COMMITTEE. [Progress 16th May.]

HC Deb 17 May 1893 vol 12 cc1163-210

[EIGHTH NIGHT.]

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Legislative Authority.

Clause 2 (Powers of Irish Legislature.)

Question proposed, "That Clause 2 as amended, stand part of the Bill."

*MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

said, he opposed the adding of this clause to the Bill. It was a clause of the most important nature. It stated that— With the exceptions and subject to the restrictions in this Act mentioned, there shall be granted to the Irish Legislature power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland in respect of matters exclusively relating to Ireland or some part thereof. On the previous day the Opposition succeeded in adding the following important words to the clause:— Provided that, notwithstanding anything in this Act contained, the supreme power and authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland shall remain unaffected and undiminished over all persons, matters, and things within the Queen's dominions. He admitted that the views of the Opposition had to some extent been met by the tardy acceptance by the Government of the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bury. They had all along held that this proposed Irish Parliament must be an absolutely subservient and subordinate Parliament; and, though he regretted that the words which they had added to the clause were not inserted in the first instance, still he should acknowledge that the Amendment had done something, though little, to meet the requirements of their position. But the clause, without doubt, effected a new departure in the history of Parliament, and the Opposition must divide against it. The clause handed over to the Irish Legislature which they had created by Clause 1 the power to make laws. Since the commencement of the century it had never been contemplated as possible that there should be a rival authority to Parliament within the United Kingdom making laws for the United Kingdom. But the clause did more than that. It enabled this new Legislature to make laws without the consent of this Parliament, subject to certain restrictions contained in Clauses 3 and 4, and with the only condition that the laws so made should relate to Ireland or any part of Ireland. There could be no question that this clause was really and truly the first step towards the independence of Ireland. The 1st clause merely created an Assembly or Council in Ireland, and it entirely depended on what the 2nd clause contained whether the Legislature was dangerous or not. The Opposition had tried to make this Council and Assembly a sort of dignified County Council. They had tried to limit the powers of the Irish Legislature to those gas and water measures of which they heard so much at the General Election. London, which was as populous, as important, and as well-educated as Ireland, and possessed as many commercial, political, and social interests, was content with a County Council. Indeed, some of them were more than content with the London County Council. If the clause had been so modified as to give to the Irish Legislature the powers of a large County Council many of them would not have objected to it. But it empowered a rival authority to the Imperial Parliament to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland, which was, without doubt, a grave and serious step towards the separation of the two islands, and to that they could never agree. Let them consider before they parted with the clause what were the tremendous powers which it gave to the proposed Irish Legislature. It was a very remarkable thing that, though it only took one line of the Bill to confer these great powers, it took many pages—and this showed what little confidence the Government had in the Body they were creating—to sot out the limitations, restrictions, and safeguards. But the great fact remained that the clause gave powers to the Irish Legislature to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland. When they looked back on the history of the last 10 years, it seemed almost a comedy that they should hand over to Nationalist gentlemen the power of making laws for the peace of Ireland. He could refer to any number of incidents that had occurred during that period, in 1886 the hon. Member for East Mayo, who would, of course, be a most influential Member of this proposed Irish Legislature, said, speaking at Castlerea— I want to say a word of warning to the bailiffs and all that class of people…. I tell these people that the hour is at hand, and very close at hand too, when the police will be our servants, when the police will be taking their pay from Mr. Parnell, when he will be Prime Minister of Ireland: and I warn the men to-day who take their stand by the side of landlordism, and signalise them as the enemies of the people, that in the time of our power we will remember them. That quotation gave an idea of how peace and order would be maintained in Ireland under the proposed Legislature. Mr. Davitt, speaking in June, 1887, said— If you could sea that as I see it, oh! you would not measure your words, but you would wish from the bottom of your heart we had then in our hands the weapons which England placed in the hands of her armed mercenaries, and we would have taught these ruffians that the people in Ireland in the year 1887 had not lost the courage or the spirit of their ancestors. The hon. and learned Member for North Louth, speaking on Suuday—a day above all others for peace—3rd February, 1889, in the Phoenix Park, said— That, instead of speaking to-day, he wished that he could leave them as armed men to clear out the entire gang of lily-souled assassins. That was an allusion to the public officials. And it was to those gentlemen that the clause proposed to give power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland. He ventured, therefore, to think that, even at that late moment, those who were really in earnest in promoting the welfare of Ireland would hesitate to carry out that clause. The word "peace" ought to be withdrawn altogether from the clause, and the control of the Constabulary and the maintenance of peace reserved to the Imperial Parliament. He had wished to move an Amendment to that effect, but unfortunately, under the ruling of the Chair, the words "peace, order, and good government" were taken together, and he was thereby prevented from doing it. Surely it was of the greatest importance to prevent anything being done by the Irish Legislature which would probably lead to a broach of the peace amongst the Irish people. War was a very serious and sad thing, but the worst form of war was civil war, and it might be that civil war in Ireland would unhappily be the consequence of this Bill should it become law. Therefore he urged that even now some means should be taken to protect the loyal minority in Ireland, by placing the preservation of peace in Ireland in the hands of the Imperial Parliament. It might be said that this clause could only affect the peace of Ireland or parts of Ireland, but the peace of Ireland was of the first importance to England, for it closely affected the prosperity of England. Disturbances in Ireland would affect enormously England's prosperity, finance, and her power as a nation. If they were going to allow a system which in his judgment would tend to promote disturbance and civil war in the sister island which lay so close to them, was it not certain that the power of England, Scotland, and Wales would be frittered away? Therefore he contended that this matter concerned them infinitely more than people seemed to think. They were parting with their power, but they could not part with their moral responsibility for maintaining peace in Ireland. But the words in the clause "for the peace, order and good government of Ireland" were wider than this even. An attempt had been made to define in clear and distinct terms what this proposed Legislature might undertake. But that Amendment was rejected, and, with certain vague and undefined exceptions, everything else might be carried on by this Irish Legislature. In fact, the Imperial Parliament was in the position of a residuary legatee—it reserved only what could not be dispensed with, and handed over everything else to the proposed Irish Government. That was a very serious matter. The clause handed over to the Irish Legislature every conceivable power and every conceivable authority that might arise, except what was specially taken out of its purview by Clauses 3 and 4. The so-called safeguards were practically no safeguards at all, and some of them were so derogatory to an Irish Legislature or even to a County Council in England that they must all know that there would be an agitation set up to do away with them. They were passing this revolutionary clause, which would change the whole system of their Government, by the small majority or 40 or 42, and it was a startling thing when they looked at it that if 23 seats were changed this Bill could not pass into law. The Conservatives were resolutely opposed to it; the old Liberals—it was absurd to call them Dissentient Liberals —did not want it; and some of those who sat behind the Prime Minister had no love for it; but he supposed they would follow the Prime Minister in his dismemberment of the Empire. The fact was that the 80 Irish Members had said to the right hon. Gentleman—"You must do this; you must not do that. You must accept this clause and you must accept the other clause, or we will turn you out." One would have thought that the Prime Minister at his time of life, rather than be dictated to in this way to pass a measure which would revolutionise the country, would prefer to be turned out 20 times than to surrender so abjectly to those whom a few short years ago he put into prison. But the right hon. Gentleman had come to-day in this clause to propose to hand over the power of making laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland, and to hand over their loyal Irish friends and brothers, who had done so much to build up the Empire, and who had stood by them in all their troubles, to men whom he had described a few years ago as steeped to the lips in treason.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

I never used such words.

SIR J. GORST (Cambridge University)

The Irish Attorney General used them.

*MR. BARTLEY

It certainly was some Member of the right hon. Gentleman's Government.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

The words were used by Mr. Johnson, now Mr. Justice Johnson, and formerly Irish Attorney General.

*MR. BARTLEY

regretted that he had made a mistake and attributed the words to the right hon. Gentleman. He regarded this as a vital clause, which would inflict great injustice on the Loyalists of Ireland, those men who had always stood by them and assisted them in their wars and upheld the might of England in every part of the world. He begged to move the omission of the clause.

THE CHAIRMAN

No such Motion can be made.

MR. PARKER SMITH (Lanarkshire, Partick)

said, that under this clause arose the question of the powers that were to be given to the Irish Legislature. That was a matter that had formed a great part of the arguments of the Prime Minister in all his speeches. The right hon. Gentleman had always laid stress on the supreme importance of giving wide powers to the Irish Legislature. The historical arguments of the right hon. Gentleman were based on the fact that a Parliament had existed in Ireland, and that Grattan's Parliament, during the limited number of years of its existence, possessed very full and wide powers. Legislatures had, not only in this country but in all other countries, been considered the panacea, he might almost say, for all the evils to which States were subject. The right hon. Gentleman brought forward various instances from abroad, laid down various propositions on this matter, and challenged denial as to foreign experience, and in all his speeches he had drawn out the historical argument to an extent that no one else either in or out of the. House had pressed it or attached importance to it. In the speeches the right hon. Gentleman delivered in this year it was satisfactory to see he had abandoned the language which marked his utterances a few years ago. Then the right hon. Gentleman said— You had a horrible and shameful history." "Foulest and most monstrous corruption joined with the grossest intimidation." "Wanton, wicked, black, foul, base, vile, shameful blackguardism.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

Blackguardism?

