Commons Sitting of 21 February 1905

Preamble
The House met at Two of the Clock.
PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
  LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL.
  Petition for additional Provision; referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.
  "To confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to Ashton-in-Makerfield, Burslem, New-bury, Southport, and Ulverston," presented by Mr. Grant Lawson; supported by Mr. Walter Long; read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 48.]
PETITIONS.
  AGRICULTURAL RATES, CONGESTED DISTRICTS, AND BURGH LAND TAX RELIEF (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1896.
  Petitions for continuance; from Forres; and Morayshire; to lie upon the Table.
  JUVENILE SMOKING.
  Eight Petitions from Edinburgh, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (SUNDAY) BILL.
  Petitition from Melksham, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
  VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS ACT, 1897.
  Petition from Brighton, for alteration of Law; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND) (OFFICIALS).
  Return [presented 14th February] to be printed. [No. 48.]
  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Paper [presented 20th February] to be printed. [No. 49.]
  COMMITTALS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Returns from the Clerks of the Crown and Peace of the number of persons committed for trial in 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES (ELECTORS, ETC.) (UNITED KINGDOM).
  Return presented, relative thereto [Address 15th February; Sir Charles Dilke]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 50.]
  POLLING DISTRICTS (COUNTY OF SOUTHAMPTON).
  Copy presented, of Order made by the County Council of the County of Southampton altering Salisbury Polling District in the Fareham Parliamentary Division [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented, of Draft Rules proposed to be made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department under the Prisons Acts, 1877 and 1898, with respect to the constitution of the Visiting Committee of Borstal Prison [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP ACTS (SPECIAL EXCEPTION—NIGHTWORK).
  Copy presented, of Order, dated 18th February, 1905, made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department in pursuance of Section 54 (4) of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901, extending the special exception in that section to male young persons of the age of sixteen years and upwards employed in the process of continuous wire drawing carried on in non-textile factories [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  NAVY ESTIMATES, 1905–6.
  Estimates presented, for the year 1905–6, with Explanation of Differences
  754
  [by Command]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 51.]

  NAVY (STATEMENT EXPLANATORY OF ESTIMATES).
  Copy presented, of Statement of the First Lord of the Admiralty explanatory of the Navy Estimates, 1905–6 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  WAGES AND EFFECTS OF DECEASED SEAMEN.
  Account presented, of the Sums received and paid in respect of the Wages and Effects of Deceased Seamen in the year ended 31st March, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  SEAMEN'S SAVINGS BANKS (MONEY ORDERS AND TRANSMISSION OF WAGES).
  Accounts presented, of all Deposits received and repaid during the year ended 20th November, 1903, and Statement as to Money Orders issued and paid from 1855 to 31st March, 1904, and of Receipts and Payments in connection with the Transmission of Seamen's Wages from 1878 to 31st March, 1904 [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 52.]
  RAMSGATE HARBOUR.
  Copy presented, of Statement of the Receipts and Payments for the year ended 31st March, 1904, together with an Account of the Receipt and Issue of Stores [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 53.]
  RAILWAYS (CERTIFICATES) (CORRING- HAM LIGHT RAILWAY COMPANY).
  Copy presented, of Draft Certificate of the Board of Trade authorising the Corringham Light Railway Company to raise additional Capital [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.
  TREATY SERIES (No. 4, 1905).
  Copy presented, of Convention between the United Kingdom and Mexico respecting Postal Rates upon Letters passing between New Zealand and Mexico. Signed at Mexico, 1st February, 1904. Ratifications exchanged at Mexico, 12th January, 1905 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PUBLIC REVENUE (INTERCEPTION).
  Return ordered, "of the amounts of all Public Revenue derived from Taxes levied by Parliament, and from any other sources, which are not paid into His Majesty's Exchequer, for the years 1873–4, 1883–4, 1893–4, and 1903–4, respectively, with the totals in each case."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
  NATIONAL DEBT.
  Return ordered, "showing the amounts of (1) the Funded Debt; (2) the Unfunded Debt; (3) the estimated capital value of Terminable Annuities on the 31st day of March, 1874, 1884, 1894, and 1904 respectively, with the totals for each year; (4) the estimated liability in respect of sums borrowed under the head of other capital liabilities; (5) the total amount on the same dates respectively, of the Contingent or Nominal Liabilities of the State; and (6) the total amount outstanding on the same dates respectively in respect of Loans guaranteed by the British Government."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
  LOCAL AUTHORITIES (LIABILITIES).
  Address for "Return showing the total amount of the outstanding Balances of the Loans of Local Authorities in England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively, at the close of the financial years 1873–4, 1883–4, 1893–4, and 1903–4, with the totals for the three countries on those dates."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
  Return ordered, "showing for the Army, Navy, Civil Service, and Revenue Departments, respectively, the total amount of Supplementary Estimates for the years 1873–4, 1883–4, 1893–4, and 1903–4, respectively, with the totals for each year."—(Mr. Gibson Bowles.)
  JURORS' EXPENSES (IRELAND) BILL.
  "To provide for the Payment of Expenses to Jurors in assize and county courts in Ireland"; presented by Mr. O'Dowd; supported by Mr. McHugh, Mr. Conor O'Kelly, Mr. William McKillop, and Mr. Cullinan; to be read a second time upon Friday, 7th April, and to be printed. [Bill 49.]
  ACCESS TO MOUNTAINS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  "To secure to the public the right of access to Mountains and Moorlands in Scotland"; presented by Mr. Bryce: supported by Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Thomas Shaw, Mr. Black, Colonel Denny, Mr. John Sinclair, and Mr. John Dewar; to be read a second time upon Friday, 31st March, and to be printed. [Bill 50.]
QUESTIONS AND ANSWEES CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  Meritorious Service Rewards for Petty Officers in the Royal Navy.
  MR. REGINALD LUCAS (Portsmouth): To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether any provision exists for bestowing rewards for meritorious service upon petty officers in the Royal Navy, corresponding to those granted to non-commissioned officers in the Army and Marines; and, if not, whether he can hold out any hope of considering the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Pretyman.) There is no such provision made for petty officers in the Royal Navy. This is one of many differences between the conditions of service and privileges in the Army and the Navy, and it is not proposed to make any change.

  Preferential Rates for Foreign Produce.
  MR. FIELD (Dublin, St. Patrick): To ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he will cause inquiries to be made, and issue a report upon the subject of preferential rates granted to foreign importers by the carrying corporations.
  (Answered by Mr. Gerald Balfour.) I assume the hon. Member's Question relates to rates charged on railways, and I would refer him to the reply to a similar Question on 11th February, I904.£ The hon. Member is no doubt aware that the alleged preferential treatment accorded to imported agricultural produce is engaging the attention of a Departmental Committee appointed by the Board of Agriculture.
  †See (4) Debates, cxxix, 1028.

  Live Stock Transit.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether he is aware that a patent humane cattle car has not been allowed by the railway companies of Great Britain to be used; and. if so, whether he will take steps to secure that the great carrying corporations shall not be permitted, against the public interest and the improved carriage of live stock, to prevent a trial of a more humane method of live stock transit.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fettowes.) We wore not aware that the railway companies in Great Britain had refused to allow the cattle car referred to in the Question to be used on their lines. It is, I presume, the car patented by Mr. John Rooth in 1894 and 1895, and now the property of the Humane Cattle Car and Shipping Fittings Company, Limited. The matter is not one in regard to which we have any power to intervene, but I may refer the hon. Member to the provisions of Section 117 of The Railway Clauses Act, 1845, which prohibits the use of carriages on a railway which are not constructed according to the company's regulations.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the hon. Member for North Huntingdonshire, as representing the Board of Agriculture, whether he can state what measures the President of the Board of Agriculture has taken, or if he intends to make recommendations, to ensure the more speedy, safe, and humane transit of live stock on land and cross-channel journeys; whether he will take

  Military Works

  Year

  Halifax,

  Bermuda.

  Jamaica.

  St. Lucia and Barbadoes.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1895–1896

  13,000

  14,200

  10,300

  19,100

  1896–1897

  17,100

  16,600

  11,400

  12,200

  1897–1898

  14,900

  19,200

  14,200

  22,500

  1898–1899

  26,300

  30,500

  34,500

  53,500

  1899–1900

  44,900

  45,300

  14,600

  64,600

  1900–1901

  24,500

  55,300

  35,200

  59,700

  1901–1902

  54,400

  80,900

  22,100

  81,200

  1902–1903

  44,000

  46,000

  21,200

  95,300

  1903–1904

  42,500

  47,900

  29,500

  62,000

  into consideration the need of insisting on a minimum rate of speed on railways, and improved cattle trucks, also better accommodation and ventilatioa on ships.
  (Answered by Mr. Ailwyn Fettowes.) The carriage of live stock in Great Britain and coastwise is regulated by The Animals (Transit and General) Order, 1895, supplemented by an Amendment Order passed last year. These Orders, copies of which I shall be glad to supply to the hon. Member, have for their object the safeguarding of cattle from all unnecessary hardship during transit by land or sea, and contain amongst their requirements special provisions dealing with the construction of vessels and cattle trucks. A further amendment of the Order is not contemplated at the present time, but we are always very ready to inquire into any specific complaints of delay or injury which may be brought to our notice.

  Expenditure on Military and Naval Works in the West Indies.
  MR. BUCHANAN (Perthshire, E.): To ask the Secretary to the Treasury what has been the expenditure for each year since 1895 on military and naval works and barracks from Votes on Supply, under the Naval or Military Works Act, Barracks Act, or other sources, in each of the following Colonies: Halifax, Bermuda, Jamaica, St. Lucia, and other West Indian Colonies.
  (Answered by Mr. Victor Cavendish.) The actual expenditure on military and naval works for the period 1895 to 1904 is as follows:—

  Naval Works.

  Year.

  Bermuda.

  Halifax.

  Jamaica.

  St. Lucia.

  Antigua.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  1895–1896

  11,968

  10,922

  6,364

  —

  50

  1896–1897

  15,253

  7,333

  6,792

  4,380

  50

  1897–1898

  21,339

  8,067

  9,645

  45

  57

  1898–1899

  24,914

  8,033

  8,326

  27

  79

  1899–1900

  32,099

  8,282

  4,933

  343

  40

  1900–1901

  104,938

  10,467

  6,574

  465

  —

  1901–1902

  175,307

  9,110

  7,847

  118

  —

  1902–1903

  135,597

  9,591

  6,710

  1,330

  —

  1903–1904

  88,826

  9,745

  10,538

  1

  —

  The Licensing Act.
  MR. CORBETT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state when the charges which are leviable under Clause 3 of the Licensing Act, 1904, and which, if imposed in the present year, are due to be paid by licensees on 10th October, will, in fact, be received by the various compensation authorities; and when the rules to be made by the Treasury under Clause 3 (2) will be published.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Akers Douglas.) I am informed by the Board of Inland Revenue, as regards the first part of this Question, that it is their intention to pay over to the compensation authorities the bulk of the moneys levied under Section 3 (2) of the Licensing Act, 1904, in the month of November in each year, and the remainder as soon as possible afterwards. It will be remembered that those charges are payable at the same time as the Excise licence duties, i.e., on 10th October. As regards the second part of the Question, the Treasury inform me that the rules to be made by them under the enactment quoted will be issued shortly.

  Publication of Abstract of the Mowat Committee Report.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office when the Abstract of the Mowat Committee Report, as promised on 29th June, 1904, will be issued.
  760
  (Answered by Mr. Bromley-Davenport.) This document was circulated as a Command Paper (Cd. 1903) on 30th July, 1904.

  Railway Construction in Cutch.
  SIR JOHN LENG: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that representations have been made by the Cutchi inhabitants of Bombay, the Karachi Chamber of Commerce, and the Municipality of Hyderabad in favour of linking up, by a broad-gauge railway line, the province of Sind with the Bombay Presidency; and that the Rao of Cutch has visited the Governor at Bombay and intimated his intention to visit the Governor-General at Calcutta for the purpose of preventing this line passing through Cutch; and, if so, will an opportunity be given to the memorialists in its favour to reply to the Rao's objections.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) I am aware of the first of the three classes of representations referred to by the hon. Member. The Government of India will no doubt give due consideration to any substantial objections to the line that may be urged by the Rao of Cutch; but, as I stated in reply to a Question on the same subject on the 25th April£last year, I see no reason at present for doubting that the connection between Bombay and Sind will be carried out when funds are available. In their
  † See (4) Debates, cxxxiii., 1036.

  761
  programme of railway construction for the year 1905–6 the Government of India have included an allotment of six lakhs for a line from Viramgam to Malia, which forms part of a projected connection with Sind through Cutch.

  Grievances of Sea Post-Office Employees on the Aden-Bombay Service.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: To ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that in 1890 the number of mail bags between Aden and Bombay was under 600, and that in 1904 it was nearly 1,800; that the reduction of time occupied in the passage increases the number of hours of work; and that complaints have been received from the employees of the sea post-office as to the work, the pay and promotion, and the unhealthy conditions on board the mail ships; if so, whether, seeing that since 1890 nearly 100 of these employees have left the service, he will make inquiry as to the reasonableness of the amount and conditions of the work.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Brodrick.) A similar Question was asked by Sir W. Wedderburn in 1899, and a Report was obtained from the Government of India, who considered that there was no reason to suppose that the work imposed on the sorters was excessive since, although the pressure for short periods is necessarily severe, the sorters have for the greater part of their time little or nothing to do. I will ask for a further report on the subject.

  Newman Estate, County Cork.
  MR. FLYNN (Cork, N.): To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is in possession of any information respecting the proposed sale of the Newman Estate, Dromore, Mallow, county Cork, showing that the Estates Commissioners are prepared to sanction the advance to the vendor notwithstanding his desire to exclude from the transaction a tenant named Timothy O"Callaghan, who holds under to purchase on similar terms to the other tenants; and, if so, whether the Estates Commissioners will delay
  762
  completion of the sale until this judicial tenant is included in the transaction.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Mr. Newman has expressed his intention of resuming possession of this holding on the expiration of the statutory term, under Section 21 of the Act of 1881. He has also undertaken, in case he fails in his application for resumption, to sell to Callaghan on the same terms as to the other tenants. Under these circumstances the Commissioners have not required the owner to include the holding in the estate.

  Irish Lights Board.
  MR. FIELD: To ask the chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Clyde Shipping Company"s Steamer "Garmoyle" went aground at Ballyquinton point, county Down, some months since, and that a lighthouse erected by the Irish Lights Board many years ago has never been lighted, although standing within a mile of the place of the "Garmoyle"s" stranding; and, if so, whether, in view of the dissatisfaction existing respecting the administration of the Irish Lights Board and the non-representative character of its composition, he will introduce a Bill to reform and reconstitute it.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) As I have stated on previous occasions, the Commissioners of Irish Lights do not consider the lighting of Rock Angus advisable unless made in conjunction with an extensive system of lights to guide vessels up Strangford Lough to the anchorages of Audley and Cross Roads. Such a system of lighting would be solely for the benefit of local trade, and the Commissoners are of opinion that it should not be carried into effect at the expense of the general lighthouse fund. As to the "Garmoyle," I am informed that the Court of inquiry which investigated the casualty found that the stranding of the vessel was caused by the courses steered from the Codling Light Vessel for the South Rock Light Vessel not being made good, and by failure to use the lead. I have no evidence before me to show that a light on Rock Angus would have saved the vessel. I do not propose to introduce

  763
  a Bill dealing with the Irish Lights Board.

  Staff of Irish Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that dissatisfaction exists owing to the inequality of treatment of the staff-of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction, especially as regards the Catholic clerks in the Veterinary branch; and whether steps will be taken with a view to rectify the grievances complained of.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) Many Questions of similar import were answered by me last session. I can only repeat that there is not the slightest foundation for the suggestion that the position of the clerks referred to has in any way been prejudiced in consequence of their religious beliefs.

  Ireland—Public Bodies Order, 1904.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that protests have been made by the Midleton, County Cork, Urban District Council, and many other urban district councils

  Return of all Changes (and their cost) in ths Uniform of tha Regular Forces since April, 1902.

  Non-commissioned Officers and Men.

  Subject.

  Annual.

  Increased Cost.

  Saving.

  £

  £

  Reversion to khaki drill at Colonial Stations

  4,000

  Addition of roll collar for khaki drill frock

  1,610

  Shoulder cords instead of coloured shoulder straps for service dress jackets

  —

  9,375

  Adoption of plain shoulder straps with metal titles instead of embroidered designations on sleeve of service dress jackets

  —

  6,200

  Carried forward

  5,610

  15,575

  † See page 322.

  ‡See page 613.

  in Ireland, against the Public Bodies Order, 1904, as made by the Local Government Board for Ireland on 17th December, 1904, on the grounds that the Order proposes to unnecessarily increase the work of the urban councils and their officers, and that the said Board have in their Order exceeded their powers by prescribing duties for members and officials, prescribing the manner in which the general minutes are to be kept, requiring copies of such minutes to be sent to the Board, and in various other respects; and what steps it is proposed to take in the matter.
  (Answered by Mr. Wyndham.) I would refer to my replies to the Questions put to me on this subject on the 16th £ and 20th £ instant.

  Changes in Army Uniform.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE (Bristol, E.): To ask the Secretary of State for War if he will state the changes made in the uniform of officers and men of the Regular Forces since April, 1902, and of the cost of each of such changes.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Arnold-Forster.) The Return is as follows:—

  Subject.

  Annual.

  Increased Cost.

  Saving.

  £

  £

  Brought forward—

  5,610

  15,575

  Simplification of new pattern drab greatcoat

  —

  19,139

  New pattern grey great coat and cape for Foot Guards

  744

  New pattern flat topped forage cap and cover for all services

  4,271

  Simplification of service dress jackets

  —

  2,803

  Girdles for Royal Field Artillery

  618

  Chevrons and badges of rank not to be worn on left arm of full dress

  —

  6,000

  New pattern badges for best shots, etc.

  340

  New pattern badges Royal Artillery headdress

  200

  Chin straps for new pattern caps, mounted men

  219

  Black buttons for Rifle Brigade for wear on service dress

  68

  Regimental buttons for Foot Guards, service dress

  80

  Cap with removable bands, Foot Guards

  —

  189

  New titles for Rifles, service dress

  20

  Drab spats for Highlanders

  21

  Rubber soled shoes for Royal Army Medical Corps

  190

  Change of facings, Cheshire, Dorset, and Hants Regiments

  36

  Clothing for Motor Car Drivers

  40

  Caps for Mechanical Transport Drivers

  38

  Buttons for tunic skirts of Foot Guards

  103

  New pattern full dress frock abroad

  60

  Kilmarnock bonnet for Royal Scots and Scottish Borderers

  358

  Wolseley helmets

  88

  Alterations to tunics, Army Service Corps

  185

  Blue clothing instead of drill or s.d. clothing for sub-miners

  —

  458

  Duck clothing for proof party, and cord pants, and puttees for range sergeants, Woolwich

  25

  Plumes for Inniskilling Fusiliers

  10

  Surgical slippers for use in hospitals

  5

  Plumes for Royal Welsh Fusiliers

  9

  Artillery Clerks clothed as Royal Garrison Artillery

  69

  Badge for new pattern forage cap, Royal Engineers

  16

  Crown and wreath Badge for Army Pay Corps

  2

  Plumes for Royal Scots Fusiliers

  9

  Girdls for Royal Artillery Mounted Band

  2

  New pattern badges for 12th Lancers

  3

  Change of facings, Durham Light Infantry

  9

  Alteration of Badges for Notts and Derby Regiment consequent on change of title

  40

  Carried forward

  13,488

  44,164

  Subject.

