Minister,

    1817
    would really send this clause back to the place whence it came, in the usual form—"Returned, with thanks, as unsuitable to our columns, which, besides, are pressed for space." As to the 6th and other sub-sections, he should only submit to the Committee whether it was not pertinent to ask that if such questions—even though they were petty in many of their characteristics and relations—were to be left here to be a source of possible interruption and irritation, where was the benefit to Great Britain to come from the passing of this Bill? They were told that "Ireland blocked the way," and that when Home Rule passed it would block the way no longer. That all depended on the completeness of the powers with which the Irish Legislature was endowed. But if the irritations arising from these questions were to be left here, then they should have Dublin resounding with Ireland, while Westminster would be simultaneously resounding with Ireland. In short, it would be, "Ireland; Ireland everywhere, and not a drop to Britain!" There was one other reason which weighed with him perhaps more gravely than any he had mentioned why he desired to see this clause, if possible, out of the Bill. He desired to remove every vestige of an excuse for the monstrous and dangerous proposition which he believed would be made by-and-bye, to retain the Irish Members in this House with full powers to deal with British questions after they had been gifted with a Legislature of their own for the transaction of their Irish affairs. That proposition was of a double character—it imported not only Home Rule for Ireland, but Irish Rule for Britain. He had been sorry to observe that certain Irish Members appeared to be clutching at these unjust and altogether intolerable powers, for the trumpery reason that certain Irish matters which they did not seem very unwilling to leave behind them were to be left in this Imperial Parliament. In that light the provision of this clause filled him with suspicion and foreboding. The way in which the matter stood—if he might be allowed the language of illustration—was this: "You and I have been keeping house together for a great many years, but you are leaving with all your belongings to go into a brand-new house—which, by the way, has been
    1818
    to a large extent built by my exertions. There is an old sideboard and a poker which you do not find it convenient to take along with you at this moment, and which you desire me to give house-room for; but, no sooner have I consented, than on the strength of my good nature and the alleged necessity of looking after your articles of vertu, you insist that you must have the full run of the house—my house now by the hypothesis—with your latch-key, and your bedroom, and your four meals a day, and your hot and cold water, and all the modern conveniences as before, and exactly when you like." Now that was too much. He said: "Take away your effete sideboard, your duty poker; who wants your ridiculous chattels? Mind you your own house and let me mind mine." If his hon. Friends from Ireland insisted upon having some of their property left behind, then in that case he would say, "Leave it at your own risk. You must not quarter yourself on me on the pretence of looking after your things." No doubt the Irish Members would vote against the omission of the clause—that was to say, they insisted on leaving some of their property behind them; but in that case they left it at their own risk. He did not want their blessed things. Take them away, and if they would not, at all events take themselves away. Let them send for their things when they wanted them, and they might rely upon it that, so far as he was concerned, they should be sent by return of parcels post. These were the grounds on which he opposed the clause. His was the action not of an anti-Home Ruler, but of a thoroughgoing Home Ruler in favour of a more thoroughgoing form of Home Ride than that which the Government had placed before the Committee and the country, and on the strength of these reasons he had considered it right to make his protest in this way, and to move the omission of the clause.
    Moved, "That the Clause be omitted." —(Mr. Robert Wallace.)
    LORD R. CHURCHILLsaid, the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down was undoubtedly interesting, forcible, and witty; but he should like to ask the hon. Member what was the meaning of it? The hon. Member had favoured the House with

    1819
    one or two of these speeches. Nevertheless, their outcome had been that the hon. Member had voted with the Government throughout the proceedings on this Bill. The votes of the hon. Member pointed in one direction and his speeches in another. The hon. Member had said that if he did not make the speech he had just delivered he might have been misunderstood; but the fact was, the hon. Member was the most misunderstood man in the House, because he never could bring himself to vote in accordance with the views he expressed in his speeches. The hon. Member had said that the Government ought to go much further in order to gratify the Irish people; but he now expressed such a want of confidence in the Irish Representatives that he wanted to get rid of them altogether. The hon. Member said that this clause placed no trust in the Irish people; that its restrictions would produce great irritation in Ireland, and would be useless for good but most effective for harm. The hon. Member said that the great difference between himself and his Party and the Unionists was that the former had adopted the principle of trusting the people. But now the hon. Member said that the Government had inserted this clause in the Bill because they could not trust the people.
    MR. R. WALLACEsaid, that his contention was that the Government had not trusted the Irish people sufficiently.
    LORD R. CHURCHILLsaid, he thought the argument of the hon. Member went far beyond that. The hon. Member ought not to make speeches of the kind that he had just delivered unless he was prepared to act up to them. The hon. Member laid down without any qualification whatever that the Irish people ought to be allowed to govern themselves exactly as they pleased in all things. The hon. Member would give the Irish Legislature the power of doing what they chose with regard to the endowment of education and religion. He said that the Irish people would change in their feeling about this question; but if the hon. Member was honest in his condemnation of the proposals of this Bill, he ought to vote against them. He did not see how he reconciled trust as to endowment in one case with distrust in another, and he feared the hon. Member's manner of dealing with the question would turn the
    1820
    whole Bill into ridicule. It was difficult to conceive that he would vote for clauses that he thought so ridiculous. With regard to the attitude of the Government, he should like to refer, if not out of Order, to the Amendment brought forward last night. He could not understand how the Chief Secretary could allow a Bill for which he was responsible to be turned against an Institution like the Masonic Body, which had many merits, and which had never been detected in any errors of policy or in errors in the management of its affairs. Why should such an Institution be treated as if it were the most mischievous and worthless Body that ever existed? Why should it be left without the smallest protection for its property—property which it had in Dublin and in many parts of Ireland—when, refraining from the expression of political opinion of any sort, it was quietly devoting itself to its own charitable work, in which in Ireland, as in other places, it had accomplished so much good? As the Bill stood, the Masonic Body in Ireland was left to the mercy of the Roman Catholic Bishops and priests. He did not know whether the Chief Secretary would condescend to notice what he said; but if this was the way in which the rights of Institutions were to be treated in Ireland by the Chief Secretary, they could easily imagine how those rights would be treated by the Irish Parliament. He could not conceive anything which was calculated to give a greater shock to the English people than the treatment accorded to Freemasons by the Prime Minister.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The noble Lord has failed show, as he could not help failing to show, that I have treated Freemasons in any objectionable way whatever. Though not a Freemason myself, a great many of my friends belong to that Body. I know, by accident, a great deal about Freemasons both in England and in Ireland, and I go entirely with the noble Lord, as also with the Mover of the Amendment Inst night, in the praise—and all the praise—bestowed upon that Body. I am well aware of the good and charitable works which Freemasons perform. There may be features connected with the Body which do not impress me with admiration; but as to the

    1821
    substantial worth of the Body, I entirely agree with what the noble Lord and what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. D. R. Plunket) have said. But I must deny that my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) has spoken of Freemasons in language of obloquy. The noble Lord was not here—
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: I read it this morning.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The noble Lord read it. Yes; but everybody who listened to the language of my right hon. Friend, without desiring to import a hostile meaning into it, must admit that he said nothing about Freemasons which was calculated to wound the feelings of anybody. The Prime Minister's argument against the Amendment was that it was too wide, and that it would cover an enormous number of Associations with which no rational man would deny that the Irish Legislature ought to be competent to deal. That was the foundation of the resistance which the Government offered to the Amendment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I would just like to say that so closely did the Chairman of Committees think the Amendment connected with the Freemasons that he disallowed a subsequent Amendment mentioning the Freemasons by name, clearly showing that the first Amendment had reference to Freemasons alone.
    MR. J. MORLEY: It is quite true that Freemasons were not included in the scope of the Amendment by words; but the speech of the Mover was entirely devoted to Freemasons and works of the Association. But there was nothing said to show that while in the existing state of things there is a hostile feeling in the mind of the Roman Catholic hierarchy against Freemasons, there was nothing to show that the Irish Legislature would be animated by the same feeling. I may be right or I may be wrong in this argument, but I wish to disclaim the imputation cast upon me of thinking or doing anything which would indicate hostility—hostility which I do not feel, and which it is impossible I should feel, towards a Body with respect to whom I entertain nothing but sympathy, and, in many respects, admiration.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)said, he did not know how English and Scotch Radicals—who had declared that the question of Church Establishment and Endowment must be left to be settled by the separate peoples who made up the United Kingdom —were going to deny this very right to the Irish people as they did in that clause. It was perfectly well understood that the Scottish Establishment would not endure any longer than Scottish opinion permitted it. This applied also to Wales; and he supposed the English might claim to settle the matter for themselves also. Would the Radicals not grant the same right to the Irish people as to the others? why did they not do so? He knew the reason. If they had told the English people at the last Election that the Irish Parliament was to be at liberty to endow Roman Catholicism, the present Government would not have been in Office. He might be told that the Irish Members consented to this. They knew what Dr. Doyle, Bishop of Kildare, said before a Committee of this House in 1829—that the Church Establishment in Ireland would never be touched. Dr. Doyle could not bind his successors. Neither could the Irish Members of to-day. He had always held that religion could be endowed, not directly, but indirectly through education. Let them take the case of primary education. There was no such thing as a denominational system of education in Ireland. There were some thousands of mixed schools which were undenominational in attendance, and the whole theory of the National system of education was not denominational; it was non-sectarian, and the Irish Legislature, by the vote of English and Scotch Radicals, was to have the power of turning this non-sectarian system into a sectarian system. That was exactly the power that was being given. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. R. Wallace) told them he would let the Irish Legislature do as it liked. Was that what his constituents understood at the General Election? They were handing over this power of turning a non-sectarian into a sectarian system: and, so far as they (the Liberal Party) handed it over, they would be responsible for the result. See bow it could be worked. What had been the desire of hon. Members below