MR. PARKER SMITH

said, that was contained in a private letter, not intended for publication, but the other epithets came out, of the right hon. Gentleman's speeches on the subject. Those were the words of the right hon. Gentleman six years ago, but he had not used that tone in his recent speeches. He (Mr. Parker Smith) did not know whether it was in deference to one of his Colleagues, Lord Rosebery, who, in that admirable life of Mr. Pitt that he brought out, openly repudiated the words the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister then used. Both in the speech in which he introduced the Bill and his speech on the Second Reading, he enlarged upon this historical aspect of the question, and in his many speeches in supporting that he had made it a matter of serious reproach to his opponents in debate that they had not substantially met the points on this subject which he had put forth. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Armagh (Mr. Dunbar Barton) was the only one who met the right hon. Gentleman on the spot. Most hon. Members considered, whatever the truth or falsity of the statements might be, they were not really relerant to the merits of the question; but when the right hon. Gentleman stated propositions, attaching importance to them, he (Mr. Parker Smith) thought it was worth while to look into the correctness of what the right hon. Gentleman had so stated. In his Second Reading speech the right hon. Gentleman put forward a set of "propositions for confutation, if they can be confuted; if not, for mature and deep consideration." There were four propositions, and of these he (Mr. Parker Smith) took the first— There is in the civilised world—I do not go beyond the limits of Europe and America—no incorporating Union effected and maintained by force against either Party that has ever prospered. The right hon. Gentleman the late President of the Board of Trade (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) interrupted, "The United States." The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, continuing, said— I said no incorporating Union. An incorporating Union means that which suppresses the Legislatures of the independent parts. Now, there was one example of such an incorporating Union, according to the right hon. Gentleman's own definition, which had been so complete a success that it would stand notice in these Debates, an example of tyranny with which the Union in Ireland was compared —a Union that produced greater crime than anything done in Ireland, and that was the case of France. They had the Irish Rebellion, and against that they could set——

*THE CHAIRMAN

I must remind the hon. Member that the only question before the Committee is that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill. The hon. Member must speak to the clause; it is not in Order to make Second Reading Speeches.

MR. PARKER SMITH

on the point of Order, submitted that the right hon. Gentleman in his speeches had laid great stress upon the extent of the powers of Legislatures, and he would like to ask whether on this clause, which was the clause that gave powers of legislation, they were precluded from referring to it.

THE CHAIRMAN

It is perfectly in order to discuss the powers given by Clause 2; but I must remind the hon. Member the only question before the Committee is that the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

MR. PARKER SMITH

would merely state what he was prepared to prove in more detail, that a precedent in which there had been an incorporated Union— [ Cries of "Question!"] He merely stated what, but for the Chairman's ruling he should have been——

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is out of Order, and he must confine himself to what I have already pointed out it is legitimate to discuss—namely, the powers proposed to be conferred by Clause 2.

MR. PARKER SMITH

said, that, in conformity with the Chairman's ruling, he would go on to another part of what he desired to discuss, and that he would state in this way. The right hon. Gentleman had again and again put forward the case of Grattan's Parliament, and the history of Ireland under Grattan's Parliament, as being a very strong proof in favour of the present Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had not put forward the mere fact of the Legislature in Ireland, but put forward the extended powers of the Legislature during the period from 1782 onwards. He (Mr. Parker Smith) submitted the argument the right hon. Gentleman based on that, the argument that powers given to the Legislature in Ireland reduced the great burdens of Ireland during those years, was a fallacious argument, and one on which no stress could be laid with respect to the present clause, which gave very large and extended powers to the Irish Legislature. He should be in Order in following out that line of argument. The right hon. Gentleman had again and again quoted as the golden age of Ireland the period from 1782 to 1795, and had stated that the prosperity of Ireland during that period was caused by Grattan's Parliament, and broken in upon by the malice of the English Government in destroying Grattan's Parliament, and causing the Union. To show the advantage of the Legislature created in Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman said— During these years there was a perfect union of hearts between the Irish Protestants and the Irish Roman Catholics, and there was a perfect harmony of sentiment between England and Ireland from 1782 to the year 1795. This is no dream. It has happened before, why should it not happen again? Gifted with the power of self-government, why should they not exhibit on the one hand that strong paternal concord among themselves, and on the other hand the harmonious sentiment towards England which characterised the period I have named. The argument was that self-government; that the power of self-government, produced by these causes the great result of "a perfect union of hearts" and increased prosperity. It was perfectly true that in Ireland there was very great prosperity during the period from 1780 on to about 1792; but it was neither coincident with the time of Grattan's Parliament, nor was it caused by it; it began before Grattan's Parliament came into existence, and ended before Grattan's Parliament ceased. It was not caused by the action of Grattan's Parliament, except so far it was probably stimulated by the scrambling Committee that gave bounties to the industries of Ireland. The real fact was that the commercial restrictions—which were the greatest stain on the policy of this country towards Ireland—were removed in 1780, and it was their removal that did more for the prosperity of the country than anything else. During those years, from 1783 to 1793, they had peace and prosperity in the country; those were the golden years to which men had always looked back. Ireland and England both nourished; but by the end of that time, and long before any of the present disturbance——

MR. LOGAN (Leicester, Harborough)

I rise to a point of Order, Sir. It has been decided that a Legislature is to be granted, and I ask is the hon. Gentleman in Order now in discussing simply whether there shall be a Legislature, and giving as a reason the many defects of a former Legislature?

MR. HENEAGE (Great Grimsby)

I would ask whether my hon. Friend is not in Order in referring to the power of making laws that is given under this clause?

THE CHAIRMAN

It was not easy to make out, but I understood he was using that as a sort of illustration. I must again remind the hon. Member of what the question is before the Committee. A Legislature is established by the 1st clause, and the question is as to what powers are to be granted by this, clause.

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

Debate resumed.

MR. JESSE COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

On a point of Order Sir, the hon. Member is making a moderate speech, which you yourself ruled——

THE CHAIRMAN

I have already explained to the hon. Member what my view of the clause is, and ruled accordingly, and I have no doubt the hon. Member will now confine himself to the question before the Committee.

MR. PARKER SMITH

claimed that on those terms he was clearly in Order in dealing with the point he was desiring to argue, and he thought the Chairman did not need the assistance of the very large number of amateur Chairmen there were in the House. It appeared to him that in considering the question of extending great powers to this Parliament in Ireland, it was necessary to see how it had succeeded in previous years. The question of the clause was not the establishment of a Legislature— that had been passed already, but the question was how the great powers proposed to be conferred were to be given to the Legislature after the Legislature had been established. The right hon. Gentleman, and a good many other hon. Members, had laid great stress upon the policy and action of the Parliament that was established in Ireland with very considerable powers, and it seemed to him he was entitled to look into those statements, and do his best to show that that argument was of no value in reference to the present Bill. In his speech the right hon. Gentleman said that, accompanied with the power of self-government, there was no reason why Ireland should not exhibit, on the one hand, that harmony of sentiment with England, and on the other that there should be union of hearts. That immense sentiment in England which the right hon. Gentleman chose as subject of eulogy was one that would not be found to have existed during that period of union of hearts of Catholics and Protestants which he stated as the result of the policy he wished to adopt. It had already been pointed out there were two serious differences between the two over the question of commercial prosperity and the question of the Regency. The right hon. Gentleman replied— There were quarrels between Parliaments. I was speaking of peoples—besides, the English Parliament was wrong. That was not the judgment of historians, and it was not the judgment of Lord Rosebery, that it was the British Parliament that was wrong on these questions. And, in particular as to the commercial question, it was not a question between Parliament and Parliament, it was, if ever anything was, a question between peoples and peoples. The original propositions of Mr. Pitt were generally accepted by the Irish Parliament. With his command of a large and unquestioned majority—a majority in all Imperial affairs beyond and far larger numerically than the right hon. Gentleman had—Mr. Pitt thought there was no doubt he would be able to carry those provisions through the British Parliament. But what happened? It was outside agitation that made itself felt and prevented that commercial policy, that everyone was agreed would have been an unmixed and enormous advantage both to this country and to Ireland, coming to maturity. Then there was the other example which the right hon. Gentleman took, the effect of Catholic Emancipation. That surely was not a case in which the peoples were united, that was not the case where the peoples desired Emancipation. They knew of the Gordon Riots—

MR. LOGAN

On a point of Order, Sir—[Cries of "Order!"] I cannot remain silent—[Cries of "Order!"] When hon. Gentlemen have quite done I will venture to address you, Sir. I wish to ask whether the hon. Gentleman is now in Order in referring to Catholic Emancipation and Mr. Pitt's opinion?

THE CHAIRMAN

I cannot say at the present moment I see the object of this reference to Catholic Emancipation.

MR. PARKER SMITH

was very sorry that his argument had not made itself clear, but he was endeavouring to make it clear to the Committee, and it was this. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that it was one of the great advantages of his policy that it would bring about harmony and unity between this country and Ireland, and stated that it had produced that effect before. The right hon. Gentleman stated that during the time there was a Parliament with the kind of wide legislation this clause was seeking to confer on the Parliament he was seeking to establish in Dublin, that during that time there was harmony between the people, and in particular there was harmony between Catholics and Protestants. If that statement were true he thought it would be a valuable basis for the argument. If it was true that owing to Grattan's Parliament they had harmony between England and Ireland, and Catholics and Protestants, then it would undoubtedly be in many minds a strong argument in favour of this Clause 2 and forming a Parliament and Government of the kind of Grattan's Parliament. He was sorry he had been obliged to go over ground which he had hoped he had made clear before. The right hon. Gentleman had said that union between Catholic and Protestant marked this harmonious period in Ireland. But that was not true, the Volunteers, for example, were entirely against Catholic Emancipation, Charlemont and Foster were against it; it was not until much later and in entirely different circumstances—in fact it was forced through by the English Parliament, as the right hon. Gentleman called it, by the action of the English Government in entire opposition to the national feeling both in England and in Ireland. That statement had been made not only by the right hon. Gentleman, but by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. E. Redmond), who said in his speech on the Second Reading— It had been said that Grattan's Parliament was a failure. He denied it. Grattan's Parliament in 1793 admitted the Catholics to the franchise, to the juries, to the professions, and to the Universities, and it was not till 30 years afterwards that the Imperial Parliament conceded the principle of emancipation. The fact was, and he could quote plenty of Nationalist authority to prove it, that Catholic Emancipation came, not through Grattan's Parliament but was forced upon Grattan's Parliament and the Irish Government by the action of the English Parliament and Government. Mitchell, the National historian, said— That, though the measure came recommended by the example of England and the express wishes of the Administration, it was warmly contested by Parliament at every point. And Wolfe Tone——

MR. LLOYD-GEORGE (Carnarvon, &c.)