  Annual.

  Increased Cost.

  Saving.

  £

  £

  Brought forward

  13,488

  44,164

  Blue tartan suits for clerks in lieu of service dress

  67

  Pea jackets for drivers mechanical transport

  23

  Plumes for Royal Munster Fusiliers

  9

  Improved pattern of Highland sporrans and making them public clothing

  —

  543

  New pattern oiled dross jackets, Submarine Miners

  8

  Silver granades instead of gold, Band Foot Guards

  —

  5

  Helmets, West India Regiment in lieu of s.d. hats

  —

  265

  New pattern caps, Staff and Band Foot Guards

  —

  92

  Alteration to service dress jackets for kilted regiments

  108

  Total

  13,703

  45,069

  Revenue and Expenditure of Transvaal and Inter-Colonial Council.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: To ask the Secretary of
  State for the Colonies what are the latest figures in regard to the revenue and expenditure of the Transvaal and of the Inter-Colonial Council respectively.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) The information desired will be found, as regards the Inter-Colonial Council, in reply to a similar Question answered yesterday.£ Corrected figures since received give the revenue and expenditure of the Transvaal up to 31st December as £1,860,400 and and £1,974,700 respectively.

  Amount Paid for Purchase of South African Railways.
  MR. BUCHANAN: To ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what has been the total amount paid for the purchase of the South African railways under the Loan Act of 1903.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Lyttelton.) Up to 30th November, 1904, the amount paid was £12,804,759. No later figures are available.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Obsolete War Vessels.
  MR. WHITLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty can he state the number of ships to be broken up under the naval reorganisation scheme, together with their first cost, and the amount subsequently spent on them in repairs.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. PRETYMAX, Suffolk, Woodbridge): The hon. Member for Dundee is moving for a Return which substantially covers the information asked for, and which will be better given in that form than in answer to a Question, as the figures will take some time to prepare.
  MR. WHITLEY: Will the hon. Member add to the Return the amount subsequently spent on these ships for repairs.
  MR. PRETYMAN: The Return of the hon. Member for Dundee does not ask for the total amount, but only for the sum spent on large substantial repairs, and it would entail great labour to get out the whole cost of repairs as some of the vessels are of great age.
  † See page 591.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Will the hon. Member add to the Return a statement of the dates at which these ships were found to be non-effective.
  MR. PRETYMAN: The date would be the date when they were ordered to be placed on the sale list.
  MR. BUCHANAN: But without really increasing the labour could not the Return give the total amount spent on repairs? The ships are not of such very great age.
  MR. PRETYMAN: I will consider that.
  MR. WHITLEY: If I can get the repairs for the last ten years I shall be satisfied. Put the term "large substantial repairs" is too vague.
  MR. PRETYMAN: I will communicate with the hon. Member on the subject.

  Military Convicts from the South African War.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he can say how many military prisoners convicted of offences in connection with the late South African War are at present confined in Great Britain and Ireland respectively; whether he can state the names, the charges upon which they were convicted, the tribunals by which they were tried, and the sentences imposed in each case, of all such prisoners sent to prisons in Ireland; whether any such prisoner is now confined in Ireland; whether any such prisoners sent to Irish prisons since the South African War have been discharged; and whether he favours the release of any other such prisoner.
  THE SECRETARY or STATE FOR WAR (Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER, Belfast, W.): Of the military prisoners convicted of offences in connection with the war in South Africa thirteen are confined in Great Britain and one in Ireland. The latter was convicted by Court-martial of desertion and treason and was condemned to penal servitude for life. Seven prisoners who were

  771
  convicted by Court-martial of offences in connection with the South African War and were awarded varying sentences of penal servitude, were confined in Ireland and have since been discharged. The reply to the last sentence of the Question is in the negative.
  MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN: Why keep one man in gaol while six or seven others convicted of the same offence have been discharged?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Chinese Labour in South Africa.
  MR. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will state the number of Chinese indentured labourers employed at the South African gold mines, up to 31st January last, together with the numbers in hospital, and the death rate prevailing among them each month for the six months ending on that date; and also the death rate prevailing among the natives employed at the South African gold mines during the same period.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. LYTTELTON, Warwick and Leamington): I am not able to give the numbers in hospital, but the numbers employed at the end of each month are as follows:—July, 1,388; August, 4,945; September, 9,020; October, 12,965; November, 17,469; December, 20,885. For the months for which I am able to give the comparative death rate per 1,000, the figures show a much smaller mortality among the Chinese than among the natives.

  1904.

  Natives.

  Chinese.

  —

  —

  —

  August.

  37

  14

  September

  40

  25

  October

  51

  22

  November

  56

  28

  December

  53

  27

  Transvaal Commissioner of Mines.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a successor to Mr. Wybergh has been appointed as Commis-
  772
  sioner of Mines in the Transvaal; and, if not, will he explain why.
  MR. LYTTELTON: No appointment has been made as yet, as I understand Lord Milner has experienced much difficulty in making a selection for this important appointment.

  Labour Statistics for the Transvaal.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he can say for the months of November and December, 1904, and for January, 1905, how many white men, Kaffirs, and Chinese coolies respectively were engaged in actual mining operations in the Transvaal.
  MR. LYTTELTON: The numbers are:—For November—Whites, 14,944; Coloured, 81,673; Chinese, 17,469. For December—Whites, 15,023; Coloured, 83,639; Chinese, 20,885. The official figures for January have not yet been received.

  Proposed Changes in the Transvaal Government.
  MR. BUCHANAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the form under which the proposed changes in the existing form of government in the Transvaal will be made, whether by Bill, by Order in Council, or otherwise; and whether, before final assent is given to these changes, he will undertake that there will be an opportunity for discussion in this House.
  MR. LYTTELTON: (1) It is proposed to advise His Majesty to issue Letters Patent defining the broad features of the constitution of the now Legislature, leaving details for further local discussion and investigation to be settled hereafter. (2) It would not be in accordance with precedent to submit the Letters Patent to Parliament before they are issued; but I propose to lay Papers in due course so soon as I am in a position to do so. (3) Questions as to opportunities of discussion in the House should of course be addressed to the Prime Minister.

  Cancer in India.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for

  773
  India whether the Government of India are yet in a position to provide statistics in regard to the prevalence of cancer in the respective provinces.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. BRODRICK, Surrey, Guildford): Medical officers in India are now required to record every case of cancer coming under their observation and to send a copy of the record to the Cancer Research Fund. The reports of the fund will show the prevalence of the disease in the different provinces, so far as this can be ascertained from the data thus collected.

  Treatment of Egyptian Pilgrims at Suez.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that the Khedivial Mail Steamship Company, which posseses the monopoly of carrying Egyptian pilgrims, kept them waiting upwards of ten days at Suez without food or shelter before allowing them to embark; and will he consider the desirability of representing to the Government of Egypt the expediency of communicating with the steamship company on the subject, with a view to prevent a similar cause for complaint in future pilgrimages.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Earl PEHCY, Kensington, S.); If the hon. Member will furnish me with full particulars inquiry will be made, but matters of this kind primarily concern the Egyptian authorities, and do not seem to call for the intervention of His Majesty's Government.

  Income-Tax Collection.
  MR. McCRAE (Edinburgh, E.): I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer whether complete uniformity has now been established in the collection of income-tax in England and Scotland; and whether ten days notices for the recovery of income-tax under penalty have been issued simultaneously in England and Scotland.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN, Worcestershire, E.): Complete uniformity as between England and Scotland is not possible, owing to divergences in
  774
  certain respects between the systems of assessment and collection in the two parts of the Kingdom. But it may be said that, allowing for these, substantial uniformity now exists. The ten days notices have been issued simultaneously in England and Scotland.
  MR. McCRAE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since this Question has been put on the Paper seven days notices have been issued in Scotland to the effect that if the taxes are not paid then action will betaken by warrant of the sheriff officer, and cannot be received after that time by the collector of taxes; and whether, that being so, he will issue similar instructions to the Inland Revenue authorities in Edinburgh as those issued to Somerset House?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I do not know what has taken place within the last few days, but the hon. Member will see that I ought to have notice of so long a Question. If he will give me reasonable notice I shall be prepared to answer.
  MR. McCRAE: Will the right hon. Gentleman issue to the Edinburgh authorities instructions similar to those given to Somerset House?
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: That has been done.

  Cost of the Somaliland Campaign.
  MR. BAYLEY: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Supplementary Estimates for the campaign in Somaliland will be presented to the House.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: I
  understand that these will be presented towards the end of this week.

  Income-Tax Exemption.
  MR. HAYDEN: I beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer if, where an individual in response to a demand for income-tax submits through his solicitor a statement, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue is entitled to refuse to supply exemption forms; and if, in spite of the knowledge so conveyed as to the applicant's income, which is under the statutable amount,

  775
  the Commissioner issues an order for distraint, he will state what action he will take in the matter if the papers in a case in which this has been done are laid before him.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: If the hon. Member will send me full particulars of the case he has in mind I shall be glad to have inquiry made and to send him a reply. At present I must confess that I am unable to understand the Question as it stands on the Notice Paper.

  Customs Boatmens' Grievances.
  MAJOR EVANS GORDON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether any decision has been arrived at in regard to the alleged grievances of the Customs boatmen which were brought to his notice last year, and as to which he promised that an inquiry would be made.
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. VICTOR CAVENDISH, Derbyshire, W.): I have made careful inquiries on this matter, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement.

  Physical Deterioration—Children and Tobacco.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the recommendation of the Physical Deterioration (1904) Committee to the effect that a Bill should be brought before Parliament at an early date having for its object the prohibition of the sale of tobacco and cigarettes to children below a certain age; and whether he is now in a position to say that this recommendation will be acted upon in the present session.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr.AKERS-DOUGLAS, Kent, St. Augustine's): I am aware of the recommendation in the Report of the Physical Deterioration Committee, and I have given the question very careful consideration; but I do not see my way to introduce any Bill on the subject during the present session.
  776
  The public attention which has been called to the evils of juvenile smoking is likely, I think, to do good, by arousing parents to exercise more control over their children in this respect.

  Physical Deterioration Committee's Report.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he has considered the various recommendations of the Physical Deterioration (1904) Committee; and whether, if so, he is in a position now to say how far the Board finds it expedient and possible, without further legislation, to carry out those recommendations.
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Sir WILLIAM ANSON, Oxford University): I have considered the recommendations referred to, some of which would need legislation to bring them into effect, while others might be carried out through the agency of local or central administration. But I think that the hon. Member will see how impossible it is for me to state in answer to a Question the view of the Board as to what is expedient or possible in respect of recommendations which are fifty-four in number, and which, in some cases, touch on topics of a highly controversial character.

  Underfed School Children.
  DR. MACNAMARA: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Board of Education whether he has considered the recommendation of the Physical Deterioration (1904) Committee to the effect that definite provision should be made by the local education authorities for dealing with the question of underfed children; and whether he is in a position to say whether proposals embodying that recommendation will be laid before Parliament in the present session of Parliament.
  SIR WILLIAM ANSON: It is not intended to make any proposals for adding to the existing powers of local authorities in the matter referred to.

  Electrification of Railways—Board of Trade Inspection.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Board

  777
  of Trade inspectors will take steps to satisfy themselves that when railways are electrified proper arrangements are made for the protection of the lives of the surface men and other employees.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. GERALD BALFOUR, Leeds, Central): The Answer is in the affirmative.

  Penalties for Illegal Trawling.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Lord-Advocate if he will consider the expediency of introducing legislation at an early date such as will render the penalties for illegal trawling of a more deterrent nature than at present.
  THE LORD-ADVOCATE (Mr. SCOTT DICKSON, Glasgow, Bridgton): I am in general sympathy with the object the hon. Member has in view, and would give consideration to any Bill he may prepare, but I cannot at present undertake to introduce a Bill on behalf of the Government.
  MR. WEIR: If I introduce a Bill will the right hon. Gentleman give facilities for passing it?
  MR. SCOTT DICKSON: I am afraid I cannot make any promise as to that.
  MR. WEIR: Then I give notice I will ask the Prime Minister.

  Orpen Estate, Cork.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the action of the police in connection with recent arrests arising out of proceedings on the Orpen Estate, near Millstreet, county Cork, and to the fact that two young men, named Corcoran, were brought handcuffed into Millstreet, lodged in the local police barrack, and subjected to private magisterial inquiry at the barracks, from which every one was excluded, including the father of the accused; and, if so, whether the constabulary authorities sanctioned these proceedings in regard to untried prisoners.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. WYNDHAM, Dover): Under Section 9, Sub-section 2, of the Petty Sessions Act, 1851, the presiding magistrate, in all cases of proceedings for indictable offences, is empowered to exclude the public if he considers that the ends of justice will thereby be best served. The charge against the accused in the present case was an indictable one, and the magistrate was of opinion that in the interests of justice the public should not be admitted. The police had reasonable grounds for apprehending an attempted rescue or violence, and they considered it necessary, in consequence, to take the precaution of handcuffing the prisoners.
  MR FLYNN: What right had the authorities to march these untried prisoners through the streets handcuffed?
  [The Answer was inaudible.]

  Cork District Lunatic Asylum.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he has received a copy of a resolution from the managing committee of the Cork District Lunatic Asylum calling attention to the state of law which enables insane patients belonging to other counties to be committed and remain chargeable to the local rates if they become insane when about to embark at Queenstown, and to the grievance of patients being deported from England and Scotland after several years of residence in these countries; and, if so, whether the Irish Government will take any steps, by legislation or otherwise, to remedy the alleged grievance.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The resolution has been received. Legislation would be necessary to remedy the grievances referred to, but I am unable at present to give an undertaking to introduce such legislation.
  MR. FLYNN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that under the present system the Finance Committee of the Cork Asylum is losing £1,200 a year?
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am not aware of that.
  MR. FLAVIN: Is it not the fact that a large percentage of these insane people are a result of the South African War.
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Case of Daniel M'Goohan.
  MR. WILLIAM McKILLOP: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a man named Daniel M'Goohan, of county Leitrim, who was convicted on the evidence of Sergeant Sheridan, was released by the Irish Government after serving close on two years imprisonment with hard labour in Sligo Prison, and that the only compensation given to M'Goohan was £100; and will he, in view of the recent decision in the case of Adolf Beck, who has received £5,000 compensation, reconsider the case of M'Goohan, with a view to adequately compensating him for false imprisonment.
  MR. WYNDHAM: The case of Daniel M'Goohan was very fully discussed in this House two years ago. The reply to the second inquiry is in the negative.

  Drummeel Bog Turbary.
  MR. J. P. FARRELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on signing his agreement to purchase his farm, James Archbold, of Soran, county Longford, was guaranteed a supply of turbary on the Drummeel Bog; whether there is any record of this guarantee on the original agreement form; and, if so, will the turbary be now ordered to be given him.
  MR. WYNDHAM: I am informed by the Land Commission that the holding in question was vested in Archbold in the terms of the purchase agreement, which provided for the right of cutting turf on certain parts of the lands of Drummeel, county Longford.

  Leitrim Magistracy—Mr. Youell's Ap- pointment.
  MR. P. A. McHUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary
  780
  to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland on whose recommendation Mr. Brearton J. Youell, an ex-constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary, has been appointed a justice of the peace for the county of Leitrim; is he aware that in the district of Ballinamore, in which Mr. Youell resides and adjudicates, there are at present eight magistrates, of whom only one is a Catholic, although Catholics constitute at least nine-tenths of the population, and although several Catholic gentlemen in the district have been recommended for appointment to the Commission of the Peace.
  MR. WYNDHAM: Mr. Youell was recommended for the Commission of the Peace by the Lieutenant of the county. For many years he held the position of clerk of petty sessions. Four of the justices in the district are Catholics.

  Ecclesiastical Disorders Commission.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can state when the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Disorders will issue a Report.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD or THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): In answer to my hon. friend, I have to say that I have communicated with the chairman of the Commission, and he hopes that the Report will be in the hands of the public before the end of the year. There will be no interim Report.
  MR. AUSTIN TAYLOR: Will it be issued before the general election?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I neither know when the Report will be out nor when the general election will take place. It is therefore extremely difficult to give a specific Answer, and I am not in a position to give it.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (KING'S SPEECH, MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the proceedings on the Address in answer to His Majesty's Speech shall, until concluded, have precedence of all other Orders of the Day and of Notices

  781
  of Motions at all Sittings for which they are set down."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked a little consideration on this matter from the Prime Minister. He pointed out that the consequence of the Motion would be to deprive private Members of several days of their time, and he asked the First Lord to give an assurance that opportunity would be found for the discussion of such subjects as the financial arrangements of the country and the Sugar Convention, if the Amendments relating to them were not reached during the debate on the Address. He wanted an undertaking that the right hon. Gentleman would not closure the debate until these subjects had been debated; and he would point out——
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! It is irregular to debate the closure beforehand.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid that in his opinion there would be no opportunity for discussing these questions in the House except on the Address.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to argue the question of the closure.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Of course, Sir, I bow to your decision, but I
  do trust the right hon. Gentleman will exercise some discretion before bringing the debate to a conclusion, and I make this appeal to him.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.)said he did not quarrel with the appeal of the hon. Member, but he must demur to the suggestion that the Government were taking private Members' time during the discussion of the Address. No doubt, in a formal sense, it was Government business; but the whole debate was a discussion by private Members of questions that interested private Members, and in every respect, from the private Members' point of view, it was a fuller and more convenient opportunity for discussing such matters than those which commonly presented themselves in the session. The Motion with regard to national expenditure would clearly be relevant to the Budget, and he sincerely hoped that, within proper limits, every question which hon. Members desired to discuss might be discussed before the termination of the Address.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 203; Noes, 145. (Division List No. 5.)

  AYES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Campbell, J. H. M. (DublinUniv.

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Carlile, William Walter

  Fergusson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Manc"r

  Allhusen, Augustus H. Eden

  Carson, Rt. Hn. Sir Edw. H.

  Finlay, Sir K. B. (Inv'ru'ssB'ghs)

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Cavendish. R. F. (N. Lanes.)

  Fisher, William Hayes

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Cavendish,V. C. W (Derbyshire

  Fison, Frederick William

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Arnold-Forster, Rt. Hn. H. O.

  Chamberlain,Rt.Hn.J A. (Wore.