    1823
    the Gangway opposite all along? Had they given one ray of hope during the years they had sat there that in dealing with this education question they would not be guided by the Roman Catholic Bishops? What was the claim of the Roman Catholic Bishops? Why, that they were supreme in the region of faith and of morals, and whatever else might be in that region education clearly was, and, therefore, he maintained that the gentlemen who would compose the Irish Legislature, so far as education was concerned, would be absolutely under the control of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. They could not escape from their own convictions and principles, and to do them credit they had never shown the slightest desire to oppose their Bishops in any way. What would be easier than this: Suppose the Irish Legislature desired, in obedience to the Bishops, to hand over to the Christian Brothers and the other Religious Orders in Ireland the education of the people, the Roman Catholic lay teachers would have to be got rid of; but that would be easy, because they might be dismissed by the parish priests. ["No!"]
    An hon. Member: There is an appeal.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: To Sir Patrick Keenan?
    An hon. Member: No, to the Diocesan Authority.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: An appeal from the parish priest to a Convocation of priests, forsooth! Suppose the Irish Legislature did this, what would happen? These Religious Orders could not hold property—
    MR. FLYNN: They do; the Christian Brothers have plenty of property.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The individual Brother could not hold property. So far as the Order was concerned, they were Christian Socialists. The maintenance of a Christian Brother cost a very small sum. He would get, £100 or £120 a year as a first-class teacher, and the difference between his salary and the cost of his maintenance would be banded over to the Church. What was that but endowment? It was a most effective form of endowment. If this Legislature was ever set up that was exactly what would
    1824
    take place in Ireland. Again, as regarded higher education, what would have happened if in 1886 the Prime Minister had gone to the country with the declaration that as part of the Home Rule policy he proposed to give the Irish Legislature power to set up a sectarian University in Ireland. Hon. Members on the other side know my views on that point. At any rate, the hon. Member for North Kerry knows them. Sectarian education—a Roman Catholic University set up under the auspices and direction of the Imperial Parliament was one thing, but such a University set up by the Irish Legislature and dominated by the Roman Catholic hierarchy was an entirely different thing; and what the Government were doing—and let there be no mistake about it—was sectarianising the educational system of Ireland from the bottom to the top. This Debate would be read by Nonconformists in England and by Presbyterians in Scotland. Home Rule in the abstract was one thing, but Home Rule in the concrete was another. The electors of Linlithgow gave evidence of that the other day.
    An hon. MEMBER: What about Swansea?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The electors had not the slightest idea of what the vague phrase "Home Rule" meant. The Government had refused to tell them what it meant; but now the Bill was before them the Government would see the result in due time. The electors of the country when they voted for Home Rule, had not the slightest idea that it meant giving the Irish Legislature power to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act, and to throw Ulstermen in gaol by the hundred without trial, and to vary contracts. Then, as to Freemasons. He himself was not a Freemason and did not belong to any secret society, but the Freemasons left to the tender mercies of an Irish Parliament would be in a very bad way indeed. Why did he say that? Because they had been denounced as well as every other secret society by the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church. Did anyone mean to tell him that the Irish Bishops and priests, who practically controlled elections in Ireland, were not, going to carry out their convictions on these matters as citizens? Why, they would

    1825
    not be the men they were if they did not. They would carry out their convictions in this Legislature, and the result would be that pains and penalties would be imposed by the Irish Legislature on all such secret societies. Here was a point which would touch hon. Members below the Gangway, who were interested in the temperance movement. Twenty years ago the Order of Good Templars, of which he was not a member, had been introduced into Ireland, and more than 500 Roman Catholic working men in the City of Dublin joined that Order. Three months after they joined, the late Cardinal Cullen issued a Pastoral denouncing the Order and everyone belonging to it, and these men bail to make their choice between leaving it or being excommunicated from the Church. That was the kind of spirit to which the Government promised to hand over the Presbyterians and Methodists of Ireland. It would be absolutely impossible, even if they were willing, for such men as the hon. Member for North Monaghan (Mr. Diamond), who had announced himself an Ultramontane and Papist first, above everything else, to control this spirit. This clause showed what Home Rule really meant. They had it now unmasked, and the constituencies would know how to deal with it and the Government at the next General Election. [Cries of "Closure!"]
    MR. GOSCHEN: We have no desire to prevent the Government having this clause to-day. We are prepared to pass this clause to-day. We part with it, knowing that it is so bungled that new words have had to be introduced, and that constructed as it is it does not even carry out the intentions of the Government. We find that the safeguards which we expected are not within its four corners, and subjects such as the prevention of bounties which we wished to put in have been refused by the Government. We have dealt with great rapidity with this clause. Such subjects as the habeas corpus, liberty of the Press, and other matters, that would have been discussed for days if they had come up as substantive questions, we have allowed the Government to have with a rapidity for which we may almost reproach ourselves. After all this, what do we find? If we had really known what was in the
    1826
    clause we might have taken a great deal more time. But what, I say, do we find now? That, contrary to our general impression, this clause contains powers I for the new Parliament which, if they had been put as substantive proposals before the House, would at least have taken a week—proposals worse from one point of view than those which practically wrecked the Government in 1873. These proposals go infinitely beyond those of 1873. And we have not known that they were in the clause. Why did we not know it? Why did not the Government candidly tell the Committee at an earlier date what was in the clause?
    An hon. MEMBER: We did.
    MR. GOSCHEN: No, the Government refused to tell us until to-day that it gives power to endow a Roman Catholic University. And oven as regards primary education no single Member of the Committee, unless perhaps it was some Irish Member—and I do not know that even they saw the paper which has been read out—knew the exact scope of the Government proposal. This information has been concealed from the Members of the Committee, and no Minister has got up to excuse the fact I hat the Committee has been kept in the dark during the whole of the Debate. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham in a powerful speech denounced the conduct of the Government, but the Chief Secretary, who could and time to get up and speak as to the Freemasons, did not reply to the right hon. Gentleman. And why? Because he had no answer, and because he did not wish to bring this question before the country. Well, it will be our business to bring it before the constituencies. I do not know whether hon. Members opposite will do the same. I wonder what story they will tell on the platforms —whether they will say that the safeguards in the Bill are drawn so obscurely that nobody can tell what they mean, and what they authorise the Irish Legislature to do. After several attempts had been made during the course of these Debates to elicit the real intentions of the Government, it was found that either they did not themselves realise their intentions as to a Roman Catholic University, or that they did not agree with the hash Members or with the

    1827
    Irish episcopacy. It was evident that time had to be taken, and it was necessary to put off the discussion until the end of the clause, when it is no longer in the power of the Committee to amend it in the direction which I believe the country would have it amended in. That is the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, and we now know that there is to be a Roman Catholic University endowed out of the general taxation of Ireland.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The Prime Minister said a College.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Well, College. At present the University has not been settled; that must be kept perhaps for the Report stage. [Cries of "Divide!"] We have been deceived—and I call it deception if it was in the mind of the Government. That is the dilemma they are in. Either they knew what they intended, and they ought have told the House, or they had no policy, and have only adopted one at the last moment. I rather suspect the latter alternative. At any rate, their conduct this evening will remain as a monument of as much mismanagement as has ever been crowded into a week necessary for the discussion of the subject.
    Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday next.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  They have agreed to—Weights and Measures Bill, Duchy of Cornwall Bill, Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill, Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11) Bill, Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 3) Bill.
  Amendment to—Voluntary Conveyances Bill [Lords].
  Amendments to—Railway Servants (Hours of Labour) Bill, Water Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under 'The Gas and Waterworks Facilities Act, 1870, relating to Bromyard Gas,
  1828
  Llanfairfechan, and Aber Gas, Otley Gas, and Swindon Gas." [Gas Orders Confirmation (Bromyard, &c.) Bib [Lords].

  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (BROMYARD, &C.) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 400.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

GOVERNMENT OF SCOTLAND.

  RESOLUTION.
  DR. CLARKmoved the following Amendment:—
  To leave out all the words after the word "That," in order to insert "inconsequence of the pressure of Public Business, and the failure of this House to deal with Scottish affairs in accordance with the wishes of the Scottish people, it is desirable to devolve upon the Scottish Legislature all matters exclusively relating to Scotland."
  He said, he thought there was no difficulty in proving the preamble of his Motion—namely, that there was such a congestion of Business at Westminster that it was impossible for Scotch Business to be transacted. The present Session would no doubt pass away without a single Bill having been passed into law for Scotland. The difficulty was by no moans a new one. Ever since the Reform Bill of 1867 there had been such a congestion of Business that the House of Commons had been utterly unable to get through one-half the Business it ought to get through. To show that it was not due to what was called Irish obstruction or to any temporary causes, but was permanent, he would quote two authorities, the Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone) and the late Prime Minister (Lord Salisbury). The Prime Minister went down to Aberdeen 22 years ago, before Isaac Butt entered Parliament, and, in accepting the freedom of the city, apologised to the