I wish to know, Sir, whether it is in Order in discussing the 2nd clause to discuss the proceedings of Grattan's Parliament?

MR. HENEAGE

May I ask, Sir, whether it is not perfectly in Order to compare another case with the powers proposed to be given to the Irish Parliament?

THE CHAIRMAN

I have already pointed out it is in Order for an hon. Member to refer to the period to which the hon. Member has referred, but I have already pointed out it is distinctly out of Order to make a Second Reading speech, and I must ask him to keep closer to the subject-matter of this clause.

MR. PARKER SMITH

said, he would, of course, endeavour to follow the Chairman's ruling, and only say the illustration seemed to him rather a strong argument against the position of the right hon. Gentleman. Wolfe Tone himself, the ablest as he was the bravest of the Irish race, pointed out in the strongest way that the emancipation of the Roman Catholics had been refused by the Irish Parliament; that a deputation of Roman Catholics came over to London; that their petition was accepted by the King and forced by Mr. Pitt upon a reluctant Irish Parliament; and, if necessary, he could quote from the same high authority that it was by the action of Mr. Pitt and Mr. Pitt's Government alone that a conversion, almost unique, was brought on the Irish mind; therefore, it was inaccurate to say that Grattan's Parliament had produced harmony between Roman Catholics and Protestants, and that the measure passed in 1792 was a triumph for Grattan's Parliament instead of being, as it was, a triumph of the enlightenment of the English Government. It was very strange to see now-a-days the enthusiasm for Grattan's Parliament in the minds of a great many hon. Gentlemen who were supporting this Bill. He would like to point out that that had been very far from the opinion of the Nationalist Party in the past, and they could find no stronger abuse of Grattan's Parliament than in the pages of the Nationalist historian, Mr. John Mitchell, who talked of— Deluge of scoundrelism," "a shameful Parliament," "solid phalanx of Castle Members, equally insensible to invective, to sarcasm, and to shame.

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! I have more than once explained to the hon. Gentleman that he must not refer to this matter any further.

MR. PARKER SMITH

would leave that point, merely stating that Grattan's Parliament— [Cries of "Order!"] He submitted he was entirely in Order, and he should wait, at any rate, until the Chairman told him he was not. [An hon. MEMBER: He has done so.] He would merely state that Grattan's Parliament, which was a new favourite of the Irish Nationalist Party, was a Parliament——

MR. LOUGH (Islington, W.)

I rise to a point of Order. I wish to ask you whether the hon. Member is not now breaking through your ruling, which you have laid down three times, by repeating exactly the sentences for which he was called to Order?

THE CHAIRMAN

I have told the hon. Member what I think about the matter, and I must ask him to attend to my ruling.

MR. PARKER SMITH,

resuming, said, that the extent to which entirely inaccurate views of the past had been put forward; the extent to which particular features of the history of the past had been chosen and had been emphasised in support of this policy, would be ludicrous if it were not almost incredible. The Prime Minister at every point, in almost every speech he made, avoiding the more vital points of the subject, went back upon these historical matters, attached large importance to them, and treated the question of history in a manner which was absolutely unscientific; in a manner which reminded him of a keen religious controversialist laying hold of any text which might help his purpose, wrenching it from the context and taking no heed of the general circumstances and the general meaning which surrounded it. There was no fact too large, no social condition of things too important to be overlooked by the right hon. Gentleman in his historical argument. On the other hand, there was no point so small and so insignificant that he was not ready to lay hold of if he could serve his purpose by so doing. That was not the way to use history, if history was to be of any advantage at all in the discussion of these political questions. There were matters in which they must take guidance from what had happened in the past, and in particular in giving these wide and almost quasi-independent powers to the Irish Legislature they were bound to consider the effects that followed when similar powers were possessed and exercised before in Ireland. They ought to remember the condition of things when that previous Parliament came to an end. They were then in a time of great national strain, and as soon as danger came upon them, and they became engaged in a great struggle, the statesmen of this country who had had no prejudice against that Parliament saw how for the national safely it was inevitable that that Parliament should be suppressed and the Union brought about. He believed that if this new Parliament was established, not as a gas-and-water arrangement, but was invested with all the powers proposed, though matters might go on smoothly in time of quiet and prosperity, as soon as a time of real strain and peril came upon them, upon them would also come, if they could not undo what they were doing now, the same risk and danger and the same terrible ruin which threatened England in the last year of the last century.

*SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

rose to oppose the clause. He opposed it first on a ground which might be described as a sentimental ground. He thought the introduction of the words, "peace, order, and good Government of Ireland "were a novel and most undesirable attempt in the body of a Bill to express a wholly undeserved eulogy upon the character of the Bill itself. He did not remember any instance in the history of legislation in which words similar or analogous to these had been introduced into the body of a Bill. The result of the Bill was far more likely to be the establishment in Ireland of disturbance, disorder, and misgovernment than what these eulogistic words in the Bill foreshadowed. The Committee could not have forgotten the extraordinary scene which took place upon this clause last night. Though there had been moments within the last 10 years when there were more excitement, violence, and recrimination in the House than took place last night, he imagined there had been no more dramatic episode than that which occurred between 6 o'clock and midnight. The Unionist Party had been accused of wanting time in the discussion of this measure; but after shuffling and doubling, and dodging, and resorting to every pos- sible expedient to avoid any clear expression of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, at half-past 11 last night the Prime Minister gave way and accepted words in the operative part of the Bill which affirmed the principle, at all events, of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. If the Prime Minister had made that concession on Monday week, he would have saved at least four working days of Parliamentary time. Four days, amounting to at least 30 hours, had been deliberately wasted by the Government because they could not make up their minds to assent to a declaration of Imperial supremacy in the operative part of the Bill. He hoped every Member of the Unionist Party, when that Party was accused of delaying the progress of the Bill, would remember this fact—that four days' debate on the 1st clause would have been entirely avoided if the concession which was made on Tuesday, May 16, at the conclusion of the 2nd clause had been made on Monday week, May 8.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

It was made on the Second Reading.

*SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, now they had the confession from the Prime Minister that he had sat by during those eight days, and had refused to express the intention that he had in his mind, which, if expressed openly and distinctly on May 8th, would have closed the mouths of the Unionists. Why had the Prime Minister been the unwilling slave of the Nationalist Members up to this point? Why had he taken the details of his policy from them? It was because the right hon. Gentleman thought he could rely upon the British majority behind him, but could not rely on the 71 Nationalists in front of him unless he carried out all their dictates. To please them the right hon. Gentleman gave up the financial clauses, he refused to state his views on the retention of the Irish Members, and for eight days he kept silence as to the Imperial supremacy, It was only when two Members (Sir E. J. Reed and Mr. Bolton) on his own side, representing important English constituencies, rose in their places and demanded the insertion of words clearly defining the Imperial supremacy, that he decided to make the concession, which he made tardily, reluctantly, and grudgingly last night. Though those words declared the principle for which the Unionists had been struggling, yet—as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had pointed out—they could not be considered as sufficient to settle in a practical and effective way the question of Imperial supremacy. Those words would undoubtedly be followed by additions to other clauses——

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

Hear, hear!

*SIR E.ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, such additions would have the effect of making the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament not merely a vague and nominal supremacy, but an actual, practical, and effective supremacy. When the Prime Minister made the concession last night, he made it because he could not help making it—because he knew if he had gone to a Division he would have been defeated. That was a reason which no one could appreciate more than the right hon. Gentleman, seeing he had made the capture of votes the study of his lifetime. He would just read to the House the Prime Minister's words. [Cries of "Order!" and "Chair!"]

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is entitled to discuss the clause itself and the words as they are added, but he is not at liberty to discuss the question of how they came to be inserted in it.

*SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, as he understood the ruling it would preclude him from reading to the House the words used by the right hon. Gentleman in assenting to the Amendment last night.

THE CHAIRMAN

I think that is so. The hon. Member may discuss the clause as a whole.

*SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, that being so, he could only refer the House generally to those words which were at the conclusion of the Prime Minister's speech last night. With regard to the powers which would be conferred under the clause, frequent attempts had been made by the Prime Minister and his supporters to induce the House and the country to believe that those powers were closely analogous to the powers conferred upon Colonial Legislatures. The Prime Minister had, however, never given a clear statement on this point. He had never admitted to the public that the powers which the Legislatures of the great Colonies possessed were infinitely greater and wider than the powers which, according to the Prime Minister, would be conferred on Ireland under this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman tried to induce the Irish Members to believe that their powers would be the same as those of the Colonies.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

No.

SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, if that were so, why did the right hon. Gentleman constantly quote in his speeches the condition and Legislatures of the Colonies as an example for the future of Ireland under this Bill?

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

Subject to restrictions.

*SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said if, when the right hon. Gentleman used his Colonial analogy, he would also set forth the restrictions and the differences between Ireland and the Colonies there would be no complaint. But the right hon. Gentleman in his arguments always assumed that the analogy was a close one, and it was only when he was brought to bay for a definition that he said there were restrictions.

[Here the CHIEF SECRETARY for IRELAND (Mr. John Morley) entered the House, and Mr. GLADSTONE conversed with him in a loud voice.]

*SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT, pausing, said, he must beg the pardon of the right hon. Gentleman. He had been speaking for only 14 minutes, and not half-an-hour as he had stated. That was just as close an approach to accuracy as the right hon. Gentleman usually made. The Prime Minister, in his argument, constantly said—"Look at Canada and Australia; they have had for years this self-government which we propose to give to Ireland; under these powers they have enjoyed remarkable prosperity; they are peaceful and loyal;" and then, he argued, why not set up a separate Parliament in Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman on those occasions said nothing about restrictions and differences of geographical and political condition. The ordinary elector, who was misguided by the powerful rhetoric and eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman, and by his great name and position, was often misled by this false analogy. He said that the analogy was, at all events, exceedingly exaggerated and strained, and that the essential conditions of Ireland and the Colonies were totally different. He would remind the House that when, 100 years ago, Mr. Pitt attempted to settle matters in Canada by giving Canada such a Legislature as they now proposed to give Ireland, it resulted in nothing but disturbance; and a struggle was carried on in Canada against the Imperial Parliament for 50 years, until at last Canada succeeded in wiping out almost every one of the restrictions imposed upon her. If the right hon. Gentleman would tell the country these important facts, the Unionist Party would not complain of his using the argument; but he hoodwinked and blinded the country by setting up to persons who had not the opportunity of historical study these false analogies. The powers given in this clause constituted a totally separate condition of affairs to that which existed in the Colonies. These powers, and the restrictions set up, would be the means of causing dissatisfaction and agitation in Ireland. They would not lead to peace, order, and good government; but they would lead to discontent, disorder, and constantly-increasing demands on the part of Ireland. On the other hand, there was a tremendous and a vital difference between the relations of Ireland to this country and the relations of the Colonies to this country. He was aware that he should not be in Order in pursuing this question in detail. He would only ask the Committee to remember that the Colonies were thousands of miles removed from their shores, and not one of them occupied a position of political or strategical dominance over their interests at home. The loss of a Colony, deeply as it would be deplored by everyone who valued the greatness of the Empire, would not be a fatal blow; whereas the establishment, as might well happen under this Bill, of a separate, a hostile, and an armed power in Ireland, might be the means of dealing a deadly blow at the liberty, commerce, and independence of this country. These facts had been ignored by the Prime Minister. He had already referred to the very remarkable occurrence of last Friday—the protest of two Liberal Members against the failure of the Government to allow Imperial supremacy to be clearly declared in the operative part of the Bill. That protest had been acted upon, and the result was the insertion of the words which were added last night to the clause. Another remarkable occurrence took place last night. The Irish Members, who had suffered the pains of retention for many days, for the first time broke silence, and expressed in no uncertain way their disapprobation of the proposed introduction of words declaring the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament in the Bill. The House would look forward with interest to what happened in the future with regard to the question of Imperial supremacy. The House would watch the relations of the Government to the Irish Members to see how far Ministers were still under the control of their allies below the Gangway, and how far they might be willing to allow further additions to be made to the Bill which would carry out the desire of many Gladstonians, as well as of all Unionists—a really effective and practical supremacy in the general working of the measure itself should it ever, unfortunately, become law. The object of such additional safeguards in the Bill would be to make the supremacy which the House had in principle affirmed last night.

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

Debate resumed.

Several MEMBERS

rose——

MR. GEORGE WYNDHAM (Dover)

said, that the opposition to the clause was not disarmed by the concession which the Government had made on the previous evening. The Government had refused a number of Amendments, the object of which was to make the supremacy effectual, and to make its nature clear alike to the people of England and Ireland. What was the use of the Government allowing this barren triumph, when previously they had refused to accept the word "delegate" in place of the word "grant"? In their speeches throughout the country, however, their talk had been of nothing but delegation. The Government had declined to proceed by way of enumeration instead of by way of restriction in dealing with the powers of the Irish Legislature; and yet the burden of their speeches in the country was that the Irish Legislature was to have nothing but certain well-defined and limited powers. Why should any undue value be attached to the Amendment which the Government had accepted? If they had been faithless to their pledges in the country, why should they be faithful to the pledge which they had given on the previous evening? What was the concession worth when the Government, in the very act of accepting the Amendment, tried to minimise the importance of the Amendment? The Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Morley) declared last night that the rights of the Imperial Parliament were in effect dormant——

THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,) Newcastle-upon-Tyne

I never used the word "dormant."

MR. WYNDHAM

begged the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. He thought it was him who had used the word. At any rate, the hon. Member for Water-ford (Mr. J. E. Redmond) was constantly trying to distinguish between a dormant and a dead supremacy. Was there any grave distinction between them? When they said that a thing was dormant they meant that it was in a state of suspended vitality; and was there really a grave distinction between a dormant and a dead supremacy? The hon. Member for Waterford on the last night, with his customary dexterity, had once more effected the adroit evasion with which hon. Members were now familiar. When the question was put, "Is this Parliament to remain supreme in the sense in which nine men out of 10 understand supremacy?" the hon. Member said, "Of course it is to remain supreme, as it is in the case of Canada;" and when the Unionists demurred he said, "Do you wish it to be supreme as it is in Kent?" Surely it was possible to find some middle term between the supremacy of Parliament over Canada and the supremacy of Parliament over Kent; and it was because the Unionist Party had failed to find during the eight days of the Debate that middle term, and because the Government drew an illustration from Canada, and then refused to be bound by it, and then pointed to Kent and said such and such a thing would be undesirable—it was because of that attitude of hesitation and dubitancy on the part of the Government in the matter that the Debate had been prolonged, and would be prolonged, until the Committee and the country understood what this supremacy was to be. There should be no mistake as to the nature of the Treaty into which they were about to enter. Irishmen, who had many intellectual qualities, were distinguished before all else in memory and imagination. It was idle to suppose that if we gave them a Parliament with doubtful attributes and powers they would not recall to memory their earlier Parliament. They would desire to see its direct successor in the Parliament it was now proposed to set up. Fortis imaginatio general casum, and if a powerful imagination brought the thing to pass he ventured to prophesy that imagination in Ireland would attempt to clothe the Parliament about to be conferred with all the dignity and power that Grattan's Parliament once had. The object of his (Mr. Wyndham's) remarks might be summed up thus: in the attempt at the solution of the question which had been made in the beginning of this century much had been left in doubt, and a great deal of the misconceptions and heart burnings which had followed upon the Union was to be attributed, and justly attributed, to the fact that, whether intentionally as some said, or unintentionally, as he believed, the Irish people had some cause to suppose that they had been cheated in the bargain made. Therefore, in the present Bill, let there be no room for misapprehension either on this or the other side of St. George's Channel.

*THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,) Wolverhampton, E.

I may say, with regard to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down, that it is the first that has grappled with the principle of the clause the Committee is now considering. I am not going to follow hon. Gentlemen who preceded him in any Second Reading Debate or historical disquisition on Grattan's Parliament, or on the terms of the Union, for what the Committee has now to decide is practically whether Clause 2, as amended, is to stand part of the Bill; and I venture to submit that a Second Reading Debate upon that question is out of Order, and that it will also be out of Order to discuss Clause 1. The House, by reading the Bill a second time, has affirmed the principle of this great change in the Government of Ireland; by inserting Clause 1 it has affirmed the principle that Ireland is to have a domestic Legislature, and by Clause 2 the powers of that Legislature are, as I think, limited as well as defined. I would, however, say a word with regard to one remark of the hon. Member who spoke last. Following his Predecessor, the Member for Ecclesall, he complained that the Government had wasted some days by not announcing before last night their views with reference to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. I would remind the hon. Member that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary clearly stated upon the Second Reading of the Bill that the Government would consider and accept any clause which adequately described and set forth the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. There has been no hesitation whatever about this question. The discussion last night was as to the place in which the declaration should be inserted; and I do not think that it lies in the mouths of hon. Members opposite to blame the Government for the delay occasioned by the discussion of that question—a delay which one Member computed at four days and another at eight days. The hon. Member for Sheffield said that the Amendment declared the principle for which all along the Opposition had been contending, while the hon. Member who has just sat down said it was a barren and I think he said an impracticable concession. Well, that is the question the Committee has now to consider and upon which I wish to say a word or two, as it is a question upon which I have been personally challenged again and again in the course of the Debate. The hon. Gentleman has stated that a large number of constituencies at the General Election entertained a very different view of the supremacy of Parliament from that which has been propounded from this Bench in the present Debate, and that they were under the belief that the Government were going to propose what has been familiarly described as a Gas and Water measure. Now, I had some little experience of many of the elections. It has been my fate to take part in a great many contests, and I have read particulars of a good many more, and I cannot recall at this moment any single Liberal Member who pledged himself to support a measure which would come within the category of what is called a Gas and Water Bill. I am only speaking from memory and I may be wrong; but my impression is that throughout the length and breadth of the Kingdom the Liberal Party, at all events, declared themselves as supporters of a measure which would give Ireland effective autonomy, the effective control of Irish affairs by an Irish Legislature elected by an Irish people and controlling an Irish Executive responsible to that Legislature. At the same time, with that effective autonomy, there was also to be an effective supremacy of the Imperial Parliament in which, and as a part of which, the Irish Members were to remain. I will not, however, speak for other people. I speak for myself, as my action has been called in question. I would say that that has been my confession of faith, and to that I now adhere, and I venture to submit that this Bill literally complies with those conditions. Clause 2 is a definition of the powers of what may be called, I believe, technically a non-sovereign Legislature. That is not, as the hon. Member for North Islington, whom I now see in his place, declared at the commencement of this Debate, a rival and co-ordinate Parliament.