  Fitzroy, Hn. Edward Algernon

  Arrol, Sir William

  Chapman, Edward

  Flannery, Sir Fortescue

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Bagot, Capt. JoscelineFitzRoy

  Cohen, Benjamin Louis

  Forster, Henry William

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Ceilings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Baird, Jolm George Alexander

  Colomb, Rt. Hn. Sir John C. R.

  Gardner, Ernest

  Balcarres, Lord

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Garfit, William

  Balfour, Rt. Hon. A. J. (Manch'r

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Gordon, Hn. J. E. (Elgin & Nairn

  Balfour,RtHn Gerald W(Leeds

  Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim,S

  Gordon, J. (Londonderry, S.)

  Barry, Sir Francis T.(Windsor)

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Gordon.Maj Evans (TrH'mlcts

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Gorst, Rt. Hon. Sir John Eldon

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Dalrymple, Sir Charles

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Bond, Edward

  Davenport, William Bromle

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Davies, Sir Horatio D(Chatham

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Boulnois. Edmund

  Denny, Colonel

  Greene, Sir E. W. (B'ryS Edm'nds

  Bowles, T. Gibson (King'sLynn

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Greene, Henry D. (Shrewsbury)

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Grenfell, William Henry

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Dyke. Rt. Tin. Sir WilliamHart

  Hamilton. Mar. of (L'nd'nderry

  Bull, William James

  Eeerton. Hon. A. de Tatton

  Hardy. Laurence(Kent,Ashford

  Campbell,Rt. Hn.J.A.(Glasgow

  Elliot, Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Haslam, Sir Alfred S.

  M'lver, Sir Lewis (Edinburgh W

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Heath, Sir James (Staffords N. W

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Maxwell, Rt Hn Sir H. E. (Wigt'n

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford, W.

  Milvain, Thomas

  Smith, Abel H. (Hertford, East)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Mitchell, Ed. (Fermanagh, N.)

  Smith, H. C (North'mb, Tyneside

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Smith, RtHnJ Parker (Lanarks

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Somers'tE

  Montagu, Hon. J. Scott (Hants

  Smith, Hn. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stanley, Hn. Arthur (Ormskirk

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield, Brightside

  Moore, William

  Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Lanes.

  Hornby, Sir William Henry

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Horner, Frederick William

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Mount, William Arthur

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Howard, J. Midd., Tottenham)

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray, C.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hozier, Hn. James Henry Cecil

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. M.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Tuff, Charles

  Jessel, Capt. Herbert Merton

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H.

  Pease, Herbert Pike(Darlington

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Kenyon-Slaney, Rt. Hn.Col.W.

  Peel, Hn. W. R. Wellesley

  Tumour, Viscount

  Kerr, John

  Percy, Earl

  Valentia, Viscount

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Walrond, Rt. Hn. Sir William H

  Laurie, Lieut.-General

  Platt-Higgins, Frederick

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Lawson, Hn. H. L. W. (Mile End

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Welby, Lt-Col. A. C. E. (Taunton

  Lawson, John Grant Yorks. N R

  Purvis. Robert

  Welby, Sir Charles G. E. (Notts.

  Lee, Arthur H. (Hants. Fareham

  Pym, C. Guy

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Randies, John S.

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  Leveseon-Gower, Frederick N.S

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Long, Col. Charles W (Evesham

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Wilson-Todd, Sir W. H. (Yorks.

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Bristol, S.

  Ridley, S. Forde

  Wodehouse, Rt. Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Lowe, Francis William

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Worsley, Rt. Hn. C. B. Stuart

  Lowther, C. (Cumb., Eskdale)

  Rolleston, Sir John F. L.

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Loyd, Archie Kirkman

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Lucas, Col, Francis (Lowestoft)

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—

  Lucas, Reginald J (Portsmouth

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Sir Alexander Acland-

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Hood and Mr. Ailwyn

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Samuel, Sir H. S. (Limehouse)

  Fellowes.

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. T. Myles

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  NOES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Griffith, Ellis J.

  Asher, Alexander

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Hammond, John

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Dilke, Rt. Hon, Sir Charles

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Barry, E. (Cork, S.)

  Dillon, John

  Harrington, Timothy

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Black Alexander William

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Blake, Edward

  Doogan, P. C.

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Brigg, John

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Duffy, William J.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Ellice, Capt EC(SAndrw's B'ghs

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Burke, E. Haviland

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Emmott, Alfred

  Johnson, John

  Caldwell, James

  Esmonde, Sir Thomas

  Jones, William (Carnarvonshire

  Campbell, John (Armagh, S.)

  Evans, Sir Francis H. (Maidstone

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Joyce, Michael

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Fenwick, Charles

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kennedy, Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Clancy, John Joseph

  Field, William

  Kilbride, Denis

  Cogan, Denis J.

  Findlay, Alex. (Lanark, N. E.

  Labouchere, Henry

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Flavin, Michael Joseph

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.

  Crean, Eugene

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Crombie, John William

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington

  Cullinan, J.

  Fuller, J. M. F.

  Levy, Maurice

  Deiany, William

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lough, Thomas

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Grant, Corrie

  Lundon, W.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  O'Kelly, James (Jroscommon, N

  Sullivan, Donal

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  O'Mara, James

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Thompson, Dr. E C (Monagh'n, N

  M'Crae, George

  O'Shee, James John

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Parrott, William

  Toulmin, George

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Perks, Robert William

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  M'Kean, John

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  M'Kenna, Reginald

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Rea, Russell

  Weir, James Galloway

  Mooney, John J.

  Reddy, M.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Murnaghan, George

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Murphy, John

  Reid, Sir R. Threshie (Dumfries

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Nolan, Joseph (Louth, South)

  Rose, Charles Day

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Runciman, Walter

  Wills, Arthur Walters (N. Dorset

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Russell, T. W.

  Wilson John (Durham, Mid.)

  O'Brien, Kendal(TipperaryMid

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Woodhouse, Sir J. T. (Huddersf'd

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Young, Samuel

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Sheehy, David

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr.

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Slack, John Bamford

  Charles Hobhouse and Mr.

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Soares.

  O'Dowd, John

  Spencer, Rt, Hn. C. R (Northants

  KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS).
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debate on Amendment [20th February] to Main Question [14th February], "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
  "Most Gracious Sovereign,
  "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—(Mr. Mount.)
  Which Amendment was—
  "At the end of the Question, to add the words, 'But humbly represent to Your Majesty that the present system of Government in Ireland is in opposition to the will of the Irish people, and gives them no voice in the management of their own affairs; that the system is consequently ineffective and extravagantly costly, does not enjoy the confidence of any section of the population, and is productive of universal discontent and unrest, and has proved to be incapable of satisfactorily promoting the material and intellectual progress of the people.'"—(Mr. John Redmond.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there added."
  SIR JAMES HASLETTsaid that on the previous night, when his speech was interrupted by the rules of the House, he was drawing attention
  to the fact that though the Amendment stated that the government of Ireland had interfered with the material prosperity of the country, yet throughout the entire debate they had not heard a single word as to where or how that interference had taken place. In many districts of Ireland the Nationalists had had the practical management of local government; the administration of county affairs had fallen entirely into their hands and they had been omnipotent, yet it was not possible to point to a single industry they had improved and promoted the prosperity of. Their attention had been almost exclusively confined to farming and to the agitation connected with the land question Indissolubly connected with that was the question of emigration. But was the Government the cause of that emigration? Was it not due to the lack of employment and to the absence of industries in which the mass of the people could exercise their skill and brain power. It was the opportunity of earning a fairly reasonable wage that attracted the people to other countries. It should be borne in mind that at the time of the Union the population of Ireland stood at practically the same figure, as it was to-day. After the Union it increased enormously, until by 1845–46 it had risen to nearly 9,000,000, and it was that increase which was responsible for the state of affairs that caused the emigration. A man who farmed twenty

  787
  or thirty acres married and had sons for whose energy there was no outlet except in farming. Consequently the man divided his holding among them, thus lessening the chances of prosperity. Then came the famine which drove thousands of the people to seek a livelihood in other lands. In those lands they retained their Irish characteristics and their love for home, and he well remembered how, in his early business days, when he travelled the country, a very large portion of the money he collected consisted of American money orders. Surely, then, it could not be said that the Government were responsible for the people emigrating.
  With regard to education he was bound to admit that in no department of the State was there a greater leakage, but, at the same time, there had been a strong and vigorous effort, largely moulded by the present Government, to promote technical instruction, to improve the handicrafts in the cities and towns, and to help the farming classes by awakening them to the commercial aspect of their undertaking. Now, the Amendment meant nothing more and nothing less than Home Rule for Ireland, and Home Rule entailed the complete separation for fiscal, domestic, and administrative purposes of Ireland from Great Britain. Geographically, Ireland would remain beside this country, but in all matters affecting her she would be absolutely separate from the sister kingdom. Were hon. Members prepared to vote for the Amendment, with the distinct knowledge that that would be its effect? Representing, as he was proud to do, the great city of Belfast, which had carved out its own course in life and built up its own industries, he offered the strongest possible opposition to the Amendment.
  He must make a brief reference to one painful subject connected with the administration of the Chief Secretary and the action of the Under-Secretary. He was not prepared to join in the hounding down of that man, but he was bound to say in analysing the position that great mistakes had been made. In Sir Antony MacDonnell, the Chief Secretary had acquired the services of a very eminent man, but he seemed to have
  788
  overlooked the fact that that eminence had been attained under totally different conditions to those which prevailed in, Ireland. It was a mistake to give Sir Antony MacDonnell carte blanche. They could not have divided responsibility in connection with the Chief Secretaryship. But the mistakes which had been made dwindled into nothing compared with the importance of maintaining the Union. He accordingly opposed the Amendment and intended to give his support to the Government.
  MR. DILLONsaid the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich on the preceding night told them with child-like innocence that all the facts in relation to the latest crisis in Irish affairs were before the House, and they had only now to make up their minds to arrive at a decision. But he thought he would be able to show that the House was not yet in possession of all the facts necessary to enable it to form a judgment. The whole matter was still to a large extent mysterious. He thought the House ought to be told on what terms Sir Antony MacDonnell accepted the office of Under-Secretary, and they ought to see the letters in which those terms were registered. Again, it appeared strange, and indeed incredible, that, in two years of constant consultation on the matters specified by the Chief Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman should have failed to make it clear to Sir Antony MacDonnell that he was opposed to a partly-elected financial board. The essence of the programme of the Reform Association was a financial board partly elected. They were told that throughout the two years after Sir Antony MacDonnell came to Ireland there were frequent consultations between him and the Chief Secretary on the question of financial control, and that Sir Antony MacDonnell referred to Indian precedents. Was it conceivable that the Chief Secretary never thought of inquiring what was the constitution of the Indian bodies referred to? The thing was almost past human credulity. Could any one in the House believe it? And if any one did, what was to be said of a Minister, responsible for so difficult and delicate a task as the government of Ireland who enlisted the

  789
  services of a man of Sir Antony MacDonnell's high eminence in the work of reorganising the government, and who did not take the trouble to ask on what precedents he was basing his action. He for one could not accept that explanation. The Chief Secretary professed to be so guilelessly innocent that he never knew the councils in India were semi-elective, and he never asked about it. Sancta Simplicitas! What a guileless Chief Secretary they had. Why, was not the only object of setting up a financial board in Ireland to emancipate the Irish Government from Treasury control? That was the object of the Chief Secretary's own scheme, and he therefore could not accept the explanation now offered by the right hon. Gentleman.
  The Chief Secretary urged that he was away on a well-earned holiday when the first document of the Reform Association was published on August 31st, 1904. He did not grudge the right hon. Gentleman his holiday, but it was a curious coincidence that this scheme should be launched during his first holiday for a period of five years. Why did not the right hon. Gentleman, before going on his holiday, tell Sir Antony MacDonnell not to have anything to do with the matter until he returned, seeing that he knew that Sir Antony MacDonnell had been in close consultation with Lord Dunraven for months before, and had, in fact, received a letter from him on the subject—a letter the disappearance of which was most remarkable? One would certainly have supposed that the right hon. Gentleman would give orders that things should be maintained in statu quo until he returned. And, again, when he read the announcement in The Times, as he said, in an otiose manner, why did he not telegraph to Sir Antony MacDonnell and tell him to stay his hand until he returned? Why did the right hon. Gentleman feel called upon to take the very unusual course of writing a letter to The Times to dissociate himself from proposals put forward by private gentlemen?
  Let him turn for a moment to the explanation given by Lord Dunraven of these transactions with the Chief Secretary. Lord Dunraven said—
  "The publication of the first report on August 31st led to a great clamour, in Ireland
  790
  at any rate, for fuller particulars. He wrote to Sir Antony MacDonnell and asked him to draft out the heads of a more elaborate scheme on the lines of that first report. Sir Antony MacDonnell very kindly did so, and sent them down to him in Kerry. Shortly afterwards Sir Antony MacDonnell paid him a visit, on his way to stay with the Marquess of Lansdowne, and spent two days with him. They had plenty of time for going very thoroughly into the matter, and they drafted out a report."
  Lord Dunraven went on—
  "He was curious to know whether any communication passed between the Chief Secretary and Sir Antony MacDonnell on the subject of the first report. He could only say hat he received a letter from Sir Antony MacDonnell on September 25th. He must have written to Sir Antony MacDonnell about the dead set that was being made against him in Ireland, because Sir Antony MacDonnell wrote o the effect that a friend had told him that the strongest and most persistent effort was being made to force the Government to get him to resign his place."
  Now, it should be remembered that that letter was written by Sir Antony MacDonnell between the first and second reports. "And," he added, "I am bound to say that my relations with Mr. Wyndham are such that I attach very little importance or credence to these rumours."
  Really they were left to the very painful alternative either to conclude that Sir Antony MacDonnell was not only disloyal and dishonourable, and was deceiving Lord Dunraven as well as his chief, or were forced to maintain that in all those matters the Chief Secretary, as well as Lord Dudley, was thoroughly informed of all that was going on, and that the Chief Secretary's action was for the purpose of allowing a balloon to be floated and of seeing where it would turn.
  Now, this was rather a painful story; but there was another matter on which he was bound to press for an explanation. He had asked the question before, and repeated it now—Why was Sir Antony MacDonnell censured by the Government? Never the slightest reason had been given why Sir Antony MacDonnell's action should have been censured. He could not imagine a more cruel, insulting, and painful blow to a man who had given forty years of illustrious service to the Crown than that he should be made the subject of the answer given out from that box on the second day of the session. And until the debate

  791
  which took place in another place completely turned the tide, he thought the feeling of Sir Antony MacDonnell must have been one of very great bitterness indeed. Why did the Government not take steps in time to prevent the publication of these proposals, or if they did not why should they censure him? The Chief Secretary was for ever speaking of the loyalty of Sir Antony MacDonnell in the whole of these transactions. "I did defend him," the right hon. Gentleman exclaimed, and "I do defend him." Well, all he could say was that Sir Antony MacDonnell might surely say, "Defend me from my friends!" In the whole course of his life he had never heard such a defence made of a public servant.
  What had been the history of the last few months? For nearly a year a campaign of unparalleled bitterness had been organized against Sir Antony MacDonnell in Ireland. The whole of that campaign was in full swing in the Unionist Press, inspired and conducted by the Unionist Members of Parliament, and not one word of defence of Sir Antony MacDonnell had been uttered by the Chief Secretary against the attacks of the Ulster men. Not only so, the Government kept absolutely secret from the people of Ireland the conditions under which Sir Antony MacDonnell had occupied his office, and allowed him to remain the target for every form of abuse without saying one word in his defence. He acknowledged, and he thought it was to the credit of the House of Commons, the handsome way in which the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim, when he found out the truth of the case, had come forward and as a gentleman had apologized. That was no humiliation but an honour to the hon. and learned Member, as every gentleman ought to know. But what were they to say of the Government and Sir Antony MacDonnell's political chief, who could by one single word have rescued him and protected him from abuse, but never uttered that word? That was not all. When one of his colleagues in the Government whose mouth was open when the right hon. Gentleman was silent—when the Solicitor-General went down to the country, and with
  792
  unparalleled audacity and cruelty attacked a colleague in the Civil Service, who from his peculiar position was unable to reply, he must have attacked Sir Antony MacDonnell in the knowledge of the real facts, as it was almost inconceivable that the Solicitor-General did not know the terms of Sir Antony's appointment. But until Parliament met and the Government were compelled to speak, not one member on the Bench opposite said a word in defence of Sir Antony MacDonnell. They, on the Irish Benches, had been assailed and condemned over and over again because they had attacked permanent Civil servants in Ireland who had acted cruelly and unjustly to the people of Ireland. Ministers had sprung up at that box and denounced them for it. Very different was it in the case of Sir Antony MacDonnell. When a colleague of their own, and their own supporters in Ireland, acting, as they must have known, under a totally false conception of the facts, attacked Sir Antony MacDonnell, whose mouth was closed, they were silent.
  But he came to the most extraordinary point in the whole treatment of Sir Antony MacDonnell, and it was one which he hoped the House of Commons would insist on being completely cleared up. A Cabinet Council was held, at which the insulting and offensive answer given last week with reference to Sir Antony MacDonnell was agreed upon.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR, Manchester, E.): That is quite inaccurate. It never was dealt with in the Cabinet at all.
  MR. DILLON: We were given to understand that it was. I think that is a splendid illustration of——
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There is some confusion.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILL: Where is the Chief Secretary?
  MR. FLAVIN: Away on another holiday.
  MR. DILLON: There is some confusion, and my desire is that the confusion should be cleared up, and that we should know what happened. There cannot be the slightest doubt, no hon. Member in any part of the House will controvert, that the impression conveyed to the House was that this censure was settled in the Cabinet.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I must be mistaken as to what the hon. Member said. I thought he said that the answer which the Chief Secretary gave on the second day of the session was discussed in the Cabinet. So far as my recollection goes that is not the fact. It is a fact that the censure upon the Under-Secrctary which was referred to in that answer was discussed last autumn.
  MR. DILLON: Here is the only part of the answer I am concerned with—
  "The matter was considered by the Cabinet and the Government expressed, through me, their view that the action of Sir Antony MacDonnell was indefensible."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It may have been that I misheard the hon. Gentleman, but what I thought he said was that the answer given on the second day of the session was the answer which had been considered in the Cabinet. That is not so. What was considered, as is stated in the answer, was the censure passed by the Cabinet.
  MR. DILLONsaid that that was rather a fine-drawn distinction, because if the answer were examined it would be found that the only part of it of any real interest was the expression of censure on Sir Antony MacDonnell, and that it was considered in the Cabinet. To return to his point. A Cabinet Council must have been held some time. When was it held? The Chief Secretary stated, when cross-examined on the point, that when the Cabinet passed that censure they were not aware that Lord Dudley was a party to this transaction. Was not that an amazing statement? Was the Chief Secretary aware that Lord Dudley was a party to it? If not, had he taken any means of ascertaining whether he was or not? Surely, if the Chief Secretary had any sense of loyalty
  794
  to Sir Antony MacDonnell, or to any sub-ordinate, the first question he would have asked before taking any steps, before he wrote to The Times or took any other step, much less bringing it before the Cabinet, would have been to inquire whether Sir Antony MacDonnell had had the assent and co-operation of Lord Dudley in all these transactions. Was Sir Antony MacDonnell asked for an explanation before the Cabinet censure? That was a pertinent question, and one which must be answered before the debate concluded. Was it conceivable that a Cabinet in this country would censure a great public officer without listening to his explanation; and was it conceivable that Sir Antony MacDonnell, when calle I upon for an explanation, would keep back the fact that he was acting under the authority and with the full knowledge and approval of the Chief Secretary and the Viceroy? How were the Government going to get out of that dilemma? Because—they were told that the Cabinet did not know—he could not for a moment admit the notion that the Cabinet proceeded to censure a great public servant and insult him. It was not easy for any man who was a Member of that House to appreciate the agony suffered by a great public servant when he was censured by the Government of the country. The Irish Members cared little for censure, they could hit back when they were struck; but a great public officer who for forty years had served the Government loyally and whose whole life was bound up in the approval of his political superiors—to be censured in silence, to be brought face to face with the agony of having the whole record of his life wiped out by the Government, was a blow so cruel that it was hard for them to understand it. And it was inconceivable that any body of English gentlemen would inflict that blow without first hearing the man and asking for an explanation. He hoped that he had shown that the noble Lord opposite was a little previous when he said that the whole facts of the case were before the House, The facts were not before the House or the country, and this debate would not conclude the matter. When it was over it would not be Sir Antony MacDonnell who would be in the dock. There was something, after all, higher than the