  1829
  Scotch people for the condition of their Business in Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "I admit, without the least hesitation, that the present condition of the action of Parliament with regard to Scotch Business is unsatisfactory. You have much reason to complain—or at least to regret, for I am not sure about the complaint—but you have much reason to regret, and I have deep reason, as have my colleagues, to regret that we have not been able to deal with several subjects interesting to the feelings of Scotland, and material to its welfare, with the promptitude that we should all have desired.… The difficulty is a very great one. Parliament is overtaxed: it performs a great deal more work, and has probably at all times—most certainly for the last 40 years—performed a great deal more work, than any other Legislative Assembly in the world.… But besides temporary difficulties, there are real difficulties of a more serious kind in the discharge of the work of legislation. The amount of demand upon Parliament, the province marked out by public opinion for legislation is greatly enlarged, and that which was, even when my life began quite sufficient for the strength of the House of Commons, has now grown to such a height and mass that that strength is Insufficient to meet it. Parliament is now expected to regulate the relations of life between different classes and to provide for public wants and against public evils of a description that were formerly believed to be altogether beyond its competence and its power. Legislation upon health, legislation upon atmosphere, legislation upon water, legislation upon drainage, legislation upon labour in all its relations—these are topics which, in few words, contain the key to a vast mass of work waiting to be done and which it has not been found possible to overtake.… But if doctrines of Home Rule are to be established in Ireland I protest on your behalf that you will be just as well entitled to it in Scot land, and, moreover, I protest on behalf of Wales, in which I live a good deal, and where there are 800,000 people who to this day, such is their sentiment of nationality, speak hardly anything except their own Celtic tongue—a larger number than speak the Celtic tongue, I apprehend, in Scotland, and a much larger number than speak it, I apprehend, in Ireland—I protest on behalf of Wales that it will be entitled to Home Rule also."
  Lord Salisbury went down to Glasgow a couple of years ago to receive the freedom of that city, and practically the words he used and the words of the present Prime Minister were identical. Lord Salisbury said—
  "I believe that the evils which we all complain of in the proceedings of Parliament are not due to the fault of Parliament or of those who guide it. It is very common to say Parliament would do very well if it were properly led; but when you observe that the same complaint arises in Ministry after Ministry, and gets worse rather than better, and when you sec that the cleverest men who have to lead the
  1830
  House of Commons effect no essential improvement in this particular evil of which we complain—the delay and imperfection of legislation—you naturally conclude that this evil does not lie in the men, but lies in the system and the task which they have to do.… Social questions are pressing upon us with unpleasant proximity. They are very difficult to solve—most difficult of all to solve—because many of them depend for their solution upon the circumstances of the particular locality in which they are raised. A solution is good for one part of the country which might not be good for another part of the country. Again, there are questions which it is difficult to solve in a mechanical manner by putting a formula upon the Statute Book, but it would be possible to solve by citizens legislating for citizens whom they personally know. Personal interest, personal proximity, personal investigation into the conditions of these social problems by those who have influence and power in the locality where they arise might often furnish a way out of the perplexity and avoid raising all the passions by which the fabric of our society is threatened, if only we would give greater trust to Local Bodies and not insist on piling upon the Central Legislature work for which it is unfit, and which it is unable satisfactorily to perform."
  As a matter of fact, Scotch Business was practically in the same position as it was immediately alter the last Reform Bill. Only two Hills had been passed for Scotland since 1885. One of these was a measure which was intended to solve the Scotch University question, and which constituted a Commission, some of whose Ordinances the Scotch Members had compelled them to withdraw, and whose work, to till appearances, would have to be done over again when the opportunity arose; whilst the other was the Burgh Police Bill. The last-named was chucked through the House anyhow, the result being that the Secretary for Scotland, before the Bill came into operation, had to bring in an amending Bill. There was no doubt other Bills passed, but they were consequent upon English legislation. Mr. McLagan's Permissive Bill had received the support of a large majority of Scotch Members for three Parliaments, and during the last eight or nine years Scotch Members had ballotted for a place for this Bill, but they had found it utterly impossible to get a hearing for their cause. The liquor traffic in Scotland was going on causing misery, poverty, and premature death, yet the Scotch Members who were desirous of improving the state of things could not get a hearing. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Bryce) had a Bill in his

  1831
  hands for some years, and last year he withdrew it in order that he might move a Resolution on the subject. He carried that Resolution, but was just as far from having the Bill passed as ever. He (DR. Clark) had a little Bill in reference to the Scotch crofters, but for six years be had only once been able to get a bearing. But this was not the whole of the Scotch case. Scotchmen believed that they were very much overtaxed, and that they got far too little money from Imperial sources. As a matter of fact, the country that Great Britain exploited was not India, or the Colonies, or Ireland, but Scotland. Three years ago the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) proposed that, instead of grants, Scotland and Ireland should receive a proportion of certain taxes. The Scotch Members had boon very anxious to know on what the proportion proposed to be given was based, as they were certain that someone was blundering. It had now been discovered that, as far as Ireland was concerned, her proportion of the Excise Duties had been erroneously stated to the extent of over £360,000, and Returns had shown that at least £1,500,000 was overpaid by Scotland to the Imperial Exchequer, yet the Scotch Members could not even get time to have a Committee appointed on the subject of financial relations this Session. But even when an opportunity was obtained for bringing on Scotch Business Scotch opinion was ignored, and the Scotch Members were overpowered by the English Members. When the late Government wished to make certain changes under the Local Government Bill the Scotch Members naturally wanted to have the question solved in accordance with Scotch wishes, and the Scotch Representatives were four or five to one in favour of certain proposals, but the English Members came in and overwhelmed them. Things could not go on in this fashion. What was the use of Scotch Members coming to Westminster if they could not do anything? There was only one remedy for the present state of congestion, and that was devolution. He did not care what form it took. Some of his hon. Friends, and, he believed, the Government, were willing to have a Scotch Grand Committee; but that did not meet the difficulty, because they could not get their
  1832
  Bills read a second time. Things were getting worse and worse every year. Civilisation was developing, and the democracy was getting more and more powerful, the result being that more legislation was wanted. He had no objection to the Scotch Members meeting in Scotland to do Scotch work and then coming to Westminster for Imperial business. The hon. Member for Wigton (Sir H. Maxwell), who had given notice of opposition to the Motion, seemed to think that he (DR. Clark) was desirous of repealing the Union. He admitted that the Union had been a good thing for Scotland, but it had been a much better thing for England. He thought it would be well that Scotchmen should do their Imperial business in London, but that they should solve their own Scottish difficulties in their own way, and in a way that no Imperial Parliament could do. He did not want to repeal the Union, but he should like to devolve certain powers on a Legislature in Scotland, and he hoped on one in Wales and one in England. The Imperial Parliament would then be free to do its Imperial work. Even the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) had said on the Second Reading of the Home Rule Bill that, if it had been a Federal Bill, he would have supported it. Every sensible man had come to the conclusion that the only rational outcome of this business was Home Rule all round. Why had the Liberal Leaders, instead of helping on the Scottish Home Rule cause, done their best to crush it? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Morley) had stated the reason. He said England was a Conservative country, and it was necessary to have Scotch Liberal Members in the British Parliament in order to obtain Liberal legislation. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said, in 1890, that he was in the same position with regard to Scotch Home Rule as he was with regard to Scotch Disestablishment, and he afterwards voted for Scotch Disestablishment because he saw the majority of the Scotch Members were in favour of it. Scotch Members were about to have an opportunity of expressing their opinion on the question of Scotch Home Rule. There was no doubt that the movement was making progress in Scotland. On the last occasion when the matter was

  1833
  brought forward only one Scotch Member voted against the Motion, and he met the fate he deserved, as he was defeated at the General Election. In 1889 the Motion was rejected by a majority of 121; in 1890 it was rejected by a majority of 40; in 1891 it was counted out, and last year it was rejected by a majority of 20. The Liberal Party was pledged to Home Rule, and all the Scottish Liberal Associations were pledged to it. The Scotch people were not hysterical on the question, but they were calm and strong in their resolve to obtain the management of their local affairs.
  MR. R. T. REIDin seconding the Motion, said, he thought his hon. Friend was entitled to say that the whole of the Liberal Party in Scotland was in favour of the principle he had affirmed, and that those Members of the Cabinet who sat for Scottish constituencies had delivered themselves in the same sense. Nor did he question that they would vote in the same sense. The reasons which had created the decided feeling were mainly discontent with the manner in which Scottish Business had for years been transacted by the House. When a Conservative Government was in power the wishes of the minority alone were considered, while the Liberal Party, when in power, had so much other business. The Scottish Members were regarded as so loyal under all circumstances that their patience was over-taxed. Unless Scottish business was more properly attended to in the future, there would not be a Liberal majority from Scot hind very long. This year things had been worse than usual, although he did not blame the Secretary for Scotland, to whom he tendered his thanks for the fearlessness and courage with which he had faced the questions which came before him. They all knew that a good deal of time would have to be consumed over the Home Rule Bill; but he confessed he was not prepared for the prodigious waste of time which was threatening to bring Parliamentary Institutions into contempt. Knowing how the Session would be occupied, the Scottish Members proposed to the Government that there should be a Standing Committee of Scottish Members to deal with the Second Reading and Committee stage of
  1834
  purely Scottish Bills. There had been no reply to the suggestion, and he regretted the Government had not seen their way to grant the proposal. If it had been granted, they might have carried through those stages Kills relating to liquor, the land, the Church, and registration. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to say that next year such a Committee would be appointed. The proposal was, of course, merely a temporary expedient, intended to meet a special emergency. No one, he thought, would regard it as a final solution of the question. The real difficulty was the absolute inability of the House to deal with the mass of business which devolved upon it, and which was increasing every year. Supply had to be left to the "dog days," and who could doubt that great extravagance would arise from that? Indian finance was neglected. The right to move the Adjournment of the House had been abridged. Standing Committees had been ineffective. A stringent Closure had been submitted to, and the private Member had been absolutely extinguished. His hon. Friend the Member for Wigton (Sir H. Maxwell) was going to move the rejection of this Motion. Would he, or anybody, suggest what remedy there was for the present state of things, unless it be devolution of business; and, if so, how could they have it otherwise than in accordance with those differences of nationality, history, traditions, legal tribunals, and laws which separated Scotland, England, and Ireland? His hon. Friend also would tell them that there was no serious wish in Scotland for this proposal. Well, he would best judge of that when he saw how many Scottish Members would go into the Lobby to-night in its favour. As he came front the same part of the country, his hon. Friend would not dispute that all tin? candidates in that district who stood for the present Government advocated this Home Rule; and, for himself, he believed that the people of Scotland did seriously desire to have some efficient means of getting their business done properly and with despatch, to have their money spent economically and not squandered, to have their grievances soberly considered and temperately redressed. There was no desire to term