MR. BARTLEY

I did not use the term "co-ordinate Parliament."

*MR. H. H. FOWLER

He said a rival Parliament. I would ask the Committee to consider how restricted the powers given by the clause are. They are given, in the first place, with exceptions, and they are subject to restrictions. Then there is granted to the Irish Legislature Power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland in respect of matters exclusively relating to Ireland. And then, lastly, there is the Proviso introduced last night—a Proviso for which I venture to think there is no legal necessity—which did not add to or take from the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament by one hair's breadth, but which was a declaration to meet the views of certain hon. Gentlemen who entertained doubts on the point. To put the matter beyond all doubt, there are these three things about this Irish Legislature—it is subject to restrictions and exceptions, the sphere of its operations is confined to matters exclusively Irish, and then there is the declaration that all is subject to the unimpaired, unfettered, and unrestricted supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. Whether that is a wise step to take or not I am not going to argue now. Whether wise or not, that is not the question before the Committee, not the creation of a rival Parliament, or even, as the hon. Gentleman opposite pointed out just now, of one with powers analogous to those granted to Colonial Legislatures. Colonial Legislatures are not restricted to the extent to which and in the manner in which this Legislature will be restricted. The hon. Member for Dover pooh-poohed the effects of these restrictions; and he thought the hon. Member for North Islington, in harmony with the subject of the Amendment which he moved at an earlier period of the Debate in which he proposed to abolish these restrictions, regarded them as of little value.

MR. BARTLEY

Only those in Clause 4.

*MR. H. H. FOWLER

I cannot agree with him. The reservations in the Bill extend to ten matters which cover the whole foreign policy, the naval and military policy, the trade policy, and other matters of extreme importance, and with respect to which the Irish Parliament is absolutely prohibited from dealing at all. Then there are seven restrictions which I am prepared to prove, when the time comes, absolutely safeguard the civil and religious liberty of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh. This is a matter of argument in which I am prepared to meet them. I may be right or I may be wrong; but laughter is no answer to a contention of this description. I put it broadly that, under the wording of Clause 4, there is, in my humble judgment, an ample protection both for personal liberty and for the rights of property, if such protection is needed for the minority in Ireland. The hon. Member for Dover asks what is the use of the declaration of supremacy in the clause; he attaches great importance to having it put in here, and now, having got it, he says what is the use of it, unless there exists machinery to carry it out. That raises the question of what is supremacy and what is effective machinery. I heard with great interest the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford last night, who clearly and fairly defined the line that divides the two ideas as to the question of supremacy. An hon. Member said the other night that I admitted that an Irish Legislature would do foolish things. Well, I have no doubt-about it. I know no Legislature that has not done foolish things. I have been a Member for some years of one which has done very foolish things, and I have no doubt if I continue a Member of it I shall see it do other foolish things. It is now doing some foolish things—[Opposition cheers] —I expected that cheer—according to the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite, just as during the past six years it did many things which we thought very foolish. But all this is no reason for a perpetual, constant, and irritating interference with the Irish Legislature. We in this House have neither the time nor the knowledge to deal with the internal affairs of Ireland. I do not mean in any sense to be disrespectful; but I may say that during the last 10 years a large portion of the time of the House has been wasted in putting and answering questions relating to the internal affairs of Ireland, which were absolutely unintelligible, in the main, to the great bulk of the Members of the House. Well, if you mean by supremacy that the House of Commons is to take on its shoulders the day by day government of Ireland, and to constitute itself a Court of Appeal on all Irish affairs, then the last state will be worse than the first. The plan will be practically impossible and unworkable. That is not the sort of supremacy which I believe Members on this side of the House advocate, and for it this Bill contains no machinery whatever. But if you mean by supremacy that if the Irish Parliament should commit gross injustice, gross oppression, gross wrong, if it should pass or attempt to pass any law which would deprive any of Her Majesty's subjects, no matter of what faith or class, of the elementary rights of English citizens, then the Imperial supremacy ought to be, would be, and could be brought into force. [Cries of "How?"] There are three modes of procedure. The first is the procedure contained in the 3rd and 4th clauses —the procedure of reservation and prohibition. There are certain matters which the Irish Legislature cannot touch, any more than certain States of the United States can touch matters prohibited them under their Constitution—aye, and which the United States Congress itself cannot touch without violating the Constitution. There is in the Bill simple and effective and successful machinery for utilising that power. If the Irish Legislature should transgress the limits laid down and contravene any of the ten prohibitions or the seven reservations, you have a Court constituted to which, immediately and in the briefest manner, appeal can be made by the Executive, by the Lord Lieutenant, or by anyone in Ireland, and from that Court there is an appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. So that, so far as the prohibition and reservation is concerned, you have the most ample and effective machinery for carrying it out. What is the second part of the machinery for upholding the supremacy? It is the veto. Hon. Gentlemen say the veto in this country is practically obsolete, and that, therefore, this will be an obsolete veto in Ireland. But I must ask hon. Members to recall for a moment what is the position of affairs in this country. The Sovereign of this country can only act constitutionally by the advice of Her Ministers; and by that strange and, at the same time, admirable working of our Constitution, which is defined in no Statute, and laid down in no written Constitution, there is a most effective mode of exercise of the veto. Her Majesty's Advisers and Ministers must possess the confidence of the House of Commons; and, therefore, if a Bill is proposed in the House which the Executive of the day are not prepared to accept, and the Administration are defeated, they resign or appeal to the country, and either the Sovereign is at once put in possession of a Ministry who possess the confidence of the House, or a general appeal is made to the electorate, and the electorate return a House from which a Ministry is chosen. Therefore, there is no analogy between the veto as exercised in this country with the veto which would be exercised in Ireland under this Bill. The veto is not exercised in this country by the Crown on the advice of Her Majesty's Ministers, but Ministers who do not possess the confidence of Parliament are dismissed and others take their place. But what would the veto in Ireland mean? Supposing a Bill of an oppressive and unjust character were passed by the Irish Legislature, the Bill lays down, in the clearest manner, the right of Her Majesty, or rather, I should say, the duty of the Lord Lieutenant to refuse the assent of the Crown, on the instructions given to him by the Crown, acting on the advice of the Imperial Cabinet. The Cabinet is practically a Committee of the House of Commons—neither more nor less.

An hon. MEMBER

And the other House.

*MR. H. H. FOWLER

It includes Members of the other House, but the Cabinet only goes in or out of Office as it possesses or forfeits the confidence of this House. This House as much elects the Prime Minister and the Cabinet as the United States elect the President. In the case of an oppressive Bill being passed by the Irish Legislature, the Cabinet will either veto it or allow it to stand. In either case, if anyone was of opinion that the Cabinet had acted wrongly, he would at once propose a Motion of Censure. That would not be dragged through weary weeks of Debate, but would be dealt with immediately, in a few days.

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

I rise to Order. The Committee will feel that the right hon. Gentleman is practically making a speech which covers the whole of the important points of the Bill. We do not object in the slightest degree. No more interesting speech has been delivered in the course of the Debate than that of the right hon. Gentleman; but I trust that it may be permitted to those who have to reply to the right hon. Gentleman to cover as wide a field. If the speech of the right hon. Gentleman is relevant to the clause, the same latitude, I hope, will be given to those who have to reply to his important speech on the whole Bill.

MR. H. H. FOWLER

I do not want to introduce any other clause. The main point of the argument against the clause as to supremacy is that there is no machinery for making the supremacy effective. I am now showing that there is such machinery.

*THE CHAIRMAN

The Question before the Committee is that the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. An Amendment was introduced last night with regard to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, and the right hon. Gentleman was answering questions with regard to this supremacy. Of course, so far as it is necessary in Debate to answer the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman, hon. Members will be able to do so. But, at the same time, I sincerely trust, considering the difficulty of keeping this discussion off other clauses, that hon. Members will take care to keep as closely to the present clause as possible.