  795
  censure of the Cabinet, and that was the censure of public opinion, which those who were responsible would yet have to face.
  There was another matter on which he desired information. It also had been treated evasively and mysteriously by the Chief Secretary. There was a mysterious dinner-party arranged in 1903 which never came off. What were the facts? According to the Chief Secretary, not in the year 1904, but in 1903, after the Land Act had been passed amidst general applause, at a time when Lord Dunraven received compliments which he had so well earned from all sections of public opinion, and at the time when the hon. Member for Cork City had converted an organ hostile to the Government into an organ for conciliation, it was then that Lord Dunraven came to him and discussed the chances and prospects of a Moderate Unionist Party in Ireland. Mark the introduction of the word "Unionist." There was a Unionist Party already. What was the idea of this new Party in Ireland. Was it to be composed of Unionists—that was the essence of the question—or was it to be composed of a section of Unionists and a section of Nationalists? They had one of the most innocent Chief Secretaries God ever created! Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the subjects proposed to be discussed at that dinner-party were subjects on which all men in Ireland were agreed. That appeared to be a very lame explanation of that intended dinner-party. It was a matter which ought to be probed to the bottom. What was Lord Dunraven's description? He said that he had many long informal conversations with Mr. Wyndham and Sir Antony MacDonnell on all kinds of subjects and topics connected with Ireland. That was another peculiarity of Irish government. They had not only the Chief Secretary and the Under-Secretary, but also Mr. Wyndham and Sir Antony MacDonnell, who carried on operations which did not in the least commit the Chief Secretary. Lord Dunraven proceeds that, among other subjects, they had discussed the condition of what he might call moderate opinion in Ireland the possibility of, in any way, making that opinion articulate,
  796
  and the possibility, in fact, of creating something like a Moderate Central Party. He thought it perfectly useless to start or to help to create a Moderate Party on a purely academic basis. He thought it absolutely essential to have a positive, constructive democratic policy—the policy which had been wrought out in their proposals for devolution. That was Lord Dunraven's description. It was a dinner to form a Moderate Party on a basis already discussed, and yet the Chief Secretary, in his extreme baptismal innocence, never heard anything of a new Unionist Party to discuss a subject on which everyone was agreed. Sir Antony MacDonnell's view was that the Chief Secretary saw no particular objection to a general scheme of administrative reform, proposed by perfectly independent and private individuals, being put forward for public criticism. That had reference to 1903, and yet they were told that the Chief Secretary knew nothing of devolution. Then in October, 1903, Sir Antony MacDonnell said—
  "I have been thinking over our conversation the other day."
  He abandoned the idea of asking the gentlemen to meet him because, as he said—
  "The business would speedily become known, and it would be said that Lord Dun-raven was forming a new Irish Party."
  To that Sir Antony MacDonnell could not see any particular objection, but he went on to say—
  "If the first meeting were held in my house, or at my invitation, every one would say that Mr. Wyndham was a prime mover in the business."
  He should like to know who were the gentlemen who were going to be invited to that dinner-party. Were they Nationalists or Nationalists and Unionists? In Lord Dunraven's statement there was not one single word about its being a Unionist Party. It was, on the contrary, a Moderate Central Party having for its basis the devolution proposals. Therefore, that dinner-party was indissolubly connected with all that took place afterwards. These questions were all exceedingly pertinent, and they ought all to be frankly answered if they were to form a really well-informed judgment of the present crisis in Ireland. Was the Chief Secretary aware of the advances

  797
  and proposals that were being made to some of the Nationalists in the autumn of 1903? It would be a very interesting thing to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was aware of them. He was speaking only for himself, he was approached not at all on behalf of Sir Antony MacDonnell, but on behalf of the friends of Lord Dunraven with regard to this new policy, and he would say that for any man who had lived in Ireland to imagine that he was going to get out of this business by simply hiding his head in the sand was most absurd. There was no secrecy, it was known everywhere; it was the common talk in every room and in the streets. He said, therefore, that the evidence was overwhelming, that Sir Antony MacDonnell in all the negotiations he carried on, and the assistance he gave to Lord Dunraven, was acting with the full assent and under He supervision of Lord Dudley, and the evidence was overwhelming that he had the full approval of the Chief Secretary himself. He wished to read to the House a brief extract from the London Globe, which had made itself the semi-official organ in London of the anti-MacDonnell crusade. The correspondent of the Globe in Dublin, a very well informed gentleman, he had no doubt, said on Saturday last—
  "At an early date I propose to lay before the readers of the Globe some interesting details as to the manner in which the Chief Secretary set himself to bring about a settlement of the Irish question. For the moment I may say that it is useless for any Minister, short of buying a newspaper outright, to hope to influence its policy by the acquisition, through a third party, of such of its shares as may for the time being be on the market."
  That was a very cryptic saving to people here, but they in Dublin understood it perfectly, and they looked forward with considerable interest to the details which might be published in the Globe in the next few days. This affair had assumed such proportions that it had obscured and overshadowed the Amendment. But if it had overshadowed it, it afforded such an argument for the Amendment that it was unnecessary for them to support it. After twenty years of resolute Unionist government in Ireland what had these gentlemen got to say? They stated that government in Ireland to-day was carried on in a
  798
  maze of clerical intrigue. Very well, then what had they got to say for Unionist government? Where were they going to look for a Government? He would tell them what was the modest request of the Ulster Unionist Members. In order to maintain the Union and to look after the interests of loyalty in Ireland, they must clear out this Government and put those gentlemen from Ulster in control of the Empire. That was the only solution; there was no other way.
  The point they brought to the attention of the House was that the present system of government in Ireland had broken down. No man, not even the hon. Member for Greenwich, had stood up to defend the miserable old system of Irish government. Nobody had or could defend it, and the hon. Gentlemen from Ulster who, for over twenty years, with the perfect loyalty that fed a great deal on hope, had battled for this Government, had now come forward to declare that it was impossible to conceive that any government of Ireland could be worse. Hon. Members opposite complained of broken pledges, and could not understand why the bluster of Ulster Members had had no effect. He could tell them why. It was simply because the Chief Secretary never believed in its reality. The hon. Member for North Antrim and his friends had been blustering as to what they would do for five years, but nothing had come of it. Let the hon. Member, and those who thought with him, take the advice of an old Parliamentary hand. Let them vote for the Amendment that day and then they would get something for themselves. What the Amendment said was that the present system of government in Ireland had broken down; no one would gainsay that. That it was ineffective and extravagantly costly; could anyone deny that? That it was productive of universal discontent and unrest; was there any single Irish Member who had a word to say in favour of it? And that it had proved incapable of satisfactorily promoting the material and intellectual progress of the people. On all those grounds they asked for the verdict of the House, and he felt confident that if every Member voted according to his conscience they would carry the entire House with them.
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid that with regard to the incident now called the MacDonnell incident he was not competent to form an opinion, as he did not know enough of its inner history to offer judgment upon it either in one interest or the other, but he was sorry to hear the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken cast reflections, on three different occasions, on the honour and good faith of the Chief Secretary, He thought the speech of the hon. Gentleman would have been a better one if he had left those innuendoes out. He would take the liberty of reminding him that he was one of the last in the House who should make these insinuations, because he had himself made mistakes. He (Colonel Kenyon-Slaney) remembered the hon. Member recollecting an incident before it occurred.
  MR. DILLON: I wish to say that on that occasion, when I was betrayed into an error, I came down to the House next day and apologised; will the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary do the same?
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he only meant to say that the hon. Member ought to have been careful how he spoke. The hon. Gentleman thought the Amendment was very moderate indeed and there was nothing in it that could not be supported by hon. Gentlemen on the Unionist side of the House, but should they not read into that Amendment the speech which had been made by the hon. Member for Water-ford, and if they did, then they found the Irish Party demanding Home Rule which, in their view, consisted of an Irish Parliament supreme in international affairs and finance. That, he thought, was a fair definition of what the hon. and learned Member for Water-ford meant, and it was consistent with the aims and aspirations of the Nationalist Party. That was a matter that did not concern the Unionist Party, but what did interest and concern them was the attitude of the Leader of the Opposition towards this question. The Leader of the Opposition had lately come out as the apostle of criticism and monosyllabic answers. Was the right hon. Gentleman now in favour of Home Rule
  800
  as defined by the hon. and learned Member for Waterford? Was he or was he not entitled to speak for Lord Spencer? If he was, would he give a monosyllabic answer as to whether the noble Lord supported Home Rule in the way put forward that night. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Fife was not in his place, but would the right hon. Baronet the Member for Berwick give a monosyllabic answer to those questions.
  MR. FLAVIN: Will you ask Mr. Horne's opinion?
  COLONEL KENYON-SLANEYsaid he was aware that he would never get a monosyllabic answer from any of the right hon. Gentlemen, and assumed, therefore, that this was a doctrine to be applied by the Opposition to the Government but never to themselves. If it were so applied, it would have the effect of detaching from their Party many Members whom they could ill afford to spare. There was one matter which perhaps would throw a little sidelight oil this matter. He had noticed in the papers a telegram to the effect that the Irish American Party sent their best wishes to the Nationalist Party in Parliament and expressed the hope that they would smash the Tory Party in this country as the Irish in America had smashed the Arbitration Treaty with England in the Senate. It was a matter of universal knowledge that the Irish Nationalist Party drew a certain amount of supplies from the Irish American Party, and what he desired to ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite was how far their alliance with the Nationalist Party went? Was it to go only as far as smashing the Tory Party or further? Were they to bind themselves to the Party who were responsible for arbitration arrangements between this country and America being rejected by the Senate. The people of this country were deeply interested in the question of arbitration, and looked forward to a great development of the principle. Consequently if the Liberal Party, when they came into power, were to be largely dependent for support upon the Irish Nationalist Party, who in turn drew their supplies from the "Smash-Arbitration Party" in America, how could they help

  801
  being smirched with the pitch of that alliance? His object in speaking was to make it perfectly clear to the country that the Leader of the Opposition could not give a candid and definite answer to the questions he had put, that the Liberal Party would be largely dependent on the support of the Irish Nationalists, and that they were not in a position to define their attitude towards Home Rule. Unless some leader, competent to speak for a fairly united section of the Liberal Party, distinctly and concisely repudiated Home Rule, the country would have to recognise that the granting of Home Rule on the lines laid down by the hon. Member for Waterford would dominate the policy of any future Liberal Administration of which right hon. Gentlemen opposite were prominent members.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he was glad to have an opportunity of explaining and justifying the position which he and his colleagues had taken up with regard to Sir Antony Mac-Donnell. It was totally untrue to say that Unionists objected to Sir Antony MacDonnell's appointment on the ground that he was a Roman Catholic. At the time of his appointment Sir Antony Mac-Donnell was practically unknown in Ireland, having spent forty years in India, where he had won a great reputation as an able and devoted public servant. It soon became known that he had a brother in the ranks of the Nationalist Party, that he came of a Nationalist family, and that his views must be in sympathy with the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite; but it was absolutely untrue that at the time of his appointment Unionists distrusted him on that account. Had they had any suspicions as to his uprightness they would have been removed by the remembrance of the fact that the Under-Secretaryship was a Civil Service appointment, the holder of which had to act under the instructions of his superior and was not allowed any initiative, and that Sir Antony Mac-Donnell was appointed by a Government the basis of whose existence was the maintenance of the Union. About six months after the appointment, affairs in Ireland had come to such a pitch that everybody had made up their minds that the land question must be settled,
  802
  and all other Irish questions were practically put on one side, so that few controversial matters came before the House. It was understood that Sir Antony Mac-Donnell had been appointed to his position partly for the purpose of lending his valuable assistance towards the passing of the Land Act, and a certain portion of the credit attaching to the passage of that Act belonged to him.
  At the end of the session of 1903, it began to be rumoured that Sir Antony MacDonnell was usurping many of the functions of the Chief Secretary, interfering in matters which had hitherto been regarded as outside the province of the Under-Secretary, and disregarding the fundamental rule of the Civil Service which prohibited Civil servants from taking an active part in politics. The first cause of uneasiness was a speech at a large dinner-party in Dublin, in which the Under-Secretary made some highly controversial references to a Roman Catholic University, and Irish Unionists wondered how an Undersecretary, responsible to the Chief Secretary, could make such statements. They were suspicious, however, of the attitude of the Chief Secretary himself on that question, and were inclined to believe that Sir Antony MacDonnell had some approval from the right hon. Gentleman in making that speech. The second occasion on which the Under-Secretary transgressed was at Belfast, when the question of University education was discussed. By this time the Unionists of the North of Ireland were suspicious of Sir Antony MacDonnell, and realised that he was a Nationalist, and rumour stated that when appointed he frankly avowed his agreement with the aspirations of the Nationalist Party. That being so, was it any surprise that Irish Unionists began to wonder what sort of person they had got in the position of Under-Secretary? Up to three days ago there was absolute silence on the part of the right hon. Gentleman. They were given no information. Had the Chief Secretary come forward and laid the whole case before them and told them he was trying a new experiment, he did not say that they would have acquiesced, but, at any rate, they would have known how things stood. Had

  803
  that course been adopted the Chief Secretary would not have found himself in the position in which he found himself to-day, nor would the Unionists from Ireland have had to find fault with his conduct. As it was the feeling existed amongst Irish Unionist Members that the Chief Secretary had not played his part fairly with his fellow Unionists in Ireland. At the end of last session they had fully come to the conclusion that this matter must be pursued to the bitter end and that Sir Antony must be removed from his post in Ireland. He was glad to say that they had demonstrated that to several of their colleagues, and he was also glad that they had by that time by the justice of their cause enlisted the sympathies of a considerable portion of the London Press. He had no hesitation in saying that they owed a debt of gratitude to The Times [NATIONALIST cries of: "So did Pigott"], the St. James's Gazette, and the Globe, to each of which papers he returned their hearty thanks, because they had enabled them to bring the justice of their cause before the English people. He had said he thought Sir Antony MacDonnell was their worst enemy in Ireland. He was opposed to their ideas in every direction in Irish politics, and furthermore, he was placed in a position where he could be an injury to the cause of the Union, and that being so, they were justified in attacking him on that point. They had been charged with attacking him when he could not reply. His answer had always been that in considering him as everybody did, as an ordinary Under-Secretary, he was behaving in a way in which no Under-Secretary had ever done before. But it was absurd to say that he was attacking him without giving him the opportunity of replying, because the Chief Secretary was always in the House, and it was clearly his duty to stand by his subordinate officer. Indeed, it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to face these matters.
  Now he came to the most important part of his speech, viz., the devolution scheme of Lord Dunraven. He had no intention of discussing either Lord Dunraven or the scheme with which he was connected farther than to
  804
  say that Lord Dunraven was not in any way representative of Irish Unionist opinion. The whole coterie who agreed with him was not more than twenty or thirty souls out of 1,500,000 Unionists in Ireland. He thought hon. Gentlemen opposite would admit that that was a small proportion. Lord Dunraven had a perfect right to ramble into the region of Home Rule. In that respect they did not find fault with him. But they maintained that he had brought forward a proposal which, even looked at from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen opposite, was impracticable. From the Nationalist point of view it was a rotten scheme, and from the Unionist point of view it was nothing but a step towards Home Rule. If the Unionist Members had not taken that attitude and had kept silent, the Liberal Press would have said that they saw in the scheme an indication of a change of feeling on the part of the Unionists of Ireland, and so they felt it was their duty to make it clear that their opinions upon Home Rule had not changed one iota. Lord Dunraven's scheme was brought forward on September 26th last, and soon after that date they began to discover in it the handiwork of Sir Antony MacDonnell and the work of an Indian official. The Unionist papers criticised the scheme as adversely and harshly as the most advanced Orangemen could desire, but, the Nationalist papers were careful to hide their light in regard to a scheme which meant such a long step in the direction of Home Rule. The Liberal papers in this country were delighted to see this scheme brought forward, because in it they saw a way out of their difficulty in regard to Home Rule.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear!
  MR. CHARLES CRAIG: But the question they had now to consider was the action of Sir Antony MacDonnell and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and everybody soon became convinced that the former was not only connected with Lord Dunraven's scheme but was really the prime mover in it; and he was not quite sure, in spite of what had been said to the contrary, that that was not still the correct view of it. They asked for information, but a dead silence was maintained.