  1835
  this a Nationalist movement, or to break up old traditions. He put forward this claim as a question of business. He did not think there could be the slightest question in the mind of the most timid Unionist of the disruption of the Empire by reason of what they asked. He himself felt that for the sake of Scotland it would be most undesirable if they were to be otherwise than in the closest touch with the rest of the Kingdom. Nor could he regard with equanimity the desolate condition of England and Wales if deprived of Scotland's assistance. All they wanted was the opportunity of doing the business which was peculiar to themselves. The chief causes which made Home Rule for Ireland difficult were the Ulster question, the predominance of Roman Catholicism, and the cruel and ungenerous attacks upon the private characters of the Irish Members, concerning which he could not sufficiently express his abhorrence. But in Scotland they had no Ulster question, no predominant Roman Catholicism, and, as to private character, if anything they were eminently respectable. They had no Plan of Campaign or boycotting; they had not even criminal conspirators; they were not even afflicted with the mysterious malady which made Irishmen incapable of managing their own affairs, although they were competent of managing the affairs of other countries, and they were on excellent terms with their police. If it appeared that the country which was uncommonly canny was asking Home Rule merely because it found that this House of Commons was unable to transact their business, surely this consideration would go some way to reconcile even the most timid of the English electors to the necessity of devolving upon the people of Scotland business they were aide to undertake. They had no desire to prejudice the case of Ireland; but after they had done their best for the purpose of carrying a great act of justice and policy towards Ireland, they would ask, and they had not the slightest doubt that they would be able to secure, an efficient and thorough measure by which Scotland might be able to discharge the business which had been so long in arrear.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to insert the words "in
  1836
  consequence of the pressure of public business, and the failure of this House to deal with Scottish affairs in accordance with the wishes of the Scottish people, it is desirable to devolve upon a Scottish Legislature all matters exclusively relating to Scotland,"—(DR. Clark,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR. H. MAXWELLwho had on the Notice Paper an Amendment
  To leave out all after the word "That," and to insert "having regard to the advantage which Scotland has derived from the Legislative Union with England, and in the absence of any serious expression of Scottish opinion in favour of its readjustment, this House declines to entertain the proposal for a separate Legislature,"
  said, Members in all parts of the House would agree that some of the observations of the Mover and Seconder were worthy of the consideration of the House; and whatever conclusion they might come to by their vote, the time would not have been altogether wasted which had been taken up in enabling at least some of the Scottish Members to ventilate grievances which seemed to be so heavily upon their minds. When, however, they considered that the Business of Supply had been interrupted at this period of the Session to discuss so large a proposition as that of the hon. Member, he thought they would not all be unanimous in congratulating him upon having selected a propitious moment for bringing it before the House. He had invited the House, not for the first time, to join with him in a proposition, and in advocating a course which, as everybody knew, must, if it was carried to its ultimate conclusion, be detrimental to the best interests of Scotland. He supposed there was no one present who believed that if this Motion was carried and prosecuted to a practical conclusion by the establishment of a separate Legislature in Edinburgh it would stop at the petty Chamber described by the Seconder of the Motion.
  MR. R. T. REID: I said nothing about a petty Chamber.
  SIR H. MAXWELL: The hon. and learned Gentleman said nothing about a petty Chamber, but he described a Legislative Chamber with petty powers.
  MR. R. T. REID: I never said a word about its powers; but if the hon.

  1837
  Baronet wishes to know my opinion, I will tell him that the proposed Legislature ought to have absolute power over everything solely connected with Scotland.
  SIR H. MAXWELLsaid, that was exactly what the hon. and learned Member stated in his speech. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman remember that for the last 28 business days in that House they had been endeavouring to distinguish between Imperial questions and Irish local questions, and they had made very little progress, indeed, in the solution of the problem? The complaint of hon. Members from Ireland was that they had restricted too much the powers of the proposed Irish Legislature, and given to it too much the character of a petty Chamber. One felt a curiosity to know what wore the opinions of the Prime Minister on this point. The right hon. Gentleman was a Scottish Member. It so happened that his utterances on this question in the past had boon even more Sphinx-like than usual. In the Debate on the Motion of the hon. Member for Caithness in 1889 the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "I do not feel myself to be in a condition to deal with the question at the present moment definitely and on its merits."
  One naturally turned to the right hon. Gentleman's latest utterances, and that was during the General Election last year. Speaking at Dalkeith on the 6th of July last year, he was asked his opinion about Scottish Home Rule, and what was the right hon. Gentleman's answer?
  "Let me tell you that it is not given to human nature to dive into the depths of this question at a moment's notice."
  If that utterance was not Sphinx-like in its characteristics it was at least Delphic. The Prime Minister was not present to-night. The "old Parliamentary hand" to-night was, for the purposes of this Debate, a vanished hand. They must look to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland to reveal to them the mind of the Government on this question. He would not venture to forecast what the right hon. Gentleman's utterances might be, further than to say that he was pretty confident it would be to the effect that when it was worth the while of the Government to give their support to this Resolution, in this, as
  1838
  upon other questions, they would adopt the course which would secure them the greatest number of votes. [Ministerial cries of "Oh!"] Yes; they had done that repeatedly. That was Opportunism, and nobody would deny that this was an Opportunist Government. The hon. Member for Caithness had referred to popular feeling upon this question in Scotland. Neither by Petition to the House, nor by public meeting, nor by any other evidence had the people of Scotland given any serious intimation of their desire for a separate Legislature in Edinburgh. There was nothing more certain than this—and anyone who knew Scotland would bear him out in the assertion—that no sooner had they a Legislature in Edinburgh than they would have an agitation on foot for one in Glasgow. None of his own constituents had addressed him on the subject—no one, indeed, from Scotland—with one single exception. He was waited upon the previous day in the Lobby of the House by an official of the Jacobite White Rose League who warned him against the serious course he was taking in opposing a National movement, and asked if he was aware that the result of the election in Linlithgowshire was due to irritation caused by the slight which the Prime Minister had cast on the Home Rule movement. He congratulated hon. Members opposite on their new ally. He had no doubt that if this movement for Home Rule in Scotland went on, with the assistance and approval of the Jacobite League, it would also have, as Irish Home Rule had already received, the approval and assistance of the Vatican. He could well understand how the hon. Member for Caithness exacted applause from half-educated or partially educated audiences by the version he gave of the proceedings of this House in regard to Scottish affairs. But bad that hon. Member no recollection that Session after Session proposals were made by the late Government for dealing with the Private Bill Procedure for Scotland, and how they were met?
  MR. HUNTER: They were wretched.
  SIR H. MAXWELLsaid, that the hon. Member for Aberdeen would not deny that, so far as the scheme went, it tended to relieve the pressure of Business

  1839
  in this House. ["No, no!"] The hon. Member for Caithness even refused to discuss the Bill. On the 4th December, 1890, during an Autumn Session, the Government for the second or third time moved the Second Reading of the Private Bills (Scotland) Procedure Bill; but the hon. Member for Caithness refused even to discuss it. Mr. Smith, who was Leader of the House at the time, said that if the hon. Member persisted in the opposition there was no alternative but to postpone the further consideration of the Bill.
  "May I point out," said the hon. Member for Caithness, "that this is one of the most revolutionary Bills ever introduced into this House? It takes away from the House powers which it has always possessed."
  DR. CLARKsaid, that was because the Bill proposed to give legislative powers to a paid Commission—to a few Edinburgh lawyers—whereas he proposed to give the Representatives of the people powers of legislation.
  SIR H. MAXWELLconsidered it a pity that the hon. Member did not express himself more clearly when the Bill was before the House. The hon. Member for Aberdeen objected to his using the term "half-educated" in reference to the audiences addressed on this subject by the hon. Member for Caithness. No one set higher value on education than the hon. Member for Aberdeen did himself; but would the hon. Member seriously contend that the audiences which the hon. Member for Caithness was in the habit of arousing to enthusiasm on the subject of Home Rule for Scotland could be described otherwise that as half-educated? What knowledge had those people of the history of their country? He had lived in Scotland all his life; he was intimately acquainted with the people of Scotland; but, much as he respected the ardour which they had always shown to obtain education, it was incontestable that, in addressing the large masses of the people, they were addressing people who had not the means and leisure to acquire such knowledge of the history of their own country as would alone enable them to form a true opinion upon a question such as this. The hon. Member for the Dumfries Burghs had disavowed any inclination to interfere with the union of England and Scotland. But if the Motion was carried, it pointed to a state
  1840
  of matters which formerly existed in this island, and which had been cast aside when there was a union of Crowns, but no union of Legislatures. In that respect the advocates of Home Rule for Scotland had a much worse case than those who advocated it for Ireland. They had only to go back in the case of Ireland 100 years to find Ireland under Grattan's Parliament, during which time there had been a considerable development of material prosperity. [Nationalist cheers.] Yes; that had never been denied by the Unionists. But in Scotland they had to go back 200 years to find a separate Legislature. And what was the state of Scotland then? Scotland was a by-word for poverty among the nations. She had been so for centuries, ever since the line of succession had failed by the death of the Maid of Norway. Up to that time Scotland, under her own Monarchs, had been successful and prosperous. After that time she became a prize of contention between the Monarchs of England, who claimed the Throne, and her own native chiefs, who claimed as being descended through the female line from the Pictish Kings. [Cries of"Bannockburn!"] He was not ashamed as a Scotsman to say that, proud as they were of Bannockburn, and great as was the lustre reflected upon the Scottish arms upon that day, he looked upon Bannockburn as the greatest misfortune that ever befel his country, and especially the lower orders in it. Up to that time Scotland had been prosperous, secure, industrious, and comparatively rich. After that time Scotland was torn by civil feuds, and was constantly at war with her powerful neighbour, England. She was bled almost to death by exactions and war indemnities. That state of things pressed most hardly, not upon the Barons and the landowners, but upon the people of Scotland. It was on these parts of history that he invited the hon. Member for Caithness to instruct his constituents, because he could not but believe that if these circumstances were well known to the people of Scotland the Motion before the House would not receive any support from them. Fifty years before the union of the Legislatures General Monck appealed to the Government in London to have pity upon the poor people of Scotland, for 25 per cent, of the valuation of the country