*MR. H. H. FOWLER

I should be sorry to weary the Committee, but I should like to make my point clear, and as I have mentioned two respects in which this machinery is brought effectually to bear, I will come to the third and last. The third mode in which the machinery is made effective is the ultimate resort—not the constant resort, but perhaps the rarest, to be used when everything else has failed—namely, the undoubted right of the Imperial Parliament to repeal any Act of the Irish Parliament. No lawyer will for a moment dispute the assertion that, however the Bill is drawn—whether in its present shape, or whether with every clause relating to Imperial supremacy struck out —it will still be in the power of the Imperial Legislature to repeal any Act passed by the Irish Legislature. Therefore, when I am told that we ought not to consent to this clause because it gives a barren declaration which cannot be put in force, I say that the Imperial supremacy can be enforced by prohibition, reservation, veto, and, finally, repeal. Under these circumstances, when I am challenged by the right hon. Member for the Bordesley Division (Mr. J. Collings) to say whether I still hold the opinions I held when I addressed my constituents in the Midlands, I say I do not recede from them one jot. I maintain here, as I maintained amongst my constituents, that we have effectually secured the supremacy of Parliament. I also maintain here, as I maintained in the Midlands, that if the Irish Question is ever to be settled it is absolutely necessary to give to Ireland an effective autonomy, not necessarily to hon. Members below the Gangway opposite, but to the Irish people. We are not going to give the control of the affairs of Ireland to so-and-so whom some hon. Members may not like; we are not going to give it to the nominees of this House, or of the Government, or of anyone else, but to whomever the Irish people may choose to elect. When elected they will be responsible to the Irish people, and must stand or fall according to the way they discharge the duties entrusted to them. Therefore, I say that, so far as I am concerned, I have been consistent in this matter; and when the right time comes I shall be prepared—having been charged with neglecting the interests of those with whom I have the deepest sympathy—to show that there are other clauses in the Bill which perfectly safeguard the position of the religious minority in Ireland. This clause is the natural consequence of Clause 1. The powers which it confers are distinctly defined; the restrictions to which the Irish Legislature will be subject are clearly set forth in the Bill; they will safeguard all the interests to which hon. Gentlemen opposite rightly attach supreme importance; and no matter whether this proviso is inserted in this clause or left out of the Bill altogether, the effective and constant supremacy which the Imperial Parliament possesses will remain a living and effective force.

MR. GRAHAM MURRAY (Buteshire)

said, they had waited with some anxiety since the commencement of the Debate that morning for some statement on the clause from a Member on the Front Ministerial Bench; and he thought the important speech just delivered was the best rebuke that could have been delivered to the somewhat irresponsible attempts earlier in the day to stifle this very important discussion. He had been for some time wondering what the supporters of the Government really thought was done by the Prime Minister last night when he assented to the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James). It would have been in the power of the drafters of the Bill to have combined the 1st and 2nd clauses; but, as they had not done so, he took it they were in Order— indeed, the Chairman had ruled so—in discussing the measure of the powers which it was proposed to entrust to the Legislature created by the 1st clause. They had been challenged to produce the speeches of hon. Gentlemen behind the Government who went in for what might be called the gas and water view of Home Rule. But the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. H. Fowler) prudently gave up consideration of that point, and preferred to answer what he himself had said. The right hon. Gentleman said that his view at the General Election had been that the scope of Home Rule should be autonomy for the Irish combined with supremacy on the part of the Imperial Parliament. He (Mr. Graham Murray) rather agreed with a subsequent remark of the right hon. Gentleman, that everything turned upon what they meant, and what definition they gave to the, words "autonomy" and "supremacy." The right hon. Gentleman was a great assistance to them, because he afterwards qualified the word "autonomy" by the adjective "effective. With the Bill as it now stood, it was quite clear that, in the spirit of the Amendment the Government accepted last night, the scope of the action of the Imperial Legislature and the Irish Legislature was absolutely coextensive, except, of course, as to those matters in which the Irish Legislature was particularly interested. He (Mr. Graham Murray) asked, when they had a scope that was absolutely co-extensive, and when they had the possibility of the Irish Parliament dealing with a particular measure in a particular way, with the Imperial Parliament going the next day and dealing with the same measure in another way, whether they could possibly say there was an effective autonomy, combined with supremacy? If they took that definition, and if there was a definition forced upon them by the Amendment accepted last night, they got nothing less than a pure contradiction in terms. Would they not be rival Parliaments if they wore both dealing with the same thing? The impression left on his mind by the tone of the right hon. Gentleman was not that he did not see the extraordinary gravity of the terms of the Amendment accepted by the Prime Minister, but he rather thought it was high time to calm the fears which might very well arise in the minds of hon. Gentlemen blow the Gangway. This was not the only case where they found the sting in the tail; and there was no doubt that, with the clause as it stood, the Proviso put in had been rather too strong for the clause itself. He would ask if there were not many other causes which, if the clause was left as it was, would lead to collision? The Opposition had insisted on the Amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury, for two reasons—because they thought it was right in the interests of the Irish, and because they were entitled to insist upon it, because it was in consonance with what they might presume to be the spirit in which this Bill was brought forward as they could gather from the words of the Preamble. He only referred to the Preamble by way of illustration; but the Preamble, which in so many words said it was expedient that the supreme authority of the Imperial Parliament should not be impaired or restricted, might be taken as containing the spirit of the Bill. It was quite possible that the Irish Parliament would pass legislation which would affect not English legislation but English interests, and that those whose interests were affected would try to make amends by getting legislation passed by the English Parliament. He would give an illustration. Legislation might be adopted by the Irish Legislature dealing with goods which were sent into Irish markets. It could not be said that this could not be done, because it would not be competent for the Irish Parliament to pass laws dealing with Customs. It had been pointed out over and over again that there was nothing in the Bill as it stood which would prevent the establishment of something in the nature of octroi duties, that would make it impossible for English goods to go into an Irish town as if Customs Duties wore imposed. Could it be supposed that if any great branch of English or Irish manufacture were interfered with in this way an attempt would not at once be made to induce the Imperial Parliament to pass legislation to a contrary effect? He would give another instance, which, for practical purposes, was, perhaps, a little stronger. The Prime Minister's scheme was that both the Irish Legislature and the Imperial Parliament were to act in the future as the Imperial Parliament had done in the past by way of Party Government. Surely it was not impossible to suppose that the state of Parties should at some time be such that the minority in the Irish Parliament should have the same leanings, and consist largely of the same personalities as the majority in the Imperial Parliament. There might then be a band of men in the Imperial Parliament who would be able to put a great deal of pressure upon the Government of the day, and, in fact, to dictate the terms upon which their support should be given. Suppose the minority had any legislation passed against them in the Irish Parliament which it was powerless to resist, would not the first instinct of self-preservation under the arrangement stereotyped in this clause lead them to endeavour to get the Imperial Parliament to embark on a course of legislation on the same subject, in order, by a side-wind, to overturn the decision which had been recorded against them at home? It was quite evident, from the point of view of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that unless the machinery for carrying out the supremacy were effective, the clause was a sham. There was no doubt that a great amount of the support that was given to the Bill was based on the hope that it formed the beginning of the development of similar schemes for other countries. Supposing there had been a further development of the Home Rule scheme, and it had been extended to Scotland and Wales, was it not absurd to suppose the Imperial Parliament having co-ordinate authority, and dealing at the same time with all the subjects that were taken up by each of the separate Parliaments? He objected to this clause because, when the Imperial supremacy had once been admitted as it had been, if these unrestricted powers were given to the Irish Legislature, the result would be not to set up a system of Federation, but to commence a struggle which would lead to the paralysis of both Legislatures, because they would be continually fighting on the same subjects, or else to the effacing of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, which, according to the declaration the Government had adopted, they were to be the first to cherish and preserve.

MAJOR-GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY (Hammersmith)

said, he was not satisfied that it was a right thing to give over to the Irish people, and especially to the Irish priests, the powers which the Government proposed to confer upon them. The safeguards which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. H. Fowler) had spoken of were only paper safeguards, and all power of enforcing them was being given up unless the Government were going to use bayonets. Did they intend to use British troops for that purpose? He was very sorry the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Morley) did not happen to be present, because he would possibly be able to answer that question. He (Major-General Goldsworthy) was anxious that a large measure of local government should be given to Ireland; but he could not consent to the throwing upon the Irish Members of the immense power which the Government proposed to confer upon them. The question whether there should be an Irish Parliament or not had been put very plainly to his constituents, and they had replied in the negative. Under these circumstances, he could not support the clause.

Dr. Macgregor

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

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 281; Noes 220.—(Division List, No. 92.)

Question put accordingly, "That Clause 2, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 287; Noes 225.—(Division List, No. 93.)

MR. GOSCHEN

I rise, Mr. Mellor, to move that you report Progress.

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

I rise to a point of Order. Did you not call on another hon. Gentleman, Mr. Mellor? [Interruption.]

THE CHAIRMAN

The right hon. Gentleman is in Order.

MR. GOSCHEN

I wish, Sir, to make an appeal to Her Majesty's Government, not to increase any heat there may exist on either side of the House. I make this appeal most respectfully, believing that, if the Government can see their way to fall in with the suggestion I desire to make, it will facilitate the business of the Committee. The suggestion is that, when there is an extremely important Motion before the House, and when it is decided that only a single Minister should speak on that Motion, that Minister will speak at such a stage as to allow of some Debate after his speech, so that if the speech be one of commanding importance, like that made by the right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton, it may be replied to by hon. Members representing the various interests of the Opposition, the Ulster Members, and the Liberal Unionists. There is nothing more calculated to lead to irritation than that a Minister should deliver a speech which opens up new problems, and that there should be no adequate opportunity of reply. I do not wish to enter into any controversial matter; but I hope we shall hear a few words from the right hon. Gentleman upon this matter.

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

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

I gather, Mr. Mellor, that the Motion is made rather for the purpose of drawing a declaration from the Government than for interrupting the proceedings of the Committee: and I hope the answer I have to offer will give some satisfaction. As a rule, the Government has neither proposed nor supported the Closure immediately after a speech from a Minister. Again and again the Government has acquiesced in a Minister being followed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) and others before the Closure has been moved; and that general rule has not been violated by anything which has happened to-day. The right hon. Member for East Wolverhampton spoke after hearing a good many speeches from the Opposition, and after he sat down the Closure was not moved until two more speeches from the Opposition had been heard. No doubt when the Closure was moved three or four hon. Members rose to speak. [Cries of" More! "]

MR. MACARTNEY (Antrim, S.)