  805
  The rumours became more specific and the Attorney-General for Ireland made two very remarkable speeches in his constituency in which he challenged the authors of this scheme to come forward and reveal themselves. These rumours became so strong that when Parliament opened they determined to get as much information by Question and Answer as they could, and he put a Question on the first day upon which the House met, the Answer to which created a very great sensation. [A NATIONALIST: Was it inspired?] Yes, it was, and it was concocted by his hon. friend the Member for North Antrim and himself. He did not think he was exaggerating when he asserted that the Answer given to that Question fell like a thunderbolt. The Answer was a frank avowal of the position the Under-Secretary held in the Irish Office. It also gave the specific information they had been asking for during the past six months, to the effect that Sir Antony MacDonnell did assist in formulating Lord Dunraven's proposals. The Chief Secretary had stated that he saw those proposals for the first time in The Times on September 26th. When the matter was placed before the Cabinet the right hon. Gentleman was instructed to inform Sir Antony MacDonnell that his action was indefensible, but that the Government were satisfied that his conduct was not open to the imputation of disloyalty. Those were very remarkable revelations. Up to that point, therefore, the campaign they had been conducting against the Under-Secretary was absolutely justified. A discussion took place in the House of Lords, and further facts were added to those they already possessed, which made the whole affair more remarkable still. They found that powers were given to this Under-Secretary such as were never given to an Under-Secretary before. What these powers were was a matter they had not got to the bottom of yet, but he fully believed that those powers justified him in giving what assistance he did to Lord Dunraven in formulating these proposals. He asked the House to consider whether it was constitutional for such powers to be given to an Under-Secretary, and whether those powers were given him by order of the Cabinet of the country or solely by the Chief Secretary. To his
  806
  mind it was inconceivable that a Chief Secretary for Ireland should take upon himself to engage an Under-Secretary and to give to him such powers as would enable him to take part in these devolution proposals and to take a leading action in numerous other cases. That was utterly unconstitutional, and, what was more, there was practicallyn o reason why the Chief Secretary should give him these powers without consulting the Cabinet.
  MR. FLAVIN: Why did not the Cabinet censure the Chief Secretary?
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid there were numerous other points in reference to this question. Most of them had been thoroughly thrashed out, but there were one or two on which he desired to get some information from the Chief Secretary. In the matter of apologies to Sir Antony MacDonnell, he was sorry if he had said anything which, in the mistakenknowledge of the facts under which they had laboured, might have in any way hurt his feelings. But he still maintained that Sir Antony's position in Dublin was absolutely impossible. The fact that Sir Antony MacDonnell acted with the knowledge of a superior officer did not alter the fact that he was an avowed Nationalist. Sir Antony had been permitted to give vent to Nationalist feelings, and that was a position which no self-respecting Irish Unionist could tolerate for one moment. They had heard him described not as a sub-ordinate, but as a colleague of the Chief Secretary. Such a state of affairs had never been known before, and could not be tolerated for a moment. He was quite sure that all Unionist Members in the House, if they had been in the position of Irish Unionists, would have experienced precisely the same feelings and taken exactly the same action as he and his colleagues had done. The Chief Secretary had said that he knew nothing about the specific proposals which appeared in the newspapers on September 26th, and that they came to him as a surprise, but it was admitted that the Lord-Lieutenant knew of these proposals. How was it that neither the Lord-Lieutenant nor Sir Antony MacDonnell enlightened the Chief Secretary on the subject. He would not say that these

  807
  two Gentlemen were working behind the Chief Secretary's back, but it was remarkable that these two officers of the Government might discuss these important matters without thinking it necessary to take their chief into their confidence. It was absurd to say that this was a trifling matter. He was afraid there were signs of disloyalty there. The Chief Secretary said he knew nothing of the proposals, and he accepted the right hon. Gentleman's word, but they had the startling fact that the two other gentlemen knew about them. He wished more information on that subject.
  There was another matter, and it was the most serious aspect of this most unfortunate affair. That was, that Lord Lansdowne in the House of Lords on Friday made a speech which, from beginning to end, seemed to justify Sir Antony MacDonnell in what he did—and at the same time to justify all that the Chief Secretary had done. It was a very serious state of affairs that one of the most distinguished Ministers in the Government, the whole basis of whose existence, and the whole inception of whose being was the maintenance of the Union, should have openly given his approbation to a scheme such as that published on September 26th—a scheme which, the Cabinet had said was indefensible and which the whole Unionist Press in the country had scouted as absolutely impossible. He hoped he had approached this subject, which was the most important Irish Unionists could discuss in that House, with as impartial a mind as it was possible for Irish Unionists to have on that subject. He had not imported any undue heat into his remarks. [ANATIONALIST MEMBER—Because you have got such a bad case.] Hon. Gentlemen on the Nationalist Benches had invited them to go into the lobby with them in order to show their indignation against the Government at what had happened. Irish Unionists could not do that. They were Unionists, but they were so profoundly dissatisfied with the conduct of Irish affairs that it had been their intention to abstain from voting on this Amendment.
  MR. FLAVIN: I will win my cigars if you are going to vote to-night.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid he sincerely hoped the hon. Gentleman would win his cigars, and if they could vote he would give the hon. Member a few more. He hoped that the First Lord of the Treasury, in the speech he was expected to make, would indicate to them a way out of their difficulty. He needed not to tell the House that Irish Unionists would feel the greatest pain in abstaining from voting if that course was unfortunately forced upon them. They claimed to be as loyal to the Government as any Unionist. If the Government would rectify the present state of affairs they would go into the lobby with them, but if not they must unfortunately abstain from voting. He appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury to make it possible to save them from the situation in which they found themselves.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had appealed to the First Lord of the Treasury to save the Ulster Unionists from the present situation, but he had not indicated what kind of salvation he desired. Would the hon. Gentleman kindly state which official of the Irish Government was to be jettisoned for his satisfaction? Would Sir Antony MacDonnell do? Would he rather the Lord-Lieutenant, or would he prefer the Chief Secretary? Was Lord Lansdowne to go, or were the whole four, the entire quartette, and not one Jonah, to be thrown to the waves for the satisfaction of Protestant Ulster? He could bring an impartial mind to bear on this subject. He had never read the devolution proposals before. He had never read Lord Dun-raven's letters. He only read what he was obliged to read. He never read anything except it was practical. He confessed he was very much struck with the able speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo that afternoon, which had put an entirely new perspective on the present situation. He did not understand what was going on; he did not quite follow the Dunraven Treaty because he was not in a position of confidence in the Party, having been expelled from the Party at he instance of the hon. Member for Cork, whose absence he greatly regretted. When he heard in the debate an allusion to the case of Mr. Thomas Drummond

  809
  and the fact that the Irish Secretary of to-day had not done what Lord John Russell and Lord Morpeth then did, he was curious enough to turn to the history of that period to see if he could find any explanation for the circumstance. He found in Leslie Stephen's Biographical Dictionary, at page 42 of the 16th Volume a passage which perhap might shed some light on the reason why the Irish Secretary of to-day was not in quite as strong a position to defend his subordinate as Lord Melbourne, in the face of the fiat of the House of Lords, was able to defend Mr. Thomas Drummond. He read—
  "After the general election of 1835 O'Connell held the balance between the two great English Parties, and finally threw his weight into the scale in favour of the Whigs. With his aid the Whigs, under Lord Melbourne, came into office, and a compact was practically made between the Government and the Irish leader. The basis of this compact—known as the Lichfield House compact—was that O'Connell should suspend the demand for repeal, and that the Government should pass remedial measures for Ireland and administer the affairs of the country on principles of justice and equality. The Irish administration was nominally entrusted to Lord Mulgrave the Lord-Lieutenant, and Lord Morpeth the Chief Secretary, but Drummond was really in command … Drummond had to grapple with political agitation as well as social disorders and religious feuds. O'Connell had long been the enemy of every Irish Administration. But Drummond conciliated the great agitator, and while he ruled the cry of repeal was silent. O'Connell felt that no ruler responsible to an Irish Parliament for the administration of the country could govern with more ability and justice than Drummond. Accordingly he lent the weight of his authority to the support of the Executive, and the extraordinary spectacle was for the first time seen of Irish agitators and English administrators working hand in hand to maintain order and uphold the law."
  Well, that passage convinced him that the right hon. Gentleman the Irish Secretary could not, in the face of the attack made upon him from the Irish-Unionist side of the House, achieve any thing satisfactory to the majority of the Irish people, unless he had from that side of the House support at least equal in vehemence and indignation to that given against him on the other side. Now, he did not approve of the attitude taken throughout by the hon. Member for Cork in reference to the Dunraven Treaty. He did not understand it, but he confessed he was beginning to understand it now;
  810
  and he understood also the remarkable letter written by Mr. Davitt, whose name was entitled to be received with every respect, in which he declared that Sir Antony MacDonnell was the decoy-duck of the Tory Government, and that he hated him far more because his position, and appointment were calculated and intended to reconcile Nationalists and to appease the minds of those who were in antagonism to the Government and the Tory Party. He certainly had been most anxious for many years to see whether they could not bring some measure of detachment to bear on their relations to English Parties. If they went back twenty years or so they would find that the circumstances of to-day remarkably resembled those connected with the Kilmainham Treaty. They all remembered the great scene in 1882. The Irish Members were then in greater antagonism to Mr. Gladstone's Government than to any Government since, and when Mr. Parnell's letter, in which he promised cordially to co-operate with the Liberal Party in advancing Liberal principles, was read to the House, it would be remembered what a shudder and gasp, almost of consternation, it created in Irish Nationalist circles. From that moment till 1885, when they put out Mr. Gladstone's Government, they had the same relations with the distinguished noble Lord, whose son he was glad to see was likely to achieve the same distinction as his great father. When they had these same relations with the noble Lord the same endeavour was made to bring about the appeasement and advancement of the country. They were taunted by the Liberals with the Mamatrasna Alliance. There had been some terrible murders in Ireland, and they demanded some inquiry in regard to certain convictions that had been obtained, and Sir William Harcourt said he would leave the Tory Party to stew in its Parnellite juice.
  They did not succeed in returning the Tory Party insufficient numbers in 1885, and the hon. Member for the Scotland Division issued a manifesto couched in magnoliquent language, to which their names were signed without asking for their authority, in which they were made to

  811
  attack the Tory Government with a bitterness and ferocity which could not be exceeded. Then came in Mr. Gladstone with his Home Rule scheme, and they supported him loyally and cordially. But in this, as in the long struggle and endeavour generation after generation, a small Party, self-concentrated, disinterested, and zealous, they were beaten and baffled by an Orange Party, backed by a few powerful newspapers and a few powerful families in Ulster. Mr. Gladstone's effort in 1886 was defeated, and then Lord Salisbury came into office with the promise of twenty years of resolute government. How absurd it all seemed now. Twenty years of resolute government! What was the first thing this resolute Government did? A whole number of gentlemen, including the hon. Members for Mayo and Cork, had been imprisoned and cruelly treated because they demanded that the leaseholders should be admitted to the benefits of Mr. Gladstone's Land Act. That was denounced by Lord Salisbury as a breach of contract and a revolution; but in the course of six months the leaders of this Party of resolute government came down to the House of Lords with a Bill breaking all those sacred contracts and throwing the Irish landlords to what he was pleased to call the sub-confiscators under Mr. Gladstone's measure. Then they had the Prime Minister, who was then Irish Secretary. They learned to respect him, if they did not love him, and he bore himself like a man in the debates. He wondered if the right hon. Gentleman now thought that he was always right and that the Irish Members were always wrong, for the first note of doubt that came into his character was after he had made his famous tour in the West of Ireland and saw for himself the misery of the inhabitants for whom the Irish Members had been combating so long. What then happened? They defeated the resolute Government and brought in Mr. Gladstone again in 1892, and he passed in the House with great difficulty his great Home Rule Bill, which, however, was rejected elsewhere.
  Then the Tory Party, apparently for the first time, began to turn different eyes upon the affairs of Ireland, because
  812
  they brought in in 1896, without pressure he was bound to say, a measure which he regarded as extremely valuable—the Irish Land Bill of 1896; and what was of still greater value, the Local Government Bill of 1898. Now, the chief charge against him was that he cheered Mr. Gerald Balfour when that right hon. Gentleman brought in the Local Government Bill. He did cheer Mr. Gerald Balfour, and the position he had taken up was that he would cheer either side of the House which brought in any Bill favourable to his native country. What happened to Mr. Gerald Balfour, who was then Irish Secretary? This was important, because they had here the genesis of the attack upon Sir Antony MacDonnell. Mr. Gerald Balfour had passed the Local Government Bill, the Irish Land Bill, and the Agricultural Board Bill, and had put Mr. Horace Plunkett and Mr. J. P. Gill into office to administer these two latter measures. No sooner had the general election of 1900 taken place than a dead set was made upon the brother of the present Prime Minister and the nephew of the late Prime Minister by the very gang who were attacking Sir Antony MacDonnell to-day. What was his crime? Who was then the scape-goat of the Orange Party? Sir Horace Plunkett. It was said that that right hon. Baronet had been put forward by the present Prime Minister as a decoy-duck, just as it was said to-day that Sir Antony MacDonnell had been. He was to woo the Irish Members from the paths of Nationality. What did the Orange gang do? Sir Horace Plunkett sat for South Dublin; he was a Unionist; his one crime, so far as he could see, was that the right hon. Baronet took an interest in milk and butter, and was striving, by improving the methods of the farmers of Ireland, to put more rent into the landlords' pockets. What happened? The Orange clique put up against Sir Horace Plunkett a gentleman of the name of Ball, and they preferred that a Nationalist should be returned for South Dublin rather than that the President of the Board of Trade should have the satisfaction, as the result of three or four years of honest and disinterested efforts, of having a single supporter throughout

  813
  the length and breadth of the land. The faction who were now giving away the secrets of the Cabinet went to Hatfield and told Lord Salisbury that he must withdraw the Chief Secretary, Mr. Gerald Balfour, and the Lord-Lieutenant. Earl Cadogan, because they were hand in glove with the Nationalists! The then Chief Secretary had probably never had any relations whatever with the Nationalists, but such was the power of this faction that the great Prime Minister, the man of "twenty years of firm and resolute government"—as Abraham preferred to sacrifice Isaac—preferred to throw over his own nephew, and to put him into a subordinate position. Ought not that to have some lesson for both Englishmen and Irishmen? What did these men want? They were Loyalists, and they were continually advertising their loyalty. If the Monarch was a Catholic would they be loyal to him? They compelled the King to take an oath which declared the dearest beliefs of the Irish people to be blasphemy. The only man to whom they denied liberty of conscience was the King himself. They complained that Irish Loyalists and Protestants were oppressed. By whom? Let hon. Members refer to "Thom's Directory" and see how these Loyalists, like worms under the harrow, were writhing in poverty and powerlessness, whilst the Nationalists dominated every sitation in Ireland, and the priests pulled the strings of Government in Dublin Castle!
  The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich professed not to know what nationality was. He would tell him. Nationality was something one was willing to die for. Even the noble Lord would not die for the meridian of Greenwich. Let the House see what these Loyalists had to complain of, and then ask themselves what chance there was of anything like contentment in Ireland so long as this faction were allowed to ride on the necks of the people. The Loyalists failed to get the rate-collectorship of Cavan! The Protestant candidate offered to collect the rates at 2d. in the £, while the Catholic's price was 3d., and the Catholic received the appointment, the reason being that the
  814
  appointing authority had been reading the speeches of the Member for Birmingham in which that right hon. Gentleman declared that cheapness was not everything. But what had they got instead of that rate-collectorship of Cavan? There were sixty Privy Councillors, four of whom were Catholics; thirteen Judges, three Catholics; sixty sub-Commissioners, eleven Catholics; twenty-one CountyCourt Judges, seven Papists; in the police, of which the head was a Protestant—there were thirty-six county inspectors, one Catholic; 170 district inspectors, ten Catholics; sixty-five resident magistrates, fifteen Catholics; and in every other public department the proportion of Protestants to Catholics was as four to one, although the Protestants were not one-fourth of the total population. In addition, the Irish Loyalists had sent a Solicitor-General to England, and two Judges to India. What more did they want the Chief Secretary to do? Was it a part of English policy that this miserable system should go on? The hon. Member for Newport had thrown in the teeth of the Nationalists the fact that their faithful countrymen in America had such influence that the Senate of the United States refused to ratify the Arbitration Treaty with England. God bless the Irishmen in America! Faithful to their country, and regardful of her interests, they were determined that an abiding treaty of peace should be made with Ireland. The Chief Secretary could have no answer to the speech of the hon. Member for East Mayo, but, at any rate, he had the consolation that if he had failed he had only gone the way of scores of others.
  But the House should note the weapons the Tory Party were prepared to use. Long before the Dunraven devolution scheme was heard of, this House rang with the case of a constable who had been dismissed for a charge of immorality. Any stick was good enough to beat a dog with. Constable Anderson was good enough last year, and this year it would have been Bann Drainage if devolution had not come up. The whole object and aim of the policy of hon. Members opposite was to keep Ireland discontented in order that they might pose as the Government Loyalist faction who, in face

  815
  of every temptation, and in spite of all the attraction that Nationalists could hold out to them, remained faithful to the Union and to the Goverment. The one charge against the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary, was that ho had brought over one Irish Nationalist, a man of distinction, from India, which was a good thing to do, and the only thing in which the right hon. Gentleman had been wrong was that, in the face of the attacks upon him in the St. James' Gazette and from the Orange Party, he had not been able to stand up for his subject as he should have. That was the whole head and front of the right hon. Gentleman's offending. He, (Mr. Healy) would rather that the right hon. Gentleman had stood up for Sir Antony MacDonnell; he would rather the Chief Secretary had acted as Lord Dudley had done. What would have happened then? He might have resigned, but whom would they have got in his place? Perhaps Mr. William Moore! There was an old proverb, "Never throw out the dirty water till you get in the clean." The hon. Member for North Antrim, in order to hold something in terrorem over the Government, in order that something should happen, said that on March 3rd he would call out his reserves. His reserves! They were all there in the House laagered behind the Mace. He (Mr. Healy) really did not know there were five Ulster men in the Government in this House, he did not count Lord Londonderry, who was in the other House. There was the Attorney-General, the Solicitor-General, the English Solicitor-General, the Secretary of State for War, and the noble Lord who sat for Derry, the name of whose job he (Mr. Healy) was sorry to say he could not remember; and the hon. Member for North Antrim had only to blow the horn on March 3rd and they would all trip and dance to the tune of "Whistle and I'll come to ye, my lad." He had known all these gentlemen for a very long time, and the hon. Member for North Antrim might take it from him that they all preferred the atmosphere of Westminster to that of Sandy Row. The hon. Member might call spirits from the vasty deep, but they would not come. The Secretary of State for War would be thinking out the details of his short rifle, and so far as the other Gentlemen were concerned, he did not
  816
  know what they would be doing, but he did not think any darksome awe would come over them on that great day.
  Was it not time that this humbug was done away with, and that these Gentlemen from Ulster came down with their programme. What was their programme? They could not repeal Catholic Emancipation, the Church Act, the franchise, the Ballot Act, or the Land Act of 1881, and they did not want to repeal the Purchase Act of 1903. Let these Gentlemen tell the Government what they were to do. He put it to the Government, did they think it was part of the scheme of Toryism that there should be no measure of appeasement for Ireland? He granted to the full the great difficulty in which the Conservative Ministry found itself, but was that their scheme, and was Ireland to continue to wait? The present Government had been in office for practically nineteen years. Was Ireland to wait always for the Liberal Party to come into office in order to see every measure passed by the Liberal Party rejected by the House of Lords? The Liberal Party could not legislate for Ireland, and the Conservative Party would not legislate for Ireland, and therefore the country which needed legislation and attention more than any other portion of the three Kingdoms was by reason of the attitude of the same faction to be deprived of its due share of the government of the country.
  He put it to the Ulster Members of that House, men who had gone through scenes like this before, and had seen each Administration attacked in turn because of some little thing which produced some little understanding with Irish feeling, whether they thought that in a century of time from now the position was to be the same? What became of Empire and statesmanship? British statesmanship had broken down in Ireland, the great business qualities which had shown themselves in every other department of life had been bent and broken in the sister island. Let them give Ireland liberty in this matter, the liberty granted to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, and which was shortly to be given to the Boers, who were taken with arms in their hands, and who were