  1841
  went in taxation, and the burden was almost more than could be borne. There were no men and means to work the natural resources of the country. Its actual wealth was the same as at the present time. The coal was in Lanark shire, the lead and iron in her hills, but no means to work them, for the men had been drawn away for military service, or were making their living in foreign armies. Was that a state of matters to which the hon. Member would revert?—a state of matters when there was a union of the Crowns and a separate Legislature. It got worse before the Union was actually brought about. The very last Act of any importance in the Scottish Parliament was the Act of Security, by which it was provided that no individual succeeding to the English Crown should succeed to the Scottish Crown. What did that point to but complete national separation? Manx arguments which could be brought against this proposal were identical with those which had been already used repeatedly against a similar proposition for Ireland. He was bound to say he relied principally upon two qualities among his fellow-countrymen. He relied upon their knowledge of past history. He had already said that that knowledge was imperfect. But he trusted that the hon. Member for Aberdeen and other hon. Members would assist in the work of making it more perfect. He also relied upon their business instincts and their sound common sense. A story was fold by DR. John Brown of his father. He was visited by a Mr. Husband, also a minister, who wished to consult him upon the place which grace held in the Divine economy, and his answer was—"James, the grace of Cod can do muckle, but it canna gie a man common sense." Argument might do a great deal, but common sense would do a great deal more. If it was not possible to instinct the masses with a sufficient knowledge of history to insure the rejection of any such measure as was shadowed forth by the proposal of the hon. Member for Caithness, it was, at least, possible that their common sense would prevent them being beguiled by what he was bound to call the pinchbeck patriotism and the tinsel nationalism which served the hon. Member in the place of arguments, and would prevent them giving any support to a course
  1842
  which would surely jeopardise the welfare of the land and people of Scotland.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): The hon. Baronet made a very interesting speech, in which I can only find one fault, and it is that he has given me very little to answer. One or two of the latter parts of the speech I am inclined to say a word or two about. The hon. Baronet says he has been born and bred in Scotland. I was not born and bred there, but I have been for a quarter of a century a Scottish Member, and I utterly deny that his view of the foundation of Scottish politics is the right one. I say that, compared with almost any other people in the world, their political feelings are founded upon their sound knowledge of the part of their history which it is important for them to know. Scottish Liberalism is founded, if it is founded upon any one thing, upon the recollections which great-grandfathers have handed down to grandfathers and sons of the terrible time at the end of the last century and the beginning of this, of the repression which was inflicted upon humble Scotsmen, who endeavoured to stem the tide of political reaction when reaction was vindictive and powerful. I would like to know bow many English Radicals there are who thoroughly know the whole story of the persecutions of those days; how many English Radicals are acquainted with the story of the prosecution of Thelwall and Holcroft and Home Tooke? And vet few Scottish Radicals are there who thoroughly know the whole story of Muir and Palmer, and the other martyrs who suffered in 1793. The hon. Member talks of the lower orders and the uneducated audiences who listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness. Why, 300 years ago, and ever since, the lower orders in Scotland were educated in a manner better than the middle class in England: and if a person's historical knowledge does not extend down into the time when Scottish schools were set up after the Reformation, all I can say is that the historical knowledge that he has before that time is worth very little indeed. The hon. Baronet says that our constituents do not care about this question, and that they have not petitioned. If our constituents are not uneasy at the state of Scottish

  1843
  Business in the House of Commons during the last six years, and during this year also, our constituents are wrong. The hon. Baronet asks me to speak out on behalf of the Government. I shall speak clearly enough. He talks of the utterances of the Prime Minister as being Sphinx-like and Delphic. I will quote to him, before I sit down, the latest utterance of the Prime Minister about Scottish Home Rule, which is clear enough. But at present I will only say that we are uncommonly glad—that is not a Sphinx-like mode of expression—to see this Resolution on the Paper, and that we were not sorry to hear the speeches which supported it. There was plenty of energy in those speeches. They went to the heart of the question instead of touching the fringe of it, and if at any time they were outspoken enough to the very verge of energy speech permits of, I will only say that in the political world as at present constituted, whether as regards causes or nations, it is a case of the silent going to the wall. I do not think this Motion is, in the very least, either premature or uncalled-for. If we look back for the last six years, and especially to the present Session, it is high time that a Motion should be made expressing the dissatisfaction of Scottish Members with the conditions of Scottish Business, and it is high time that net only such speeches as those we have heard from my two hon. Friends should be made, but that likewise a record of the dissatisfaction of Scottish Members should be placed on the Journals of the House. There is no record of that dissatisfaction as yet which people can point to who want this state of things changed. For five, ten, twenty years past, Scotland has been in favour of measures of reform which could not be passed in this House, and that for two reasons—either Scottish Business is crowded out, or the opinion of Scottish Members is over-ruled. I want it to be understood that I refer to all the Scottish Members, and not only to Liberal Scottish Members, because it is not only a question of Liberal Scottish Members. When Imperial questions are before the House, Scottish Members vote stoutly with their Party; but when Scottish questions are being discussed, and Scottish Institutions are being over-
  1844
  hauled, then Scottish Conservative Members frequently, and Scottish Liberal Unionist Members still more frequently, vote on the side of reform. But I am sorry to say that in dealing with Scottish questions English Members never forget that they are Party men, and the consequence is that Scottish opinion is over-ruled by masses of gentlemen who pour into the House, and who know nothing whatever except the Lobby into which their Whip tells them to go. The noble Lord the Member for Paddington went down to Scotland not very long ago and made a great attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness. I will not read the most telling sentences, because they are not to the purpose, and they would sound very incongruous in my mouth, but the speech goes on—
  "What a moment has Dr. Clark chosen? The moment of all others when, during a long and laborious Session, Parliament has devoted almost the whole of its time to establish a popular local government throughout the length and breadth of Scotland—the establishment of that local government in entire accordance with Scottish opinion."
  That is the announcement. What is the truth? The Scottish Local Government Bill is an English Code imposed upon Scotland against the opinions of the enormous majority of Scottish Members, in obedience to English prejudices and to English interests. I am not going to read the points to which I refer. I am not speaking to men who are ignorant, to men who have not passed through that ordeal; and I shall have them with me when I maintain that there are at least 10—I should say 12—of the leading principles of the Scottish Local Government Bill, on all of which from 39 to 53 Scottish Members voted in the minority, and from 18 to 10 Scottish Members voted in the majority. These were not only Liberal Members. On the question of rights of way, in which 38 Scottish Members were defeated by 11 Scottish Members by the help of the vote of the rest of the House of Commons, seven of the 38 were our political opponents. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfries, whose speech was listened to with an interest all the greater because it was something fresh after so many weeks spent over a controversy that is already stale, brought in a proposal to enable Town and County

  1845
  Councils to buy land. Forty-one or 46 Scottish Members—I am not sure which—voted for tile proposal, and 12 voted against it. Of 41 Scottish Members 10 were our opponents. But it did not matter whether they were Liberals or Liberal Unionists or Conservatives. They were all voted down, and their opinions were voted out of the Bill by men who did not do us the grace to listen to our arguments—by men who did not even understand the names of those institutions which they were moulding into a shape which was not consonant with the wishes of the people who were to live under them. All I can say about the Local Government Act is this: I had occasion with my hon. Friend on my left (the Lord Advocate) to consider an Amendment in connection with the Local Government Act, and the guiding principle which we found that we had adopted almost unconsciously was in almost all respects to follow the opinion of those Scottish Members, which, when it came before the House, was voted down as if it was the opinion of people who bad nothing to do with the business. That single illustration is quite sufficient. It shows the fallacy of this House dealing with Scottish affairs in accordance with the wishes of the Scottish people. I leave it there, and go to the part which refers to the pressure of Public Business. The vice of the last Parliament was ignoring and over-riding Scottish opinion. I have given a good instance of that. I will give another. A unanimous vote was passed in this House to the effect that access to mountains should be given. The Government brought in an Access to Mountains Bill—a capital Bill, enacting that everyone—tourist, wayfarer, traveller, or man of science—should be able to walk over any mountain or deer forest, but he was not to do so from the beginning of August till the beginning of November. That is the way Scottish opinion was regarded in the last Parliament. The evil of this Parliament is that Scotland can get no share in legislation at all. The evil of this Parliament is not, perhaps, a very just expression. This Parliament sympathises very greatly with Scotland, and when it has been able to show that feeling-by its vote it has done so. In this Parliament there is a Government which has, I maintain,
  1846
  done as much for Scotland as for the rest of the country. If I can establish this position, I think I shall strengthen, and not weaken, the argument of my hon. Friend. Because, if in a Parliament which has a kindly feeling to Scotland, and with a Government anxious to give Scotland public time, its business cannot be done, it is quite plain the evil must be cured by certain remedies we have not already got. How stands the ease of Scotland? Two Bills are well forward—the Employers' Liability Bill and the Bill for the protection of railway servants. The benefits of the former of these Acts go as much to Scottish workmen as to English. The Railway Servants' Protection Bill is rather more Scottish than English. A Scottish strike brought about the appointment of a Committee, and the appointment of the Committee brought about the Bill. Then, when we come to legislation which is not forward, the Registration Bills for the two countries will go on together; and if the Parish Council Bills for England has had a Second Reading, so has the Fisheries Bill for Scotland. Now, that is the best that can be said, and the best is very bad indeed. ["Hear, hear!" from the Opposition.] Yes; and that is the reason why we are going to vote for this Motion. July is nearly upon us, and on no Scottish measure is the Speaker out of the Chair. Private Bills in great numbers, on which Scottish opinion is all but unanimous, which have been waiting many years to be brought forward, either are crowded upon the Notice Paper, or have been withdrawn in despair. There, again, I will spare hon. Members an enumeration of Bills on which Scotland is quite unanimous, which hon. Members, who are quite fit to carry them through, have got in charge, but for which no time can be found. It is quite true that after 12 o'clock there is a chance of passing some uncontested measure, but how is Scotland treated in this respect? I just ask the hon. Member to consider this: There is a Bill brought forward in the interest of Scottish landlords—a Bill which enables Scottish landlords to have the same advantages to borrow money on settled estates for planting which English landlords have had for the last 10 years Every night, when the Bill is reached