Fifteen.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

But it cannot possibly be supposed that the moving of the Closure implies any lack of consideration for the feelings of the Opposition. I submit to my right hon. Friend that in the closing of this Debate there has been no deviation from the general practice of the Government.

MR. GOSCHEN

The right hon. Gentleman has not referred to one point, which is that, besides the Opposition on these Benches behind me, there are others who are entitled to be heard on this Bill. There are the Ulster Members and the Liberal Unionists—[Laughter]. Yes, we have a fair claim to be heard in reply to the speech of the President of the Local Government Board, which the Prime Minister did not hear, and which had as important a bearing upon the whole subject as any speech that has been delivered. To that speech it was only possible to reply with two short speeches from these Opposition Benches. Very great disappointment is felt that no further opportunity was given for a reply to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Hon. Gentlemen seem to think that I am using this as an opportunity for raising a controversy. I can assure them that that is not the case. I am anxious that there should be a feeling in all parts of the House that this Bill should be fairly discussed, and I think it is a candid and straightforward course to inform the Prime Minister of the feeling which has been roused when it is found that full and fair discussion is not allowed. I trust the right hon. Gentleman will weigh the point, that it is not simply one speech, which, though a very important speech, the first in the Debate from a Minister, will be thought adequate on a clause of such vital importance.

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

I must remind my right hon. Friend that, undoubtedly, as he said, the clause is one of vital importance; but I think the right hon. Gentleman must remember that that is an allegation which we hear on every Motion that is made, on every clause, on every sentence of the clause, and on every series of Amendments. We are always told that this is the crux of the Bill. You cannot expect to have the full benefit of that plea in its largest terms, when it is a plea that we hear not only once, but many times in the day. It is quite true, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that my right hon. Friend's speech was of great importance, and that I had not heard it. But I have heard of its purport since my right hon. Friend sat down, and I believe that there was no sentiment given by my right hon. Friend which was not in entire conformity with all previous speeches on the part of the Government. If there was not such conformity, there was a very able gentleman, the late Solicitor General for Scotland, to point it out, and he did not point it out at all that any special answer was required. I think my right hon. Friend will feel that he has received a fair answer from me in having accepted his proposition that the Government never sought to Closure when it was in a position of advantage in the Debate, and OR that principle we shall continue.

Several Members rising—

*THE CHAIRMAN

I have allowed the discussion to go on in order that these mutual explanations might take place. Although it is very desirable that such explanations should take place, it is altogether undesirable that the discussion should continue. It would be out of Order to discuss the adoption of the Closure. That which was the action of the Committee is closed, and is not matter for debate.

*SIR T. LEA (Londonderry, S.)

I wish to appeal to the Government on a somewhat similar matter. I am sure the Government will not say that I ever trespassed on the time of the House. I have not said a word since the Bill was in Committee. I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks it desirable that on this Bill, which interests more than anything else can do the Irish people, important questions should have been decided without a single Irish Representative having been allowed to speak.

THE CHAIRMAN

I have already explained why I allowed the discussion to go on, and why I consider that any further discussion will be out of Order.

MR. J. COLLINGS (Birmingham, Bordesley)

Mr. Mellor——

THE CHAIRMAN

The Question is that I report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. MACARTNEY

Mr. Chairman, I think it is impossible for the Committee to rest absolutely satisfied with the declaration of the Prime Minister.

THE CHAIRMAN

I have already said it would be out of Order to discuss this matter further.

MR. BARTLEY

On the point of Order, Sir——

THE CHAIRMAN

I have ruled that the hon. Member is out of Order, and under that ruling I have power to put the Question, which is that I report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

The House then cleared for a Division, and when the Question was about to be again put.

MR. GOSCHEN

, who spoke from his seat and with his hat on, said: Mr. Mellor, I wish to ask a question on a point of Order, under Rule 23. That Rule is— If Mr. Speaker or Chairman of a Committee of the whole House is of opinion that a Motion for the Adjournment of a Debate, or of the House, during any Debate, or that the Chairman do report Progress, or do leave the Chair, is an abuse of the Rules of the House, he may forthwith put the Question thereupon from the Chair, or he may decline to propose the Question thereupon to the House.

I wish to ask whether the Motion to report Progress is an abuse of the House?

*THE CHAIRMAN

According to the ruling of the Speaker, that is so; when a Motion to report Progress becomes out of Order it is an abuse of the Rules of the House. This Motion became an abuse of the Rules of the House, when debate was persisted in which was contrary to the Rules in spite of my repeated remonstrance as each Member rose and attempted to reflect on the application of the Closure. I then decided forthwith to put the Motion.

SIR J. GORST (who also sat covered)

On the point of Order, Mr. Mellor——

THE CHAIRMAN

The Question is that I report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 244; Noes 299.—(Division List, No. 94.)

MR. GOSCHEN

I rise, Mr. Mellor, to put a point of Order to you. I am sure the Committee generally will feel that, even if constructively the burden is put upon me that I made a Motion that was an abuse of the Rules of the House, it is a reproach that no hon. Member, and no one who has been in the House, as I have, for a number of years, would wish to be entirely silent about. I moved this Motion, and I venture to say that, whatever other speakers may have done, when I moved the Motion I was entirely in Order, and it could not for a moment he suggested that I was out of Order. If so, you, Sir, put the Motion from the Chair, and I venture to think that at that time no one thought that this Motion was an abuse of the Rules of the House. I have the Rule on which, I presume, you acted. It is— If Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of a Committee of the whole House, is of opinion that a Motion for the Adjournment of a Debate, or of the House, during any Debate, or that the Chairman do report Progress, or do leave the Chair, is an abuse of the Rules of the House, he may forthwith put the Question thereupon from the Chair, or he may decline to propose the Question thereupon to the House. But you did not, Mr. Mellor, decline forthwith to put the Question from the Chair when I moved, nor did you decline to propose the Question thereupon. I understood that because other hon. Members rose, therefore you considered, in your discretion, that the Motion, which had not been an abuse when it was originally moved, had then become an abuse of the Rules when other Members rose. I think it will be seen that the privileges of the House are deeply concerned in this matter, because the point at issue really is, when a Motion to report Progress has been made, whether, if one or two Members are in Order in speaking upon it, the Motion, so to say, can be closured at once, and other hon. Members who might be prepared to speak perfectly in Order upon the Motion should thereby be deprived of their opportunity. It is with reluctance, Mr. Mellor, that I raise the point; but I am sure you will see that I am anxious it should not for one moment be supposed, either in or out of this House, that I had made a Motion which was an abuse of the Rules.

*THE CHAIRMAN

In answer to the appeal made to me by the right hon. Gentleman, I must, of course, declare what the Rule of the House is. It has long been decided, both by the Speaker and my Predecessor in the Chair, that to question the action of the Closure directly or indirectly is out of Order. Neither the action of the Chair nor the votes of the Committee can be questioned or reflected on except on a Motion moved in the House after notice duly given. I am bound, of course—it is my duty—to preserve to the best of my ability the Rules of the House. The right hon. Gentleman made this Motion immediately after the Closure had been moved. I felt it to be my duty in the Chair to endeavour to promote harmonious action between the two sides of the House, and I thought it better to allow the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of putting his question to the Prime Minister, and to the Prime Minister of answering it, because I think such a course promotes a good understanding and the progress of business in this House. After the Prime Minister's reply the discussion became highly irregular—indeed, in the strictest sense the whole of the discussion was irregular —but after that it became distinctly irregular, because other hon. Members rose to question the propriety of the Closure, a course which I have had to rule more than once to be absolutely out of Order in this Committee, and they tried, in spite of my rulings, to take part in what had become a highly irregular discussion and an abuse of the Rule-; of the House. Out of respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and out of respect for his position, I put this Motion from the Chair. I never said or suggested that I declined to put the Motion, for the reasons I have already given. I can only say that—of course in the most strict and technical form—the discussion became out of Order and an abuse of the Rules of the House, but I never for one moment thought of imputing to the right hon. Gentleman, in the sense in which he uses the words, that he made any Motion which was intended to be an abuse of the Rules. Having explained this, I hope I may add that, if for one moment it is permitted to move to report Progress in order to question the action of the Closure, the whole Closure Rule, in my opinion, will become nugatory. I am bound to enforce the Rules of the House; there is an inherent power in the Chair to take the necessary steps to maintain order, and I am bound to do my best to carry out the duties which the House has entrusted to me.

THE CHAIRMAN

then called on Captain Naylor-Leyland, when——

MR. SEXTON

rose to a point of Order in reference to this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman proposed to move that the consideration of Clauses 3 and 4 should be postponed until after the consideration of Clause 8. Clause 2, which the Committee had just agreed to, dealt with the law-making powers of the Irish Legislature, and Clauses 3 and 4 dealt with the exceptions from and restrictions on those powers. Clause 3 defined the exceptions and Clause 4 the restrictions. He wished to know whether it was competent for an hon. Member to move that these clauses, 3 and 4, should be postponed until after the clauses dealing with the Executive authority and the constitution of the Irish Legislature should have been disposed of?

SIR JOHN GORST

I rise to Order.

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member for North Kerry is distinctly in Order.