  817
  now to be trusted with self-government in Johannesburg and Pretoria. Ireland was the one spot in the British Empire which had to battle with the Empire for its life, which had no hope in the centuries to come. The descendants of the men who now represented her were to be engaged in this eternal wrangle with English Ministers for what, from a comprative point of view, was of absolute unimportance to England; and would it not be something to the Empire in international affairs to insure that the British policy should not be lassoed, so to speak, by Ireland? Was it not rather a reproach to English statesmanship that the Irishmen in America were able to defeat the Arbitration Treaty in the Senate. Was the Tory Party, the Party of Empire and jingoism, the Party which boasted its alliance with Japan, prepared to sacrifice power and place rather than give a Catholic University to Ireland. Was the Government which had the control of the Army, of the Navy, of the international policy of the Empire, prepared to sacrifice the whole of that in order to force him to send his children to a Protestant college. If the whole thing was summed up, it came to this, that the Government, in the midst of most important international negotiations, might go out that night because they had appointed Sir Antony Macdonell, and the hon. Member for North Antrim would not have him. That was the great Imperialist Party! Let hon. Members go into the lobby with them if they liked. The Nationalists, until a peaceful compact was made with them, would offer an opposition equivalent to the miseries which had been inflicted upon Ireland.
  MR. GORDONsaid he was not surprised at the amount of abuse which had been heaped on the Irish Unionists by the hon. Member who had just sit down. The hon. Gentleman had great experience in giving and receiving abuse, but he could assure him that the Irish Unionists cared as little for his abuse as did the Members of the Party to which the hon. Gentleman formerly belonged. The Irish Unionists had always honestly and fearlessly made clear their position in that House both through their predecessors and
  818
  those who, at present, sat in the House to defend their principles, and also through the Unionist Press of Ireland which voiced their views. The hon. Member came there, flung epithets across the floor of the House, and used arguments with all the power he had at his command, which he must have known to be unjust. As to any Roman Catholic because of his religion, or any Nationalist because of his political opinion, being excluded from appointments in the Royal Irish Constabulary, the hon. Member must have known that the entrance to those appointments was by examination. They knew and the hon. Gentleman knew that it was not because of any oppression that Roman Catholics were subjected to by the Unionist Government in Ireland that larger numbers of them did not hold the position of inspectors in the Royal Irish Constabulary. He must know that the entrance to these positions was by examination. The hon. Member pointed to that fact that eleven out of sixty were Roman Catholics. That showed and clearly demonstrated what they knew, that it was not a fair way to look on this question to count heads. They must count amongst other things education. If they found in any pursuit of life, the test of which was a competitive examination, that only one-sixth of the appointments were secured by Roman Catholics, apply it all round and it explained amply and clearly everything connected with the appointments in Ireland. It might be that the Protestant body in Ireland was smaller in numbers, but in proportion to its numbers it produced a far greater number of suitable candidates than the Nationalists or Roman Catholics. Nobody coming into power, whether it be the Opposition or even the Nationalists themselves, could alter that if they appointed men suitable for the posts.
  He quite agreed that the real issue had been overshadowed by the question of Sir Antony MacDonnell. But let them see how it was dealt with by hon. Members opposite. One hon. Member put it forward as a reason why the Government were to be censured and abused, and because they were so blameworthy they were to be turned out of office. Another

  819
  hon. Member put it forward as the greatest merit of the Government that they should send a man like Sir Antony MacDonnell to try to conciliate the people of Ireland, whom it was impossible to conciliate. Those were two opposite views. Which was right? Those divergent views ought to be taken into consideration by the Members of-the House. What was the real thing they were discussing. The position the Unionists of Ireland took was this. They did not say that the existing system of government was perfect, but they were satisfied with the system of government if it was fairly carried out, the system of government to which the Unionists of England, Scotland, and Ireland bad given their approval. What they asked for was—carry it out fairly. What they complained of in this matter was that it had not been carried out fairly. That was not the position laid down by the hon. Member for Waterford, who moved the Amendment, and his friends the Nationalists. What they meant was this—and let there be no mistake about it—especially he hoped the Opposition would remember what they were voting for in voting for the Amendment—that the present system of government must be got rid of. It was not an Amendment saying, "It is a very good system of government, but you are not carrying it out well." No, they not only insisted that the present system should be got rid of but they went a step further and said they must substitute something in its place. What was that to be? Was it not clearly and unmistakably set forth in the Amendment, although the Amendment was carefully worded for the purpose of catching the votes of the Radical Members, who if they saw Home Rule mentioned in it would shy at it because their constituents would not tolerate their voting for Home Rule, it was carefully worded—not to catch Unionist votes—although it had succeeded in getting one Unionist Member who was returned by his constituency as a Unionist, the hon. Member for South Tyrone, to say without consulting his constituents that he would vote for the Amendment. The Home Rule question was the issue at every northern election, and without reference to those who returned him the hon. Member had announced his intention of voting for the
  820
  Amendment. Let there be no mistake about it. It was Home Rule, and if the Opposition voted for that Amendment they would be reminded of what they had done if they came into power. Every hon. Member who voted for this Amendment pledged himself to substitute for the present system of government in Ireland that Home Rule which the hon. Member for Waterford had described in the House, and which Nationalists stated they would never rest satisfied until they got. Let the Opposition, official or unofficial, bear in mind what they were doing when they voted for this Amendment. One of the hon. Members who spoke yesterday pointed out as an instance of the inefficiency of the Government that they did not give a Roman Catholic University or College to Ireland. That was the interpretation Irish Home Rule Members placed on part of this Amendment—to get rid of an inefficient Government because it would not give them a Roman Catholic University or College, and get its place supplied by a Government that would give them.
  Mr. T. W. RUSSELL: My charge was that the Government desired to give them, but that hon. Members on that side would not let them.
  Mr. GORDONsaid his answer to that was that the Unionist Party as a whole would not have it. The Unionist Party had refused to set up a Roman Catholic University or any denominational University in Ireland which they knew would be a retrograde step. The hon. Member was perfectly willing to do that, but one of the pledges he had to give to his constituents was that he would take no steps in the matter. Were the Radical Members willing to pledge themselves to give a Roman Catholic University or College and maintain it by State aid? Were they prepared to vote for this simply for the purpose of dishing the Unionist Party. This was not an Orange question. Several of them were not Orangemen, and represented the views and opinions of a vast number of people who were not Orangemen. They represented a vast body of opinion that was not composed of members of the Orange Society, and those who were not members of that society were just as strong in

  821
  their antagonism to Home Rule now as they were at any period since the question arose. They were opposed to that Amendment because they were opposed to anything approaching Home Rule, and the strongest proof of the position they took up was that they attacked the Government itself for having does anything that would lend colour to the idea that even the Lord-Lieutenant was going to a half-way house in the direction of Home Rule.
  What was the position regarding the question of Sir Antony MacDonnell? Sir Antony MacDonnell was a great public servant who had worked well in India, but the methods he adopted there of necessity utterly unfitted him for dealing with matters in Ireland. They might govern 46,000,000 of people by finding out what was the opinion of 10,000 of them in India, but they could not do this in a country with free institutions like Ireland. He heard the Under-Secretary for Ireland make a statement at a public dinner last November twelve months which he was sure the Chief Secretary or the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland would never have made, for he said that there was only one thing that legislation could he expected then to do for Ireland, and that was to settle the University question, and he added, ''that would be settled within the next twelve months." He thought the Chief Secretary would not have gone so far, but would probably have said, "The Government will endeavour, and hope to be able to settle it within the next twelve months." That showed the disposition and character of Sir Antony MacDonnell, and why should the Chief Secretary leave matters so much in his hands? Why should he treat the Under-Secretary as a colleague, and give him powers co-ordinate with his own, which he allowed to some extent to override his own? Why did not the Chief Secretary, when he knew of these matters, and at the earliest possible moment, make a clean breast of it, and not wait until they had been compelled to fish out this information by Questions in the House of Commons? Why did he not at once put forward the exact situation as he had put it forward now? He had heard a good deal about the
  822
  loyalty of Sir Antony MacDonnell. The Chief Secretary said he did not hear of these matters until the 26th of September, and that he was not aware that Sir Antony MacDonnell's action had the approval of the Lord-Lieutenant. Why did the Under-Secretary not tell his immediate chief? Upon one occasion, at a public meeting, Lord Dunraven was asked who was the author of this scheme, and he replied, "Oh! that is a conundrum." Then his Lordship's youthful secretary made a speech in which he said it was only because of Lord Dunraven's modesty that he had not told them that he was the author of the scheme. He did not think it was a creditable position for a gentleman in the position of Lord Dunraven to be placed in. He first signed a document in reference to the education question, which was prepared, settled, and arranged Dublin Castle with the knowledge of the Chief Secretary. He afterwards put his name to a document which had to be sent two or three times to Sir Antony MacDonnell, put in a more complete form, and type-written in the Castle. And he allowed that to appear as if it were his own unaided work. He disliked the idea of a Unionist Government, or of anyone connected with a Unionist Government, making themselves a party to such a discreditable transaction as that.
  They had to thank their Unionist fellow-Members and the Unionist people of Great Britain for the support which they had always given them, and for the protection which they had always afforded them against what Unionists regarded as the greatest injustice which could be inflicted upon them or upon their country. They felt the greatest possible regret at being unable on an occasion of this kind to give their support to the Government. Under no circumstances would they associate themselves with an Amendment which embodied the principle of Home Rule. They would prefer to support a Government of which they were loyal supporters, but they were entitled to have an authoritative pronouncement that this sort of thing would not be repeated, that Home Rule would not be brought in by any back door, that they would not have an official at the Castle, directly

  823
  or indirectly, meddling in a matter of this kind; and that if Sir Antony Mac-Donnell did not think right to remove himself from Dublin Castle, or was not relieved of his duties, that at all events from henceforth it should be clearly defined that he occupied a position which every other gentleman previously occupied when he held office as Assistant-Secretary. They had a right to those assurances. They asked for them, and he believed that their Unionist friends would see that they were not doing more than they were justified in doing when they asked that either the Prime Minister or some responsible member of the Government should give them, those assurances before the division took place.
  MR. SWIFT MACNEILLsaid that anyone who summarised, with an unbiased mind the conclusions with respect to Irish government which had been expressed in the debate upon this Motion would be entitled to say what he once heard the late Sir William Harcourt say, that Irish government was the very worst in the whole world. He recollected that Sir Donald M'Farlane once made a speech on the Irish Estimates, and Sir Charles Russell said to him at the end of his speech, "Well, M'Farlane, you have given us the best description of Castle government I ever heard." Sir Donald M'Farlane's illustration was that Lord-Lieutenantsand Chief Secretaries were like making changes in the dial of a watch instead of the works—as long as the works remained the watch would remain as it was before; and as long as the present system of government remained in Ireland there would be maladministration and bad government. The introduction of Sir Antony MacDonnell was an alteration in the works, with the result that they now had those gentlemen, in whose interests Irish administration had been exploited ever since the time of the Union, in revolt or intended revolt against the Government. Throughout the debate there had been a great deal of animadversion and criticism of Castle boards. They now knew that these Castle boards were to be what was called "coordinated." He recollected that twenty years ago a Minister of the Crown delivered a speech which made a great impression at the time. That Minister
  824
  stated that the system of government in Ireland was corrupt and despotic—that it was more despotic than the system pursued by Russia in Poland, and that pursued by Austria against Venice; that, however much they might disguise the fact, it was supported by 130,000 British bayonets, and that it was a scandal and a sham. This debate showed that the system still continued, but he supposed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, who made the speech to which he had referred, would vote against the Amendment that night.
  He would give a few statistics in reference to the position of the "loyal minority" from Ireland in the House of Commons. At the time of the Union those who voted for it were remunerated and rewarded, and the Union was maintained by giving remuneration and rewards. The support of the loyal minority was not obtained nowadays by means of bribes, but they were rewarded by honours and posts. Every third man in the Irish Parliament was a placeman, and what was true at the time of the Union was true now in regard to the Unionist Members from Ireland. Out of fifteen there were no fewer than five who held Government places. Everyone knew that there was in Ireland no loyalty unless it was measured by the cheque which the individual hoped to get from the Castle. Loyalty was an improper word to use in this connection. Burke had said that when loyalty did not mean patriotism it was only another word for corruption. Since 1885, irrespective of the present representatives from Ulster, and the Members for Trinity College, there had been twenty-two Members of the House representing Ulster constituencies, and only four of these had left the House without office or title. Of the four, one was expelled, two left on account of pecuniary circumstances, and one left on the death of his father, a Peer, who got his elevation as a reward of his adherence to the Union. It was said "Union is strength." It was strength to some of the Unionist Members, but it was not strength to their constituents. There had been some references of late to the necessity for the drainage of the Bann, but the Government had left that river

  825
  undrained while some of the representatives of Ulster had been draining the pockets of the Government to their own advantage. When the Chief Secretary addressed the House yesterday and employed his rhetorical graces of style, his words fell on friends sitting in stony and desperate silence—a silence which was only accentuated by the mechanical "Hear, hear!" of the Prime Minister, which reminded him of the "Amen" of the clerk in a very small congregation.
  Everything went to show that Sir Antony MacDonnell had acted a straightforward, honourable part, but an attempt had been made to make him a decoy-duck, as had been done in times of old in the case of Lord Fitzwilliam. They knew what the game was; it was an attempt to capture weak-kneed Home Rulers and to crush out every enthusiasm and honest effort for the benefit of Ireland. Who was going to resign? Would the Chief Secretary stick to his post when there was not a single Member of the House who would get up to defend him? There was now no one so mean as to do him reverence, not even the Ulster Unionists. He believed the Lord-Lieutenant would stick to his post, and Sir Antony MacDonnell to his; but the gentleman who ought to go was the Chief Secretary. Whether the right hon. Gentleman went or remained was another matter. Of course public recollection was short, but this he knew, that an exposure of this kind could not be forgotten, and the right hon. Gentleman's name would be for ever associated with the Dunraven proposals, which, having been tried to see whether they would succeed, were denounced, and Sir Antony Mac Donnell was left in the lurch; he was almost going to say betrayed.
  He wished to give his humble adherence to the protest contained in the Amendment against the Union. Every word in that Amendment of his hon. friend was absolutely and perfectly correct. It was stated that the administration of Ireland was shockingly expensive, that the destitution of the people was great, that the administration of the country was hateful, and was there any doubt of any of those statements? He looked with horror at the terrible combination of perjury and wrong by which Irish affairs were conducted; he was
  826
  horrified but not surprised at it. He knew everything about the Wyndham-Dudley-MacDonnell arrangement, and it was only a counterpart of three or four similar arrangements, beginning from 110 years ago, when Lord Fitzwilliam had been sent over to Ireland as a decoy-duck to promise Catholic Emancipation. The Chief Secretary was not a highly literary man, although he had a good taste in literature, but his speech the previous night was not one of his most artistic efforts, and was badly received even by his own friends. No speech of the right hon. Gentleman would be complete without a quotation, and towards the end of his somewhat it elaborate prelection he made use of an observation employed by a statesman 110 years ago—"We must make the best of it." Where did the right hon. Gentleman get that quotation? It had been used 110 years ago by Mr. Edward Cook, Under-Secretiry for Ireland, and chief agent for corrupting and polluting the Irish Members of that time. Among the reasons for carrying the Union, it was said that it was in order to protect the prosperity of Ireland which had been becoming too dangerous to England. That could not be said now, because the prosperity of Ireland had been destroyed, and everything had been done to rouse the religious prejudices of Ulster, while lavish emoluments had been heaped on the Ascendency Party in order to keep up the present rotten system. He thoroughly agreed with the right hon. Member for Montrose when he said that a free Government might be a strong Government, that a despotism might be a strong Government, but that a Government which assumed the form of a free Government with the methods of despotism was the worst of all Governments. He denounced the present Government in all its ways, and that had been a bad day for it. It would be found out before they were much older that the Chief Secretary had not done much for the advancement of the principles which he professed.
  MR. COHENsaid he was obliged to join issue with the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, and to express his regret that throughout the debate there had been more personalities than argument. The personal arguments

  827
  which had been used seemed to him to obscure, and not to illumine, the issue, and, in his opinion, the House, was not discussing the propriety of the appointment of Sir Antony MacDonnell, though on that issue he might be of a different opinion to that of his right hon. friend the Chief Secretary. Sir Antony MacDonnell did not require from him any tribute as to his capacity; but he was bound to state that he thought the appointment was ill-judged, because there was an amount of control exercised over our Indian fellow-subjects by Civil officers which would not be possible or desirable in Ireland. He did not think that Ireland would stand that, and it would be indiscreet to attempt it. Therefore, to his mind, all the experience which Sir Antony MacDonnell had obtained in India was no qualification for the position to which he was appointed by his right hon. friend. The issue raised by the Amendment was not, however, the fitness of Sir Antony MacDonnell; it was a question of Home Rule or no Home Rule. It had been sought to introduce the side issue of devolution. Personally, he did not know what it meant. He had heard it described as a modified form of Home Rule, and that was another reason why, in his judgment, the appointment of Sir Antony MacDonnell was not a wise one. He himself was strongly opposed to Home Rule; and had, therefore, no sympathy with devolution. It would not be in the best interests of Ireland. Only two years ago the Irish Members had the advantage of British credit in connection with the Land Act, or which they were insufficiently grateful. He had always hold that the Irish Land Bill would involve absolutely no charge on the British Exchequer, and if hon. Members on the Nationalist Benches were only acquainted with the resources which were placed at their disposal, though they would not be less ardent advocates of Home Rule, they would find they had an advantage they did not appreciate, and which, in his opinion, would meet their case. They had asked hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they wore prepared to give to Ireland that Home Rule upon which the hon. Member for Waterford insisted, but they had evaded answering that question. Those who sat on the Unionist side had decided
  828
  that there should be no ambiguity so fir as they were concerned; they would not have Home Rule or vote for anything which might be likely to bring it about. And because he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member might strengthen the agitation in favour of Home Rule, he should give an emphatic negative when the Question was put from the Chair.
  MR. HARWOODsaid that many who had been watching the debate from the position of outsiders must often during the last few days have thought of one fact—how curious it was that every thoughtful Englishman who went to Ireland began to move more or less in the direction of Home Rule. They might call it "devolution," but it was only a Latin word for Home Rule. Here was Lord Dudley. A more unlikely man to be taken with enthusiasm for an idea of this kind he could not imagine. But Lord Dudley went and had to take a part in the practical government of Ireland, and what was the result upon this English aristocrat's mind? They found him taking part in a conference, participating in proposals which were a move towards Home Rule. And there was the Chief Secretary himself. Many of them suspected that if they knew the truth—they probably never would—the Chief Secretary was really in his heart very much in sympathy with this devolution scheme. He who had most to do with the government of Ireland practically acknowledged by the attitude he had taken that the only way of dealing with the Irish problem was by moving in the direction of Home Rule. This debate must make Liberals think very seriously of a practical problem which was facing them in the near future. He spoke as an English Liberal, because he thought they ought to be very frank about this matter and look it in the face, for there had been a good deal of shilly-shally, and much said about their timidity towards Home Rule. Were they of the mind of Lord Dudley, of Lord Dunraven, and the Chief Secretary? Did they also believe in their hearts that the only solution must be some form of Home Rule? No one could deny the difficulty of the problem of Irish government. Every year during his Membership of the House