  1847
  an English landlord gets up opposite, and for no reason whatever that he chooses to give he blocks a Bill in which he has no interest whatever. Like a dog in the manger he refuses to allow that to be done for Scotsmen which he himself has had for 10 years; and his single voice night after night prevents a Bill of about six lines, which Scotsmen would be ashamed to oppose, and which no Scottish Member does oppose, from being passed. When the state of things is that before 12 o'clock no time can be found, after 12 o'clock Bills are objected to en bloc without any reference to the value of the question itself. Is it wonderful that Scottish Members, as I think we shall see to-night, find that, under our present Parliamentary system, there is no hope for Scottish Business? It may be said a great measure is passing through the House. Yes, a great measure is passing at the rate of one clause in seven or eight days. That, we are told, is not due to obstruction. I accept the statement. It proves my argument. If it is not due to obstruction; if it is the natural rate at which a great measure should be discussed: if this is the normal and ordinary method of doing all Public Business, then, indeed, Scotland may despair not only in this Session, but every Session to come. Some remedy must be found. If it is not due to obstruction, then Parliament has ceased to be an adequate and effective machine for turning out legislation. When that conviction comes home to the Scottish people they will refuse any longer to try to walk in the old Paliamentary ways, across which there is a board erected with "No thoroughfare" written upon it. If we are not to go on in the old way, what remedy is there for a state of things which is absolutely unendurable? Two plans have been proposed. One was proposed originally in the last Parliament, and obtained a good deal of support—that is to say, a Scotch Grand Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries supported that Committee in the shape which would be very effective, for he gave it the power of reading Bills a second time. But I own that in the shape in which he brought it forward it would be no less an important measure than the question of Home Rule itself. Without the power of Second Readings
  1848
  before that Committee, it would not be a complete remedy, and in it I must say there are two very serious drawbacks. The Scottish Members are Members of this Parliament not only for Scottish purposes, but for Imperial and all purposes; and if their time is to be taken up on the details of Scottish Business in Committee, it will seriously draw them away from their general duties. But that is not all. This House is an important House; but it is not the only House. There is another which is co-ordinate, and has the same amount of power; and in that House of the 16 Scottish Representative Peers I doubt if there is a single one who holds the opinions which in every Parliament are held by great a majority of Scottish Members, and in some Parliaments by an overwhelming majority. But such is the evil plight of Scottish Business that, with a full recognition of its imperfections, the Government will take the earliest opportunity in their power to propose such a Committee, and I believe and trust that so moderate a power will not be strongly resisted.
  MR. R. T. REID: Will that be for Second Readings also?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I think I said that would be almost as strong a measure as Home Rule itself. The other remedy is that proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness. It is no new story. As far back as 1890, at a time of the Session when the House was quite fresh and full (not in a snap Division, because it was an Adjourned Debate), 140 Members of this House voted in favour, not, indeed, of this Resolution, but of its principle. That was a Parliament that was not very fond of progressive Liberal measures. And I know no reason why this Parliament, which takes very much stronger views on Scottish matters than the last Parliament, and, above all, in this Session, which affords such an object-lesson of the personal inconvenience and discomfort, and the immense national disadvantage of an over-concentrated Parliament, this Resolution should not receive a much better bearing. I must say, if I may be allowed to make one remark about hon. Members, that it seems to me there are two consolations in public life. One is the pleasure of seeing Public Business done and good measures carried, and the other the ambition of

  1849
  taking an honourable part in the Business of the House. Now, so far as Scottish Members are concerned, both of these sources of satisfaction are as much denied them as if they were on a treadmill, instead of in the House of Commons. On the question of Scottish Home Rule the argument in favour of it is the solid fact of the state of Public Business. But the only argument I have heard against it is the words "Home Rule" pronounced in different accents of disapprobation and dissatisfaction. Instead of talking of it as a thing that is not to be considered, if you would only analyse what it means, it is a proposal against which it is very difficult to find an argument. Let us fake it to pieces. Is Scotland, I ask, unfit to manage Scottish education? Scotland had a system of education centuries before England—the system on which the true greatness of the country is founded. In 1870, when we first had popular education in England, to what countries did we look for an example? To Saxony and Switzerland, both with smaller populations than Scotland. Yet we had at our doors a country which for 300 years had a system of education worthy to rank with that of Saxony and Switzerland. And what do we say to that nation? Last Session it was proposed by Scotchmen that 15 should be the age at which children should leave school. There was a majority of two to one of Scottish Members in its favour; but Parliament said, "No; English Members know better than you; 14 shall be the age," and 14 it is. Is Scotland less able to manage its own Universities? I suppose that for every young man in England, in proportion to the population, who goes to the University there are about six Scottish lads who go. The interest taken by the people in the Universities is immense; yet when we come to legislate for the Universities, Scottish opinion is over-ridden by Englishmen, and I do not believe there is 1 in 20 of the English Members who know the difference in constitution and character between the Senatus of a Scotch University and the Senate of Cambridge. Is Scotland not able to manage her own local affairs? Look at Glasgow. Look at what a splendid instance the Scottish Municipalities are
  1850
  when they get a free hand; yet this Parliament insisted, against the will of the enormous majority of Scottish Members, upon the parishes of Scotland and the entire treatment of the poor being managed by Boards which in their composition are semi-ecclesiastical and almost worthy of the Middle Ages. And on the question of county government, Scotland is in no respect allowed to have her own way. Does Scotland not understand—and I say more, does any other section of mankind even pretend to understand—Scottish Church matters, and Scottish ecclesiastical arrangements, and (what is more important to Scotchmen) their inner feelings and sentiments on questions of religious conscience and religious duty? In those debates which so deeply interest Scotchmen—the debates of their General Assemblies and their Synods, who but Scotchmen could take part, and who but a Scotchman, unless he had spent weeks and even months in reading up Scotch history and books of doctrine, could follow them with the slightest advantage or intelligence? Hon. Members opposite are very much afraid of Home Rule being given to Ireland for fear of a Church being disestablished or disendowed, or a Denominational College set up. They need not fear that with regard to Scotland. In this very Parliament, by 35 to 14, the Scottish Members have declared in favour of religious equality. I really think hon. Gentlemen opposite who cheer me will not be prepared to maintain that their own countrymen—the countrymen of Chalmers and Guthrie—are not fit to manage their own ecclesiastical affairs. And once more, when we consider that Scotland has led the van in temperance legislation, and how-well it knows its own mind on that subject, why should not Scotland have the care of the morality and order of her own streets and her own villages? Norway is held up as an example of liquor legislation, yet Norway has a population not one-half that of Scotland, and why should not Scotland have the same power which Norway has of regulating a question which she has proved she understands much better than England? Recently Scottish Members supported a Bill for the closing of public-houses at 10 o'clock. The very powerful Government which lately was in Office opposed

  1851
  that Bill; but in a cardinal Division in this House the Bill was supported by 29 Scottish Members, including a great number of Conservatives, while only three voted against it. The Bill went up to the Lords, and the Lords took away from the large cities the power of closing public-houses—a power which has since been used by every Municipality in the country which has the liberty to use it. It is a monstrous thing to put such a nation as Scotland in leading strings on such a question as temperance. Let hon. Members show that Scotland cannot with advantage to herself and with safety to the Empire be entrusted with her own municipal, ecclesiastical, and educational legislation, and then we will vote against this measure. But by the bugbear of the name of Home Rule you will not ultimately frighten the Scottish people from supporting a measure for which they are perfectly fit, and a measure on which, as Session after Session with their melancholy experiences go by, they are more set than ever. The last utterance of the Prime Minister relating to Scotland was made at Edinburgh on the 30th of June last.
  SIR H. MAXWELL: My quotation was the 6th of July.
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I do not think that the hon. Baronet's quotation went to the root of the question at all. The Prime Minister, speaking of the Irish Bill, said, for himself and his colleagues—
  "The fourth condition was—and here we have Scotland specially in view—that no principle should be laid down for Ireland with respect to which we were not to admit that Scotland, if she thought fit, was entitled to claim the benefit."
  That cannot be construed into an undertaking immediately, at once, and irrespective of the great task which daily and nightly we have before us, and the tremendous difficulties under which it is being carried on, to take Scottish self-government in hand; but it is a pledge that the movement for Irish self-government shall not close the way, but shall smooth and pave the way for Scottish self-government, if the Scottish people want it. And it is a pledge, and an absolute pledge, that Scotland shall not be refused that which Scotland asks. But does Scotland desire to obtain it? In the words
  1852
  of the Prime Minister, does she "claim the benefit?" I, for my own part, am heartily glad that the Motion of my hon. Friend, so far as the Government is concerned, is an open question. Personally speaking, I have seized every opportunity I could find to give my vote in favour of a generous measure of self-government for Scotland, and I certainly shall not lose that opportunity to-night. And I earnestly trust the Division will show that such and no other is the opinion and the wish of the great majority of those whom Scotland has commissioned to speak in her name at Westminster.
  SIR C. PEARSON: Up to a certain point, I believe, we are all agreed regarding the matter under discussion. We all regret, whatever Government is in power, that Scottish Business does not get along faster than it has been in the habit of doing of late years, but I have heard the same complaints with regard to English and Welsh Business. The question before the House now is very far beyond the mere question of whether there is a grievance of the nature I have indicated. There is no doubt whatever that the Resolution of the hon. Member for Caithness does introduce an important and serious organic change in the Constitution of the country. The questions the House has to deal with are these—first, whether there is a grievance existing which cannot be remedied otherwise than by such a drastic proposition as that of the hon. Member; and, secondly, whether there is such a consensus of opinion in Scotland as to constitute a demand from Scotland in favour of the proposal now before the House? I entirely dispute both the one proposition and the other. The Secretary for Scotland used a familiar rhetorical device when he asked us to take Home Rule to pieces, and, holding up the pieces one after another, asked the House whether Scotsmen were not capable of managing their own local affairs. Of course, we all think that Scotsmen are capable of managing their own local affairs; but that is not the question. The question is, whether the grievance upon which alone the right hon. Gentleman founded himself—to wit, the congestion of Public Business—demands a remedy of the nature of a Scottish Legislative, Body? Now there I am entirely