MR. SEXTON

said, the hon. and gallant Gentleman who was going to move the next Amendment proposed to postpone Clauses 3 and 4 until they should have disposed of the clauses dealing with the Executive power in Ireland, the composition of the Irish Legislative Council, the composition of the Irish Legislative Assembly, and the mode of settling disagreements between the two Houses. The question of Order he had to put was this: was it competent for the hon. and gallant Member to move that the 3rd and 4th clauses, which related to the law-making powers affirmed by the acceptance of Clause 2, should be postponed until clauses dealing with different matters should have been disposed of?

SIR JOHN GORST

May I be heard on a point of Order? I submit that what the hon. Gentleman has raised is no point of Order at all. The reasons he has given are admirable reasons against postponing the clauses, and in Debate will no doubt be considered by the Committee; who will decide whether the clauses shall be postponed or not; but certainly he has raised no point of Order.

THE CHAIRMAN

In answer to the question put to me, I have to say that the Amendment as it stands on the Paper is not in Order. It has been explained to the hon. and gallant Gentle man moving it that he can move that the consideration of Clause 3 be postponed and then that the consideration of Clause 4 be postponed, but he cannot move their postponement until after any particular clause.

MR. MACARTNEY

On a point of Order I desire, for the information of myself and many other hon. Members sitting on this side, to know, Sir, what ruling you have laid down——

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order! That matter is settled.

Clause 3 (Exceptions from powers of Irish Legislature).

CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND (Colchester),

who had the following Amendment on the Paper:— That the consideration of Clauses 3 and 4 be postponed until after the consideration of Clause 8, rose to move that Clause 3 be postponed. Although he could not move the Amendment as it stood on the Paper, it expressed what was his intention. If the Committee now agreed to that part of his Amendment which was in Order— namely, to postpone Clause 3 indefinitely, he would afterwards move that it be inserted in Clause 8. They had affirmed in Committee that they were going to set up a Legislature in Ireland consisting of two Houses—a Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly. They had also affirmed in Committee that, subject to certain exceptions and restrictions, these two Houses would be able to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland. He contended that the next thing for them to do in logical sequence was to define that Legislature, lay down what it was to consist of, what franchise it was to be elected upon, and whether there was to be any property qualification. When they had defined the Legislature and completely set it up, then only should they be able to say what powers they meant to entrust to it. All they had done at present was to set up this nebulous Parliament, but goodness only knew what they were going to do with regard to the constitution of the Irish Legislature. He contended that they ought to determine the question of the composition of that Body before they determined what powers should he entrusted to it. Surely the question of the composition of the Legislature ought to be settled before they proceeded to consider the restrictions which wore to be imposed upon its powers. Before they came to Clauses 5, 6, 7, and 8, and before they dealt with the constitution of these two Houses, there were three alternatives, any one of which might happen. They might leave the composition of the two Houses as it was, or they might make it a great deal more democratic. He had heard a rumour in the course of the last few days from a reliable source, that it was the intention of the Representatives from Ireland and of the Party headed by the hon. Member for Northampton, who exclusively com- posed it, to move that the £20 qualification, which it was now proposed to enact as necessary for the Second Chamber, should be removed altogether from the Bill. That, he heard, was the opinion of nearly all the Representatives from Ireland.

MR. SEXTON

could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that he was entirely in error.

CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND

would accept the assurance of the hon. Member so far as it affected himself, but if he was going to withdraw what he had said he should require a similar statement to that of the hon. Member to be made, not by one hon. Member for Ireland, but by all.

MR. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour)

I think we can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that no Irish Member has any intention of reducing the qualification.

CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND

said, very well, he would withdraw his original statement, and say that the whole of the Irish Members, with the exception of two, were going to move it. [Cries of "Question!"] He should like to know who was the Leader of the Irish Party? Was there anyone qualified to speak more for the Irish Party than any others? Why, there were more Leaders than there were Members.

THE CHAIRMAN

requested the hon. and gallant Gentleman to confine himself to the Amendment.

CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND

said, if they wore to adopt one of the alternatives to which he had alluded and do away with the property qualification in order to make the Chamber more democratic, they would have to introduce into the Bill a great many more exceptions and restrictions than it contained at the present time; therefore it was desirable that the consideration of the restrictions should be deferred until after they had settled the constitution of the Legislature. The final alternative was that instead of making the Irish Legislature more democratic and doing away with any of the safeguards they should increase them. It might be possible when they came to the consideration of the Upper Chamber they could alter the property qualification by increasing it to £100 or double its Members. If they did these things then they could proceed to do away with nearly all the excep- tions in Clause 3, and the restrictions which were included in Clause 4. It was quite certain that whatever they did they must follow one of these three alternatives, and no matter which of them they followed it was very desirable to constitute the Irish Legislature from beginning to end before they considered for a single moment the powers they were going to entrust to these two Chambers. They ought not to fashion Clauses 5, 6, 7, and 8 according to the composition of Clause 3, but they ought to fashion Clause 3 according to the composition of these clauses. He had several precedents for the course which he was suggesting by his Amendment, but he would not detain the Committee by quoting them. On many former occasions during the last 20 years they had deferred the consideration of some clause which was in the middle or at the beginning of a Bill because there was some subsequent clause which had an important bearing upon it. He appealed to the Government to accept the Amendment, on the ground that its adoption would tend to facilitate the discussions on the Bill. He begged formally to move that Clause 3 be postponed.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 3 be postponed."— (Captain Naylor-Leyland.)

MR. W. E. GLADSTONE

I will endeavour very briefly to state why it is impossible for the Government to accept this Amendment. I can conceive that the question may be legitimately raised whether, after you have determined to establish a Legislature, you shall then first proceed to consider the details of its composition or the powers which that Legislature shall exercise. But upon that question it appears to mo that you ought first to consider the powers and afterwards the composition, and for this reason: the powers ought to be regulated by the wants of the country, and the composition ought to be according to the powers, and the whole by reference to the wants of the country. And I do not see what guide you have to the composition until you have considered the powers. But that, Sir, is not the position of the hon. Gentleman. He affirms we have decided the question. We have begun to consider the powers; we have enacted that this Legislature shall be appointed to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland. But these are the terms in which usually, by the precedents and customs of Parliament, powers are given to a Legislature. Therefore the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not proposing to take the consideration of the composition before the consideration of the powers. What he is proposing is that, after we have conferred the main powers according to Parliamentary precedents, we shall postpone in the middle of the powers the consideration of the restrictions on those powers until we have considered the composition. I must own I cannot see any convenience in such a course of proceeding. Some consideration is usually shown to the promoters of a great Bill as to the arrangement of the clauses, unless matters of great principle are involved. It would be most inconvenient and most anomalous, the powers having been taken into consideration, and the clause conferring the powers having been dealt with, to interrupt the consideration of the powers for the purpose of considering the composition of the Assembly.

MR. RENTOUL (Down, E.)

said, it seemed to him that the powers could not be said to be given until the restrictions upon them were defined, therefore it was a case here of interjecting the appointment of hon. Members of the Legislative Bodies in the midst of giving the powers. They (the Unionists) were desirous to understand who were the persons to whom those powers were to be granted, before they were granted; and they were of opinion that a great deal would depend, as to the powers to be given, upon the character and number and position of the persons who would compose the Legislative Body in Ireland. If they were entirely satisfied with the composition of the Body they might require no restrictions whatever; therefore, it seemed to him the Government ought to be willing to accede to the Amendment. Surely it was a reasonable Amendment. They who were from the North of Ireland were the persons who were particularly concerned and interested in this matter. They said that certain powers were to be given to certain individuals, and they wanted to know who the individuals were. If they could conceive that the individuals appointed to this Legislative Council and Assembly were such as they could have entire confidence in, it would be illogical to ask for any restrictions to be placed upon thorn, and the amount of restrictions they should propose and desire on that side of the House would depend entirely on the persons who were to exercise these powers. That being so, he appealed to the Government to accept the Amendment, so that they might see who were to govern them; and hereafter they might prove more reasonable than the Government thought. Was it not natural that the Loyalist Members from Ireland should be treated as being quite as reasonable as hon. Members from Ireland who held Home Rule views. They (the Unionists) represented those who had been successful in Ireland, while hon. Members below the Gangway represented those who had nut been successful. It was on that ground they desired to know to whom these powers were to be committed, and then hon. Gentlemen would find they were perfectly reasonable, and that whatever' requests they made they should have something reasonable to say for them.

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

THE CHAIRMAN

I have no doubt the Committee will soon be able to come to a conclusion on the point.

Debate resumed.

MR. J. COLLINGS

would remind the Committee that there was such a place as Great Britain, and the interests of Great Britain would be very seriously affected by the composition of the Chamber in Clause 9. If the Government would state that they were going to adhere to the composition as it appeared in Clause 9 the Committee might proceed with Clause 3; but, inasmuch as they were in the dark as to the composition of the Legislature, it was a most reasonable thing to ask that the consideration of the powers should be postponed until the composition was settled. The Prime Minister, for very good reasons, had postponed the Financial Clauses, and he contended that there were equally good reasons why this clause should be postponed until after Clause 9 at any rate. They would then be able to see what really could be confided to the Legislature in Ireland when they know what the composition of the Legislature was. This seemed to him one of the most reasonable requirements that had been made upon this Bill; the Government could not sustain any harm by accepting it, and its adoption would greatly smooth the course of the Bill.

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

Debate resumed.

SIR RICHARD TEMPLE (Surrey, Kingston)

supported the Amendment. He said they contended that the power conferred upon this new Legislature was of a very general character, and that until the specific particulars were decided there was no determination of the powers.

It being half-past Five of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday, 30th May.