  829
  there had been burnt deeper and deeper into his heart the fact of the mis-government of Ireland—he did not say corrupt government, because he did not think it was corrupt, but it was clumsy, inefficient, and incapable. The failure to find a system of adequate government for Ireland was a great reproach to the English name and reputation.
  It was not true to say that they were Home Rulers simply because they were blindly following a great leader. Long before Mr. Gladstone brought forward his Bill many Liberals had made up their mind that Home Rule was the only policy by which Ireland could be governed. Another alleged motive for their being Home Rulers was that they wanted the Irish vote. The time had gone by for this great question to be dealt with on any such platform as that. It was a question of principle, either one way or the other. It was a principle with them to support Home Rule quite regardless of Irish Members and Irish constituents. They supported it because they believed it was the only policy that could be followed for the good of England and of the Empire, Hon. Members opposite often spoke as though they had a monopoly of patriotism. Patriotism did not consist in singing "Rule Britannia" and waving the Union Jack. The truest patriot was the man who tried his utmost to have his country well governed, and was not afraid of facing any obloquy that might come upon him because he favoured some things which others might think a dangerous change. They were Home Rulers first of all because they were Englishmen and because they knew that the greatest reproach of Englishmen was the bad and incapable government of Ireland. It was not a question of nations. The time had come for this question to be looked at not as an abstract question but as a practical one. It was the question of the practical government of a certain island for which England was responsible, and would always remain responsible by the geographical position. All forms of government for Ireland had been tried and had failed; the only one which had given any ray of hope whatever, in Ireland, was that under Grattan's Parliament. Bad as it
  830
  was, sectarian as it was, it threw on the Island a gleam of the sunshine of hope such as had never shone on it since. Lord Dunraven, Lord Dudley, and the Chief Secretary for Ireland all practically acknowledged that some movement must be made in the direction of devolution, and had practically acknowledged that the only hope for the good government of Ireland was to be found in some movement in the direction of Home Rule. How far that movement should go they were not committed to.
  If he might give his leaders some advice, he would say that it was time they gave out no uncertain note on this matter. He had risen chiefly in order to urge upon those on his own side a little more frankness and a little more courage, even though it might seem at the moment to jeopardise Party success, because there was something even more important than Party success, and that was the success of the country and the Empire. The position of Ireland was a subject of reproach to this country in all part; of the world. While Englishmen boasted of their freedom and capacity, close to their own door was a country they could not govern, with a greatly diminished population, and which at this moment was seething, and he thought rightly seething, with disaffection, and which would never be placed on its proper footing except by a movement in the, direction of Home Rule. Surely Liberals spoke somewhat timidly on this matter. The time had come for them to be quite frank and to say that they were convinced that the only hope of good government in Ireland lay in the direction of Home Rule. From the time of his first visit to the House of Commons, when he heard a remarkable speech by John Martin, he had studied as closely as he could Irish history and the problems connected with Irish government, and the conclusion he had come to was that a move would have to be made in the direction of national sentiment. They had always been proud of recognising national sentiment everywhere else, and why upon this matter should they go upon the order, "No Irish need apply." They must meet this national sentiment in the direction of Home Rule, never mind the word or the degree, but that was the direction, and the Liberal

  831
  Party would be unworthy of itself, its traditions, and its future if it did not take a bold and determined stand on this matter.
  MR. FIELDsaid he was glad that the hon. Member for Bolton had addressed the House in that strain, because he had brought the House back to the main line of argument, for they had been discussing, for the most part, a personal matter for the last two days. The result of this debate showed that a large proportion of what he might describe as the central Unionist opinion in Ireland was turning in the direction of Home Rule. The Nationalists were dissatisfied with the government of Ireland, and the Ulster Members were in revolt ["No, no!"], or at least in pretence they were. The moderate Unionists were also discontented. They had in Ireland nominally a constitutional government, but it was only the shadow not the substance, and it was evident that the first duty of the Unionist Government was to change the system. They were told that the Union meant an equality of government in the three kingdoms, but what were the facts? The people of Ireland were living under a perpetual Coercion Act, and were not allowed the right to bear arms. They were overtaxed by £3,000,000 per annum, and when they asked for equal treatment in regard to taxation the idea was scoffed at. The method of levying taxation in Ireland was entirely different from the English system. The whole machinery of taxation in Ireland was centred in one official, and there were no local assessment committees, as in England, for valuation. This one irresponsible individual had at the present moment almost absolute power in regard to valuations, and taxpayers hid practically little chance of appeal from his decision. They had in the debate so far heard very little about the over-taxation of Ireland, whose population had been reduced by one-half within the last fifty years. It was most remarkable that just in proportion as the population decreased taxation had increased, and it was perfectly evident that if this financial oppression went on the result must inevitably be that the people would be taxed out of the country. They were sup-
  832
  posed to have in Ireland constitution government, but they all knew that the non-elected irresponsible Privy Council together with the three gentlemen now sitting on the Treasury Bench, the Chief Secretary, the Attorney-General, and the Solicitor-General, with the help of non-elected irresponsible boards ruled Ireland.
  An American friend of his who had recently travelled all over Ireland observed the poverty, apathy, and want of employment generally in the cities, towns, and villages, and the lack of improvement in many urban districts owing to absence of security to town tenants. In his travel right through the agricultural parts he was astonished at the vast number of ruined homesteads, roofless cabins, and grass-grown farmyards, together with lack of population and employment, whilst the slums were over-crowded and the land divorced from labour.
  He asked him (Mr. Field) if there had been an invasion in Ireland. He replied—
  "No, except by the crowbar brigade during the eviction campaign."
  His American friend went through the West of Ireland and was astonished to find hundreds of thousands of acres there water-logged, and by way of a contrast he said that whilst in Holland he found the people engaged pumping the water out of lakes in order to bring more land under cultivation, in Ireland they turned good land into lakes.
  He said—
  "I don't wonder at your people emigrating to a free country like America, where there is some encouragement and a chance of employment."
  He reverted to the fact that under the Tzar the Russian birth-rate was the highest in Europe, whilst that in Ireland was the lowest, also that Poland and Finland had increased in population, whilst in Ireland the population had decreased by one-half under what was called constitutional government, and that the ratio of pauper-lunatics, very old and very young, exceeded that of any other country, perhaps, in the world. He went on to describe to hon. Members the extraordinary condition of affairs in the West and in other parts of the

  833
  country, where there were no trees or forests. In America, and also in European countries forests were looked after, but in Ireland there was no such thing. The physical resources of the country were almost entirely neglected, and this was the result of the Unionist system of government in Ireland. The country was run for the benefit of the English Exchequer. Since the Union England had exacted from Ireland hundreds of thousands of pounds beyond her fair and equitable share of taxation. In the opinion of the financial experts who were appointed by the House to inquire into this question, Ireland was overtaxed to the extent of £2,750,000 per annum. Notwithstanding that verdict, no action had been taken by the House to restore the ill-gotten plunder or to give a readjustment or restitution with respect to the over-taxation of the country. Hon. Gentlemen opposite talked of the Irish value to Ireland of British credit, and of the good it had done to Ireland. Let the Irish people manage their own affairs and they would manage the country at much less expense than the English Unionists could do. Everybody admitted that the country was run on the most expensive lines of any nation in Europe. The so-called constitutional government in Ireland was an infamous fraud. He challenged any of the Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to deny that statement. Ireland had the shadow of constitutional government but not the substance. The people of Ireland had no power over the executive. Everything almost was managed by nominataed and non-elective boards. It was time for the House to realize that they were not going to submit to this much longer. The common sense of the communities of the world would not allow the misgovernment of the country to so on in this way. A great deal was heard at present about Russian bureaucrats, but he would remind the House that Ireland was governed in a great measure by a bureaucracy. He quite agreed that troops were not sent, as in '98, to shoot down the people, but the Government had other methods not less effective. The people were despairing throughout the land, they were poverty-stricken, and their industries were being destroyed. He
  834
  trusted that the result of this debate would be to make those responsible for the government of Ireland seriously consider the condition of affairs. It would take something more than a Land Bill to remedy matters. The affairs of Ireland were managed by an alien Government which did not possess the affections of the people. Whether the struggle was to be long or short the people of Ireland were determined that this system should not last, and certainly it would not continue with their consent. This debate had shown that they were all agreed in condemning the present system. Surely it was time for those who were responsible for the government of Ireland to take into account the consensus of public opinion which condemned the union, and to take steps for reforming the Government so as to bring it into accordance with the aspirations of the Irish people.
  And, it being half-past Seven of the clock, the debate stood adjourned till this Evening's Sitting.

EVENING SITTING.

  KING'S SPEECH (MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  Order read, for resuming adjourned debase on Amendment [February 20th] to Main Question [February 14th], "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, as followeth:—
  "Most Gracious Sovereign,
  "We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble thanks to Your Majesty for the gracious Speech which Your Majesty has addressed to both Houses of Parliament."—
  Which Amendment was—
  "At the end of the Question, to add the words, 'But humbly represent to Your Majesty that the present system of Government in Ireland is in opposition to the will of the Irish people, and gives them no voice in the management of their own affairs; that the system is consequently ineffective and extravagantly costly, does not enjoy the confidence of any section of

  835
  the population, and is productive of universal discontent and unrest, and has proved to be in. capable of satisfactorily promoting the material and intellectual progress of the people.'"—(Mr-John Redmond.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there added.
  Mr. PURVISsaid he did not propose to join in the wrangle which had taken place over Sir Antony MacDonnell. The two extreme Parties in Ireland were struggling to obtain and exploit the Administration of the day. The point for English Members was far more important than anything connected with either the Chief Secretary or Sir Antony MacDonnell. The essential words of the Amendment asserted that the present system of government in Ireland was in opposition to the will of the Irish people, and, by way of comment on that, the hon. Member for Waterford stated that the Amendment involved the whole question of the government of Ireland, and made clear the fact that hon. Gentlemen opposite were irrevocably committed to Home Rule, and sought to put into the hands of the Irish people the management of their own affairs. Hon. Members from Ireland declared themselves to be the exponents of Irish opinion; but did the hon. Gentlemen go as far as Irish opinion in Ireland itself did. Hon. Members had disclaimed, in the course of that debate, complete separation and spoke of devolution; he was not very sure that the majority of the people of Ireland did not go further than that. Let hon. Members suppose that the majority of the Irish people desired complete separation, would the exponents of Irish opinion in this House defer in such a case to the opinion of the Irish people in Ireland or not? If they did, what became of all this talk of devolution. If they did not, what became of their principles as the champions of the Irish people and the exponents of Irish opinion. If they did not defer to Irish opinion then they wore not striving for what the Irish people themselves thought best, but what they thought best for the Irish people. The Unionist Party was in much the same position, they also were striving not for what they believed the Irish people thought best for themselves, but for what they thought
  836
  was best for the Irish people. The principle of the Nationalist Members and the Unionist Members was the same, the only difference was in its application. Irish Nationalist Members opposite did not argue for complete separation which meant a separate Army, a separate Navy and separate diplomacy, but for separate legislation, and the Unionist Members were of opinion that separate legislation would be dangerous and would lead to all the rest. They believed that with regard to foreign diplomacy and other matters Ireland could not be prosperously separated from the United Kingdom; it was a case of common action for mutual advantage.
  He did not wish to enter historically into this question, but he would just remind hon. Members opposite that a Parliament had been tried in Ireland, and that Grattan's Parliament was found to be absolutely intolerable. He could see no reason why the same argument for separation and Home Rule in Ireland should not be applied to England and to Wales. But supposing that wore carried into effect the result would be that there would be first, a supreme Convention, next a Federal Parliament, then four subservient Executives, and in such a state of things as that what became of Ministerial responsibility? It would be a state of chaos come again. It seemed to him that devolution was only a device to induce this country to give a concession to Ireland which would necessarily involve further concessions. He was somewhat of an optimist in Irish matters; he believed that the Irish were not irreconcilable. Changes had been made with regard to Ireland which had amounted to a social revolution, and by the various Land Acts which had been passed much had been done to remedy the wrongs from which Ireland had suffered. He was a great admirer of the Irish people, and was not without hope that what had happened to Scotland would eventually happen to Ireland. Scotland for centuries had been a separate kingdom with a national life of its own. It became united to this country and the people of Scotland furbished up their claymores and matchlocks and invaded England

  837
  asserting their right to Home Rule vi et armis. Both in 1715 and 1745 they got as far as Derby and frightened the people of London out of their wits, but were then beaten back, and being a sensible people they thought better of the matter, shook hands, and had been prosperous eversince. The sea ran high for a long time after the storm had subsided, and he could uot help hoping that after a lapse of time all this old Castle business would have been swept away. The improvements which had been made were not exhaustive, the Government had not reached perfection, nor yet was it in its dotage. It was hard to conceive anything more opposed to the best traditions of modern history than this. During the past fifty years there had been three great political works, favour's work of uniting Italy, Bismarck's work of unifying Germany and turning it into the mightiest of Continental countries, and the War of Secession in America, in which the patriotism of the Northerners prevented the dismemberment of the United States. Should Britain wreck an Empire so great that every fourth child born into the world is born a British subject, when she is at the present moment seeking by some system of common defence between herself and her Colonies to bind their young vigour to her ancient strength? Should she introduce the principle of dissolution at her very heart? It could never be, nor would Ireland herself ever wish it. when she had her wrongs removed.
  MR. MOONEYsaid the hon. Member for South Deny had risen in his place to contradict the statements of fact by the hon. Member for North Louth as to the position in which the Catholics of Ireland were placed with regard to the Royal Irish Constabulary. He did not think the hon. Member for South Derry had attempted intentionally to mislead the House, but rather that he had spoken with an imperfect knowledge of the subject. As a matter of fact the statement that the district inspectorships were filled by competitive examination was only partly true, for, for every vacancy there were five nominations, and after the nominations there was examination. Where the mistake was made, however, was this, that four out of the live nominations went by right to
  838
  the sons of existing district inspectors, and so the game went merrily on and Catholics were excluded from positions which they would win if they depended on success in competitive examinations. But to leave what was, after all, a small point compared with the larger issues which they had to consider, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had, in his opinion, in no way met the case which had been made out in the course of this debate. In spite of the right hon. Gentleman's declaration of his unaltered and unalterable objection to Home Rule, and in spite of his declaration that there was nothing between Homo Rule and the present system, he had, no longer ago than the previous day, advocated in that House a radical change in the government of Ireland. The hon. Member for Waterford had given many instances of Englishmen who had gone over to Ireland to govern her according to English traditions, yet when they had a mail of distinction attempting to govern Ireland on sympathetic lines they had the remarkable spectacle of the Unionists of Ulster in full revolt. He wondered if the Ulster Unionists had heard of another gentleman who at one time used to make just as fierce attack on English Members in that House who were willing to do justice to Ireland as any ever made by the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh, or by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Antrim. Lord Rossmore was not a gentleman in the habit of mincing matters. He was the Grand Master of the Orangemen of Monaghan, and speaking to the Camla Orange Lodge in 1882, he compared Mr. Gladstone to a mad dog, and said that,
  "If a human mad dog came along and wilfully and wantonly destroyed thousands of people, what ought they to do with him? The mad dog ought to be done away with before it injured more people with its snapping and snarling of Home Rule rabies."
  But the same Lord Rossmore, with a change of opinion brought about by a wider knowledge of ihe working of the Orange gang, and the C istle system, wrote a short time ago to his friends in Ulster thit it was a source of deep regret to him that Orangemen did not think out matters for themselves. He wrote, and the hon. Member would like to call the

  839
  attention of the Attorney-General for Ireland to this passage as it appeared to him to have a somewhat personal application—
  "To him they appeared to be following blindly a few professional politicians whose advice seemed to be the result of a contemplation of personal interests."
  These were not the observations of a rabid Home Ruler, but of an Orange Grand Master, and when they saw such a change as that in. a man of such pronounced views he wanted to know what had caused him to alter his opinion. Was it not that he had had a more intimate acquaintance with the working of Dublin Castle, and that even he had to admit that the system was rotten to the core. They could go on multiplying instances of Englishmen who had gone to Ireland, and who had eatisfied themselves about the miserable character of Irish government. A good many Englishmen at ihe present moment believed that the irifh Members talked bunkum and nonsense, and that Ireland was as well governed as England, but those who had acquired a little experience of Castle government soon became satisfied as to its true character. The hon. Member for Shropshire had deprecated the introduction of personalities and innuendoes into the debates, but did they never do it on the other side, he had some recollection of the personalities indulged in by the Solicitor-General for Engliind and also by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birminghrm. But there was no question of innuendo here at all. Irish Members made a plain and definite statement and said that the right hon. Gentleman had deliberately sacrificed the permanent Under-Secre-tary. The right hon. Gentleman had come to give an explanation of what was called the MacDonnell incident, and he had been asked to produce the correspondence which had taken place between him and Sir Antony MacDonnell, and he had not done so. He did not think the righthon. Gentleman had done himself justice in this matter. The right hon. Gentlemen was asked on Wednesday last to produce the correspondence alleged to have passed between Sir Antony MacDonnell and himself. He had never answered the request to that moment. He did not wish to do the right hon.
  840
  Gentleman an injustice, but one fact in connection with the letters struck him. The right hon. Gentlemen was challenged in the House as to the extent of his knowledge as to how far Sir Antony MacDonnell was going, and in support of that the charge was made against him that he knew all about the letter which Sir Antony MacDonnell wrote to Lord Dunraven in October, 1903, in which Sir Antony MacDonnell said any help he could give he should be happy to afford by supplying him with facts and information, "but I think, and Mr. Wyndham agrees with me, I had better not appear prominently." The Chief Secretary said that that letter had no reference to the proceedings now under discussion in the House, but the sooner the whole correspondence was produced the better, because if that letter was not written when the negotiations for devolution were going on, it was a very curious thing that the person to whom the letter was sent said, in another place, that it referred to devolution, and that the person to whom it was not written said in this House that it had nothing to do with devolution. The right hon. Gentleman had been asked the previous night if Lord Dudley had been censured by the Cabinet, and his answer was that the Cabinet at that time were not aware that Lord Dudley knew of the negotiations with Sir Antony MacDonnell. What was the position now? There had been a Cabinet meeting that day, he understood, and they were now in full possession of the facts. He wanted to know if the cersure of the Cabinet had been now extended to Lord Dudley. The right hon. Gentleman would have appeared in a much better light if he had given a straightforward answer to a straightforward question, instead of having had statement after statement dragged out of him as from a reluctant witness.
  The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich had delivered a gratuitous lecture on nationalities, and had said that the Home Rule question was dead and buried. It seemed to him, from the choruses sung on the Benches opposite and on those Benches, that Home Rule, instead of being dead, was very much alive, and that they were assisting at the demise of the Unionist Party, and of the Castle government policy in Ireland. It was not often they