  1853
  at issue with the right hon. Gentleman; and I do not believe, when I come to the second part of my remarks, there will be any dispute that the evidence which is laid before the House is grievously insufficient to demonstrate that there is any demand for such a Legislative Body in Scotland. The Resolution speaks of the failure of this House to promote Scottish Business. I have already admitted that there is a grievance in this direction, although the causes attributed for that grievance have varied very much in the speeches of hon. Members. Again, I think that a considerable part of the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman was taken up with reminding us that according to the constitution of the House, being a Parliament for the United Kingdom, the Members for each part of the United Kingdom are entitled to vote according to conviction or Party allegiance, as the case may be, upon any matter, either Imperial or local, which comes up for the decision of Parliament. Now, I do not dispute that the hon. Member for Caithness may have a certain amount of logical backing for his argument that there should be Home Rule all round, but that is not the position of the right hon. Gentleman. We have not heard a single word about a Home Rule Parliament for England, and I venture to say that the absence of that suggestion on the part of the Government leaves this question in a position of the utmost difficulty and uncertainty, and renders it impossible for them to carry out, bit by bit, and piecemeal, the policy which is indicated in this Resolution in the three or four parts of the United Kingdom. I am not going to enter into the comparison which the right hon. Gentleman has invited between the amount of Scotch Business in the present and in the last Parliament. In my opinion, the last Parliament has a record for Scottish Business completed, and well done, which will bear favourable comparison with any Parliament that existed for the same time, and I, for one, do not recognise the picture drawn by the hon. Member for Caithness of Scottish legislation, positive and negative, passed and not passed, during the last-six years. What is certain is that the block is now absolute. That is admitted by the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for Caithness says it is due to the failure of the House to deal with
  1854
  Scottish affairs in accordance with the wishes of the Scottish people. I do not want to impute anything to Her Majesty's Government; but it is notorious that, primâ facie, the Government have the disposal of the Business of the House, and, what is more, this Government have the disposal of the whole time of the House. That, Sir, is an incident in the present situation which does not apply at all to the Parliament which finished in the month of July last. That seems to me to differentiate the present situation altogether from that of the last six years; and I will ask the hon. Members for Caithness and for the Dumfries Burghs who is to cast the first stone at this House for failing to get on this Session with Scottish Business? Is it to be those Members who supported the Government in their demand for the whole time of the House, public and private? Remedies have been suggested for this deadlock, and amongst them the minor remedy has been proposed by the other side of the House of the appointment of a Committee of Scottish Members in order to carry through certain preliminary stages of Scottish legislation. It is an interesting fact to note that this is by no means the first time that that proposal has been brought forward in this House; but never yet—although the Leaders of the Liberal Party have always shown a kind of hesitating approval of that proposal—have they committed themselves to appoint any such Committee, and the reason is simple. A demand for such a Committee, which would represent not the majority and minority of the House but of the Scottish representation, would immediately be followed by a demand for a similar Committee for England; and what would be the position of a Liberal Government committed to the appointment of such a Body for the earlier stages of Bills for Scotland, and yet harking off from the appointment of a similar Committee for England, for the sole reason that there they know they are in a substantial minority? Now, there is another remedy which the late Government pledged themselves to, for which I think a great deal can be said, and which I hope will some day be carried into full effect. Whatever the hon. Member for North Aberdeen might say of it, it seems to me one of the strongest possible steps

  1855
  that can be taken in the direction in which this Resolution points; and, what is more, it is a step which has been thoroughly canvassed among Public Bodies and meetings in Scotland, and the public opinion of Scotland is pretty nearly unanimous in favour of it. The last Government introduced more than once a proposal for the appointment of a tribunal—call it what you will, for the purpose of relieving this House of the Private Bill legislation of Ireland and Scotland; and I venture to say that if that were carried out, it would be not only a relief to this House, but it would give Scotland all, or almost all, she wants and can fairly demand in the direction of this Resolution. As this is very germane to the question of Home Rule, perhaps I may be allowed to read just a few lines from a speech that was made in 1889 in Glasgow by a prominent Scotchman of whom we are proud and a leading Member of the present Government—Lord Rosebery. I am not quite sure whether he is in very good odour with Scottish Home Rulers. I have reason to think he is not, from a somewhat careful study of the literature of the question. What Lord Rosebery said on that occasion, when presiding over the National Conference of Liberal Associations, was this—
  "The question of Scottish Home Rule resolves itself into a question of degree. You must know exactly what you want, and then proceed by degrees. The first question is, I believe, to get your Private Bills attended to on the spot. At present they have to go to London, and meet with very expensive and inconsiderate treatment there. When you have once got your Private Bill legislation localised in Scotland, then, in my opinion, it will be time enough to settle the question with regard to your Public Bills."
  Now these are reasons why, I think, the grievance by no means demands the remedy proposed. I am not going to examine that remedy itself, because the House has been taking Home Rule to pieces very much indeed during the last four weeks, and we have been considering the question of what a Legislature in one of these separate Kingdoms ought or ought not to do. My point as to devolution is that you can have the principle of devolution without devolving upon a Legislature. I should have liked to know, further, whether this Legislature is to carry with it a Scottish Executive, because unless we have an "Aye" or "No" as regards the
  1856
  existence of a Scottish Executive, then we are all speaking in the dark, and we do not know what the real objections may be. I take note that nothing is said about the existence of a Scottish Executive in the proposals, and that mention of it is entirely omitted from the Resolution. I shall, before I sit down, very briefly give a few facts in reference to the supposed existence of feeling in Scotland on this subject. The hon. Member for Caithness asked, in a pertinent and somewhat plaintive manner, why have the Liberal Leaders given no aid to this Scottish Home Rule movement, but have, on the contrary, done their best to crush it? I think I can tell him why. I have suggested one or two reasons why the Liberal Leaders do not look kindly in the direction of this Home Rulemovement in Scotland, but I think an additional reason is this: that they do not believe in the reality of the movement as representing Scottish public opinion. Where are the usual expressions of public opinion and feeling on the question? Are the expressions of public opinion to be found in public meetings? [Ministerial cries of "Yes!" and "Elections!"] I am prepared to dispute altogether the view that the question was a crucial one at elections. It is the easiest thing for a man to ask questions about Home Rule for Scotland, and for another to make answers, without having this Resolution, or anything approaching it, in the mind of the one or the other. But how does this question stand in Parliament itself? Is there within this Imperial Parliament any evidence of the existence of this public feeling in Scotland? Why, in 1891, as the hon. Member frankly reminded us, the question when it came up was counted out. Positively this body of 40 or 45 Scottish Home Rulers could not get enough of their own number, in addition to those whose duty it was to be here, to make and keep a House on the question. Last year it may be in the recollection of the House that for the first time a Bill of an extremely interesting nature was tabled, and the same fate was met by this Bill as was met by the Resolution of the previous year—that is, it was counted out. There is one interesting point about the count out on the hon. Member for Aberdeen's Bill of last year which bears so closely upon the subject

  1857
  we are now discussing that I should like the House to be aware of it. The Bill was practically on the lines of the Irish Home Rule Bill of 1886, adapted to Scotland. It was counted out on the Second Reading stage after a speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen himself. What use does the House think was made of that in Scotland during the past year, and in particular by a body of whom I shall have something to say presently, and of which the Member for Caithness is President—namely, the Scottish Home Rule Association, where one might expect to look for the crystallisation of opinion on this subject? I hold in my hand one of the publications of that Association, which deals with the Bill of the hon. Member for North Aberdeen, whose name I see as one of the Vice Presidents of the Association, but who, I hope, has not been aware of this mode of dealing with the count out. It is dealt with thus—
  "Without inquiring too minutely who was responsible for the success of this manœuvre, it furnishes one other illustration of the neglect of Scottish Business which has rendered the present Bill necessary."
  And, therefore, forsooth, hon. Gentlemen, Scottish Home Rulers, by neglecting Scottish Business themselves, are thus to furnish the evidence of that grievance which they are to cure. I mentioned the absence of ordinary evidence outside Parliament of the existence of any public feeling on this question. I know there is a good deal of literature on the subject, and we have been reminded lately by one—I do not know whether he is a Scottish Home Ruler, I should think from the article from his pen that he has ceased to be so—but the hon. Member for East Edinburgh, in an article he wrote in the month of January, told us that the Scottish Home Rule Association was at its wits' end to raise money for the purpose of its propaganda and literature. This Association boasts of having as its members a large majority of the Liberal Members of Scotland, and in an appeal which is signed by the Treasurer of the Association there is this statement—
  "But the grounds—historical, financial, social, and political—on which the demand of Scotland for Home Rule is based, require still to be explained to many electors, so as to disabuse their minds of ignorance and prejudice, and to satisfy the great body of the people that the proposed change is necessary and would be beneficial."
  1858
  When the only Association, so far as I know, which exists for the promotion of this object grounds its appeal for funds on a desire to enlighten and satisfy the body of the people that the proposed change is necessary and would be beneficial I did not think it too strong for us to say that, at the present moment, the great body of the people are not satisfied either of the benefit or of the necessity. I observe that one of the members of this Association is the hon. Member for Peterborough, to whom we are all indebted for the great interest which he has developed in Scottish affairs. He is one of the Vice Presidents of the Society, and he is responsible, I think, for the statement that this Scottish Home Rule movement had made the Irish Home Rule movement respectable.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I never made any such statement. That statement was made by an English Tory to me.
  SIR C. PEARSON: It was certainly repeated by the hon. Member without any symptom of disapproval. I think there is one thing we are entitled to ask from the Scottish Home Rulers, and that is that they should try to agree among themselves as to what they want. All good Home Rulers, we know, find a difficulty in doing that. There are certain statements which have been made with reference to the Leaders of the Liberal Party and the bulk of the Liberal Party, and which demonstrate this: that although the Scottish Home Rule movement, so far as one can see in the public papers, holds itself aloof from Party politics, yet it does not very well know its own mind with reference to who are friends and who are not. I observe, for example, at a meeting in Dumfries of the Scottish Home Rule Association, presided over by the hon. Member for Caithness, one of the chief officers, in moving the adoption of a manifesto to the electors, said—
  "Who were these men who were standing between Scotland and her National rights They were Mr. Marjoribanks, the Liberal Whip? the Earl of Elgin, and the Earl of Rosebery., The part that Mr. Marjoribanks played was to make their cause ridiculous in the House of Commons."
  It is a great pity the Member for Berwickshire is not here. We should have liked very much to have heard his ex-

  1859
  planation of that allusion, and whether he accepted it or not. There is one other statement I cannot refrain from quoting here. It occurs in a pamphlet which has been printed in the offices of the Scottish Home Rule Association, and freely circulated at the end of last year. The pamphlet deals with the impossibility of taking the Prime Minister to task during his election campaign in Midlothian, and states that in an address submitted to him by certain of the Midlothian electors they had put this question, among others, to the right hon. Gentleman—
  "If returned to power, will you give Home Rule to Scotland as fully as to Ireland and at the same time?"
  The writer said—
  "The way in which the Grand Old Manager dealt with these questions was one of the finest examples of his electioneering subtlety. But the verbosity to which he resorts on such occasions forbids quotation from his speech.… The only remedy he proposed was that the Scottish people should return a Liberal majority, in which case our M.P's would not be outvoted on Scottish questions by English Tories. But this would only be doing similar injustice to our English neighbours, who are mostly Tories, and would then be outvoted on English questions by Scottish, Welsh, and Irish Liberals."
  The pamphlet to which I have referred goes on to say—
  MR. PAUL: Who is the author of the pamphlet?
  SIR C. PEARSON: The author is the General Treasurer of the Scottish Home Rule Association.
  MR. PAUL: Who is he?
  SIR C. PEARSON: I am surprised that any Scottish Home Ruler should not know the name of the Treasurer of his Association. The name on the face of the pamphlet is "W. Mitchell, Hon. General Treasurer of the Scottish Home Rule Association," and at the foot of the page are these words, "Offices of the Scottish Home Rule Association." This same pamphlet goes on thus—
  "But Mr. Gladstone is still the manager from London, and our Scottish Company have not been slow to follow his lead. DR. Hunter, one of the ablest of them, had brought in last Session a Scottish Home Rule Bill—not a bad imitation of the Irish Bill of the G.O.M. The Scottish Home Rule Members who might have secured it a reading, had their sincerity been equal to their numbers, allowed it to be counted out. Since the Dalkeith speech"—that is the speech which has been referred to as unquotable "the author of the Bill has dropped it like a hot potato."
  1860
  There are difficulties which I have not even adverted to in the way of the proposal which, if it were to be seriously made, would require to be seriously argued out. I have mentioned the difficulty from the English point of view, and that appears to me to be the kernel of the difficulty which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite have to meet. They have to consider, on the part of the Liberal Party, the inexpediency of letting go the Scottish Liberal vote. In speaking in Edinburgh on the 2nd December, 1886, the present Chief Secretary dealt with the subject of Scottish Home Rule. At that date the Irish Home Rule Bill, which held the field, provided for the exclusion of the Irish Members from Westminster; and the way in which he put the matter is very well stated in an address to the people of England, which has recently been published by the Scottish Home Rule Association—
  "Why, then, is this obvious way out of a great difficulty not embraced by the Liberal Party? Because they are seeking a Party advantage at the expense of England. It was for this reason that Mr. Morley, at Edinburgh, in December, 1886, cursed Home Rule for Scotland. He said: 'I only ask myself, supposing that the Scottish Liberals were to be by any calamity withdrawn from the Legislative Body when the affairs of England—poor England!—are transacted, I ask myself how we should fare without you? And I, for one, am not at all willing to lose the advantage of the noble Liberalism of Scotland.'
  "This, in plain terms, means that the Scotch voters are to be used to coerce the people of England. We venture to say there is not an honest Englishman alive but would scorn to call in foreign aid to enable him to domineer over his own countrymen."
  My reason for referring to the remarks of the Chief Secretary at Edinburgh is to show that the Association which professes to gather up Scottish opinion on this question repudiates his suggestion as unworthy. Well, now, Mr. Speaker, there are many other difficulties to which I might refer; but I shall merely touch upon one—and that is, the question of finance. I cannot but congratulate the Member for Caithness in having on his side a Government which has had ample experience as to the financial side of Home Rule. You say that the financial relations of the two countries ought to be re-adjusted. It appears to me that the financial relations between England and Scotland might be cleared up without going the length of granting a separate

  1861
  Legislature. I think you can have your roast pig without burning your house down. But are hon. Members opposite aware of the magnitude of this subject? It has been shown by the authority I have quoted that Scotland has been overtaxed as compared with the rest of the United Kingdom to the extent, in 30 years only, of £92,684,000, and during the same period Scotland has been underpaid to the extent of £39,000,000 more. So that the Government, before approaching this question, would have to recoup £131,000,000. This slightly indicates the difficulties that he in the way, and I shall look with interest to see how the Government propose to deal with the matter.
  DR. HUNTERsaid, he regretted the tone of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He regretted that in a question so serious he should have descended to trivialities, and many personalities which were beneath contempt. He (Dr. Hunter) had seen three Governments in that House—two Liberal and one Conservative. When the Tories were in Office the Scotch Members were outvoted, and they were refused the measures they desired. When the Liberals were in Office they were not outvoted; they were overlooked. Therefore, whether it was a Liberal or a Tory Government, it was much the same thing to Scotland. No one could say the wants of Scotland could ever be satisfied by the House of Commons. He should have thought a review of the financial relations of Scotland and England furnished one of the strongest arguments for Home Rule. When a Committee was once appointed on the subject, it met and appointed a Chairman and never met again; but Returns were furnished giving information that had formerly been denied. During the last three years Scotland had overpaid to the Imperial Exchequer no less than £4,000,000; and the worst charge of Scotch Members against the present Government was that it had not appointed a Committee to go into the question. There was no reason why such a Committee should not be appointed now, and he, for one, would be satisfied with its verdict. Home Rule for Ireland necessarily involved Home Rule for England and Scotland; and no solution of the
  1862
  question would be satisfactory that did not extend the principle of devolution to all parts of the Kingdom.
  MR. THORBURNsaid, it had been pointed out that the state of Scotch Business was very unsatisfactory, and that they could not deal with it in that House. It was said, also, that the Scottish Members over-ruled the English Members in the House on matters that were purely Scotch. Had not the English Members the same reason to complain of over-ruling? For his own part, he was opposed to Home Rule root and branch, whether for Scotland, England, or Ireland—more particularly if it was accompanied with an Executive. He thought it should be the duty of every Government ruling a nation such as this, composed of different nationalities, to endeavour to make that United Kingdom a homogeneous nation rather than emphasise nationalities, and thereby instigate disintegration. The hon. Member for Aberdeen (Dr. Hunter) had referred to unfair taxation of Scotland. He would give the hon. Member all the aid he could to remedy that state of things; but if they had a Scottish Parliament established the hon. Member would find that if the taxation under it was not unfair it would in all probability prove excessive, because the expenses of administration must necessarily be great. As he had said, the only complaint he had heard about their Local Government Bill was that it had very nearly doubled the rates in Scotland. They were told that Scottish Business was neglected. Well, he would suggest a remedy. Lot them boycott all Irish questions in this House for the next five years. By that means he thought they would get Scottish Business attended to. If it ever became a practical question they would find a decreased number of Gladstonian Liberals and a majority of Unionists returned to that House. He thought the last Election in Scotland was a pretty good indication of what the opinion in Scotland was. They wore told that Home Rule was progressing in Scotland. He asserted, with confidence, that the question had not for a single moment boon seriously considered by the electors of Scotland. The majority of Scottish Members were said to be pledged to Home Rule; but the hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. R. Wallace) said that a number of

  1863
  the Members on these Benches were prepared to swallow anything. He thought the majority of Scottish Members would be prepared to swallow Home Rule, Disestablishment, or anything else if they thought it would secure them a few votes. They were told by the Secretary for Scotland that the Church question was the one upon which the majority of Scottish Members were returned to that House. He hoped they should have an opportunity of testing that question in Scotland, and he ventured to say when it was tested that the fate of that measure would be as unsatisfactory to those who supported it as would be the Home Rule question. He sincerely hoped the House would record an emphatic protest against the Motion of the hon. Member for Caithness.
  MR. A. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid, it was quite evident that he would have no time to deal adequately with this question, in which they were all so much interested; but he would take advantage of the few minutes loft him to call attention to the extraordinary attitude of the Government to-night. It was all very well for the Secretary for Scotland to come down here and tell them that he would speak clearly on the subject. What they wanted to know was the attitude, not of the men of sentiment in the Government, but of the men of action. The last time the Prime Minister took part in the Debates in the House on this question he said—
  "I admit that a sentiment, as yet vague and unformed, but of considerable extent, has grown up in Scotland of late years with considerable rapidity in favour of something which is represented in the minds of those who consider it under the name of Home Rule."
  The Prime Minister said—
  "This subject is one, we know in the Irish case, which involves large and numerous matters of detail. I doubt whether the mind of the House of Commons, or even of the country, sufficiently realises the amount of complicated and varying details which are associated with this question."
  They had had an object-lesson in this during the past six weeks. They knew how difficult their Constitution-mongering was. Whatever might happen by Home Rule, they knew at least this Imperial
  1864
  Parliament valued the traditions of-their united Parliament, and he, standing there as a Scotchman, respectfully protested against having their share in these traditions taken from them.
  Sir J. Carmichael rose in his place, and claimed 1o move, "That the Question be now put;" but Mr. Speaker withhold his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  MR. GRAHAM MURRAYsaid, that he, for one, should certainly not be a party to dividing up the heritage of an Imperial Parliament for any miserable Parliament that might be offered in its stead. It was all very well for the hon. Member to say that he was exalting Scotland to a nation; the truth was, the hon. Member was degrading her to a parish.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 168; Noes 150.—(Division List, No. 169.)
  Main Question again proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Supply,—Committee upon Monday next;

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 258.)
  Lords Amendments agreed to.
  WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 338.)
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.
  WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 3) BILL.
  As amended, considered; read the third time, and passed.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACTS (EXTENSION TO FISHERMEN) BILL.—(No. 350.)
  Read a second time, and committed for Monday next.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Twelve o'clock, till Monday next.