  841
  wished a speedy death to anyone, or anything, but certainly every Irishman desired a speedy death to the Castle system of government in Ireland.
  The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim had, in a speech which almost everyone listened to, enthusiastically delivered a great indictment against the Government, but it looked as if his courage was evaporating as the division hour approached, and that after all his professions of dissatisfaction with the Government, he would not be found in the Opposition lobby. The colleagues of the hon. Member—the reserves as he called them— were not showing much alacrity in obeying the summons addressed to them, and when the 3rd of March came they would probably be as hard to mobilise anywhere outside the Treasury Bench, as would the paper Army Corps of the Member for West Belfast. As long as the Ulster Members had five of their number in the Government, the Unionists of Ireland would come there and make most violent assaults against the Government, but they would never have the courage of their convictions to vote against it if they thought they might find a chance of a sixth, seventh, or eighth place in the Government of the day.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid that the hon. Member who had just sat down would hardly expect him to follow him into his disquisitions on the MacDonnell affair, which were really addressed to the Chief Secretary. In one portion of his speech the hon. Gentleman had referred to some observations made by Lord Rossmore, and rather inferred that that noble Lord had changed his mind and become a Home Ruler.
  MR. MOONEYsaid he had simply stated that Lord Rossmore had receded from the position which he had taken up in 1882, and was now of opinion that the present system of government in Ireland was impossible.
  MB. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid that he had gathered from the hon. Member that Lord Rossmore had changed his mind to a greater extent than his Lordship had really done. The
  842
  hon. Member had given three reasons why Home Rule should be granted— the bad housing in Ireland, the want of drainage, and the fact that there were no forests on the hill territory in that country. He admitted that, to a certain extent, all these things were evils, but only minor evils. They were all agreed that there were bad houses in Ireland, but he did not see how the grant of Home Rule would improve the houses. As to the laud being water-logged, he admitted that largo schemes of drainage were wanted for some parts of the country which would be of benefit to the Irish people; but for the execution of these works British credit was necessary, and as soon as the British people were assured that Ireland was quiet and governed in an ordinary manner in accordance with those ideas which found favour with the English people who lent the money, it would be discovered that money would flow into the country as it had done in the past. He acknowledged that the re-afforestation of the hills was important, and it was a question in which he had taken a great deal of interest. But his neighbour, Dr. Cooper, an authority on the subject, had never been able to persuade him that the re-afforestation of Ireland would be a profitable matter. No doubt it would improve the beauty of the hills, but it was desirable that that should be left to be done by wealthy people.
  The hon. Member for St. Patrick's Division asked whether constitutional government in Ireland was not a fraud? Before that question could be answered they had to explain a number of words. The phrase in itself had no meaning whatever. Taking the words in their ordinary acceptation, Ireland was part of the two islands which formed the United Kingdom, and at the present moment it had a certain amount of constitutional representation as perfect as that of the Isle of Wight. The hon. Member must state what views he held of constitutional government. If ho said that Ireland was in itself a nation, and that everything that was a nation ought to have a separate Parliament, then he would establish his proposition. But then the hon. Gentleman must remember that his proposition was not

  843
  admitted. He did not think that anyone in the House had a right to say that the Chief Secretary had sympathy with the system of devolution promulgated by Lord Dunraven, when that right hon. Gentleman had stated distinctly that he was not, and never had been, in favour of it.
  The hon. Member for Bolton, who said he was in favour of Home Rule, had appealed to the Leader of the Opposition to make an authoritative declaration on the question. They on that side of the House naturally sympathised with that wish. They wanted to know exactly what kind of Home Rule it was which the right hon. Gentleman and his followers supported. They might apply the words "Home Rule" to hundreds of different schemes, varying in details and principles. The hon. Member for Bolton had stated that when he was abroad he was always reproached with the British government of Ireland. He did not dispute that entirely, but believed it was absolutely due to ignorance of the real state of that country. People, even on his own side of the House, who lived outside Ireland believed that it was almost a dangerous country to reside in. They thought it was an uncivilised place, and that was the opinion of a very large number of people in England who conceived that there was a certain amount of danger in going about. Of course that view was partly derived from the lurid pictures of the state of Ireland drawn by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was certainly true that their pictures, drawn from the very worst and most unfortunate districts of the country, were applied to the whole of Ireland, and he was sure that the hon. Member for Bolton had not drawn his gloomy picture from personal experience, He, himself, had always found that there was no pleasanter part of the United Kingdom to live in. It was a misfortune that money was kept from investment in the country by these pictures; for what was wanted more than anything else was that money should be spent in that country. Speaking in the capacity of an Irishman for the moment, although he was not one—hon. Members knew perfectly well what he meant—speaking on the ground of having married an Irish
  844
  wife, he insisted that what was wanted in Ireland was capital.
  He did not wish to enter into the details of the case of Sir Antony MacDonnell. The hon. Member for Donegal had said that Sir Antony MacDonnell had been selected as Undersecretary to play the part of a decoy-duck. He believed that the Chief Secretary had selected Sir Antony MacDonnell for the post of Under-Secretary because he thought that gentleman would be useful to him in the administration of Ireland, and that the idea that he was to be a decoy-duck had never entered into the mind of the right hon. Gentleman. It was impossible that anyone who had sat in that House for any time could believe for a moment that the Chief Secretary intended to make a decoy-duck of Sir Antony MacDonnell. The reason for his appointment was that that gentleman's experience, obtained in India, might be useful in Ireland. An hon. Member on that side of the House had objected to Sir Antony MacDonnell, had objected to him on that very ground, because ho thought his Indian experience, instead of being a benefit, would be a hindrance, as Sir Antony would be inclined to follow lines of administration not applicable to Ireland. He would not enter into that question. The objections of himself and those who agreed with him, who were connected with Ireland, to the appointment of Sir Antony MacDonnell were taken on entirely different grounds. In the first place they had absolutely nothing at all to do with that gentleman's religion. Hon. Gentlemen knew that in Ireland itself Unionists usually had the support of wealthy neighbours who happened to be Roman Catholics. Their objections were based on the fact that Sir Antony MacDonnell apparently held—it was not disputed—views which were irreconcilable with those of hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House—views which were diametrically opposed to those which the Chief Secretary had been placed in Ireland to carry out. It was on that account that they believed the appointment was unwise. The Chief Secretary necessarily could not look into every detail of administration, and these had to be put

  845
  into the hands of the responsible Undersecretary. What had occurred had justified the Unionist opinion as to the unwisdom of Sir Antony MacDonnell's appointment. They, however, repudiated the idea that the Chief Secretary was blameworthy in the matter of the Dunraven devolution agreement.
  MR. MACVEAGH: What about the desertion of Sir Antony Mac-Donnell?
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid that there was no question of the desertion of Sir Antony MacDonnell. The Chief Secretary did not know what was happening, and how could they expect a man to know everything that was occurring behind his back? Suddenley, however, the Chief Secretary discovered that Sir Antony MacDonnell had been going further than he would have authorised had he been consulted. Was it to be said that the Chief Secretary, who merely did not know what was being done, had approved of what had been done? The Chief Secretary had absolutely no option, as soon as he heard of what Sir Antony MacDonnell had done, than to say that he disapproved of it, and that it had not been done with his consent. Without destroying the whole system of government he did not see how anyone could blame the Chief Secretary for having done what he did. As to a Catholic University, that was not thoroughly germane to the Amendment, but was one of the grievances brought in by a side wind.
  MR. DILLONsaid that the question had been specially mentioned in the Amendment.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid he had always had the very greatest sympathy with the views expressed many times by the First Lord in regard to Catholic University education. It had been shown that the chief cause of complaint in regard to education in Ireland was the ignorance which existed there among the. Roman Catholic population. The Prime Minister felt that that was an evil, and believed that the dispelling of that ignorance would be the very greatest benefit to Ireland and
  846
  therefore to the United Kingdom. Personally he had always held that any University which could be started in Ireland to enable the Catholic youths of the country to be educated would be of paramount importance. He did not care under what influences it was established. His experience was that the influence exercised over youths in a University after the very impressionable age of, say, thirteen, had very little effect upon them in after life. Indeed, the tendency rather was for a Radical professor to bring up Tory pupils. Therefore he did not place very much stress on the colour of the University; but he felt that the Roman Catholic population of Ireland were in an awkward position. They were told that Trinity College, Dublin, was open to them. That was a perfectly good piece of advice, but—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid he did not think that a discussion on the kind of education to be given in a Catholic University in Ireland was in order.
  MR. DILLON, on a point of order, said that the Amendment set forth that the Irish Government had proved to be incapable of satisfactorily promoting the material and intellectual progress of the nation, and it seemed to him that the discussion of the provision of University education, acceptable to the majority of the population, was in order.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid it was quite open to the hon. Member to say that there was a want of a University in Ireland, but to proceed to deal with the kind of education to be given in a Catholic University was a different thing.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTSONsaid he apologised for entering into these details and hoped that the final result of this discussion would be the rejection of the Amendment before the House.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Mr. Speaker, this debate has been very properly and naturally conducted for the most part by Irish Members, and from my particular section of the House there has been a very scanty contribution to the debate; but I think it will be expected and desired that I

  847
  should say something in the course of the discussion. A few weeks ago there would probably have been—even among those who, like myself, have supported and still continue to support a policy of thorough and fundamental alteration in the whole system of Irish government—a feeling that this Amendment might be regarded almost as inopportune and uncalled for. They might have said that, as during the last two years two great remedial measures have, under the auspices of the Unionist Government, and with the entire and cordial concurrence of all Parties in the House, been carried for Ireland, it would be well to leave the matter of the Irish government until we lad a little further experience of those measures, and of the beneficial working of the extension of popular rights in the Irish counties—and I believe that hitherto that system has been most successful—and, on the other hand, of the further operation of that great revolution in the land question which is of more recent origin. There is a great deal to be said for that view, though I do not know that I should have taken it myself. But now the revelations and disclosures of the last week have completely altered the case, and no one can doubt the extraordinary opportuneness of an Amendment calling attention to the character and condition of the present government of Ireland. This has been a most instructive debate, and has thrown a flood of light upon the question. What puzzles me is, who can vote against the Amendment? Of course, there is the barrier we always encounter at this period of the session—the fact that, according to our rules or conceptions of the matter, a vote for an Amendment to the Address must be resisted by the Government and their followers as if it involved a vote of want of confidence in the Government. But, putting that technical rule aside, has any one remarked the extraordinary fact that, to the best of my observation, not a single Member— not a single Irish Member at any rate—has said a word in favour of the present system of government in Ireland?
  The Amendment declares that the present system of government is inefficient, costly, and restrictive of the progress of the country, is estranged from the people, and finds no support from that
  848
  general confidence of the governed which is the rock upon which any good system of government must be based. What reason have the Government on the merits for disputing this declaration? Consider the question in the light of this MacDomiell episode. When Sir Antony MacDonnell was appointed Under-Secretary he was not an ordinary candidate. He did not rise by promotion in the office. He was taken from the outside; but even there he was not the first man in the street. He had had a distinguished career and had achieved a great position. Yet he takes what in itself was a subordinate position with narrow powers. He was selected by the Government with full knowledge of his views and sympathies. It was not that they took an eminent Indian statesman who had done great service to the Empire in his career, and then, when they had appointed him, discovered that he sympathised with the desires of the mass of the Irish people. They knew all that before they appointed him; so that they must have selected him either because they desired to give him an opportunity of doing something, and of taking some serious steps to improve the government of Ireland, or else they must have appointed him with a view of inducing other people to think that that was what they intended that he should do. The former is the more creditable supposition, and I am quite willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. He was appointed, as we know, on special conditions, of which the Government were completely aware, and to which they were parties in every respect. Not only so. He was given freedom of action of a breadth and scope far beyond that of ordinary officials. He was invited and expected to assist them on certain subjects, among others the organisation of the Government departments and the co-ordination of authorities. The Chief Secretary speaks of him as having been taken into his counsels as a colleague rather than as a clerical assistant. The Cabinet, then, must have felt dissatisfied with the system of government in Ireland, or they never would have attached their sanction to such conditions to the appointment. They must have felt that Sir Antony MacDomiell was

  849
  peculiarly marked out for the work or they would never have entrusted him with such large powers and freedom of initiative. Here we have the Government gravely dissatisfied with the present condition of things, feeling that something must be done, and that he was the man to do it. In my opinion, looking back upon these facts, and considering the present condition of affairs, we are entitled to have a full disclosure from the Government of the policy they intended and intend to pursue in this matter—not only what they objected to in Sir Antony MacDonnell"s conduct, but what they themselves had and have now in their minds with respect to the management of Irish affairs. Unless we are in possession of that information, how can we properly appreciate the force and necessity of the censure which has been placed upon him? We want to know their view of what Lord Lansdowne called "the old-fashioned and complicated organisation," how it was to be dealt with, and what was to take its place. Without that how can we judge how Sir Antony MacDonnell deserved the blame put upon him? His action was censured as indefensible, not because he went beyond the functions of an ordinary Civil servant in his high position. He had his commission to act with extraordinary authority. At what point, then, did his proceedings become reprehensible and blameworthy? What was it he did? He proceeded to confer with those likely to assist him in this matter. With whom did he confer? Not with Nationalists. If he had, he would have had the sanction of previous Conservative statesmen. He went to pillars of Unionism, to unimpeachable Unionists, to men of the landlord class in Ireland— to the very men who had been mainly instrumental, or, at any rate, had largely helped, in passing the Land Purchase Bill, the great achievement of the present Irish Government. But his conduct is said to be indefensible. "Indefensible" is a strong and, as I think, a fatal word. "Irregular" I could understand. The whole thing was irregular, and improper much of it. But "indefensible," capable of no defence! That is the word which is applied to a man who was acting, as we know, with the knowledge and consent of his superiors in Ireland. Apparently
  850
  his offence lay in getting these Unionist gentlemen to take soundings on behalf of the Government in order to see how far the governing classes in Ireland and their friends in England could be got to go in enlisting the confidence of the people of Ireland in the government of the country. That is Sir Antony Mac-Donnell's real offence. What a terrible offence it is! Did the policy of the Government, as communicated to him, forbid him to consider and examine the bearings of any suggested changes on the wider question of bringing the Government into a new relation with the people? That is not alleged. And yet his conduct is said to be indefensible. What, then, of the conduct of the Viceroy and the Chief Secretary? How and at what point had that which was patriotic in them become indefensible in Sir Antony MacDonnell? If such matters as an elective financial board or statutory authority with delegated legislative powers were forbidden ground, why was he not told so and warned off? He was allowed to range at large. In censuring Sir Antony MacDonnell, as I say, the Government have in effect censured also the Chief Secretary and certainly the Viceroy.
  The Chief Secretary has explained his relations in the matter, and undoubtedly the right hon. Gentleman was largely cognisant of what was going on. We have no reason to know the particular point at which his cognisance ceased. He has quoted some parts of the correspondence. Let us have the whole of this correspondence. For the information of the House, for the satisfaction of the country, for the vindication of the Government, and also to give Sir Antony MacDonnell a chance of vindicating himself against the reprimand to which he has been subjected, I think the whole of that correspondence ought to be made public. The Chief Secretary said that he was aware of—and I think I gathered that he rather liked the idea of—financial independence in Ireland. He has said and done things in the course of the last two or three years which show that that would not be inconsistent with his general view. But he was brought up sharp by the fact that it turned out that, however desirable the Indian financial system for securing local control over financial expenditure

  851
  might be, however excellent, it was elective. That was quite enough for the Chief Secretary, anything but what was elective! A system which would do very well in India he first of all thought must be very well applicable to Ireland, two countries governed more or less on arbitrary principles; but when he found it was elective, that was another story. Whether that was the only thing that altered the Chief Secretary's mind I do not know. I make an appeal, and, I hope, a temperate, as it is a serious appeal, to moderate men of all Parties in this House, and of course especially to members of the Party opposite. I regret that the appeal should be received with some small suspicion. I appeal to them not to maintain and carry further old prejudices and old antipathies. Can they support the system of government in Ireland of which this Amendment speaks, and for which apparently no word can be said, at any rate has been said, in this House or any other quarter? Have they considered how singular it is that on one occasion after another capable men, some of them distinguished men, have gone over to Ireland full of prejudices against the ideas prevalent in Ireland, and, after examining for themselves the circumstances of the case, have thrown away their prejudices, and have admitted the whole case? Lord Carnarvon, I think, was an instance some years ago. But the other day we had a declaration by Sir West Ridge-way, which, I think, the hon. and learned Member for Waterford referred to. Sir West Ridgeway was not prejudiced one way or the other, he was chosen on accounts of his merits and experience. He was the right hand of the present Prime Minister while he was ruling Ireland by the system which we, on this side at all events, call coercion; he was with him through all that time and did not flinch in the duties imposed upon him. But he tells us now that in 1889 he wrote a Memorandum, he being then in the position of the Under-Secretary. He says—
  "I advocated in that Memorandum the concession of a liberal measure of local government in provincial as well as county councils; the administration of the education grant and other funds raised for that purpose by a local body at least partially elected, with safeguards for the minorities in the various localities; the decen-
  852
  tralisation of finance, and consequently the loosening of rigid Treasury control; the reorganisation of Dublin Castle, and especially the abolition of that chaotic anachronism—administration by semi-independent boards whereby three men do the work of one; and the erection of a council to advise the Chief Secretary, such as that of the Secretary of State for India, and comprising the representatives of all Parties."
  Now, I do not say at all that the system, the alterations Sir West Ridgeway sketches out, would be sufficient to meet the desires of many of us, or that they would form an ultimate solution of the question. But it shows at all events that Sir West Ridgeway, from his observation and experience, was satisfied of the truth of this Amendment, and that is the point I wish to make, and that he had not a word to say in defence of the system as it was then exercised.
  What is the main cause, after all, of the evils of Irish government? Why is it so inefficient and costly, falling in with no one's wishes, so that even Ulster does not love it? One main reason is that it does not rest on the consent and sympathy of the people. If an official be suspected of being Irish in feeling, as well as perhaps in blood and residence, if he is suspected of sharing the views of the great majority of his countrymen, it is quite enough to bring him the opposition and suspicion of the ruling dominant class in Ireland. Look back, as an instance, to the case of Sir Horace Plunkett and Mr. Gill. Such a system would never be tolerated here. And after all something is due to the feeling of nationality. The noble Lord the Member for Greenwich has disputed whether there was any nationality in Ireland, and has even extended that view to Scotland, Wales, and England. I do not know that there is the same individual feeling of nationality in an Englishman as in a Scotsman—he feels that he is a citizen of the Empire, but I mean as a separate entity. It is natural that feeling in the larger country should not be so keen as in the smaller ones. I can quite understand that the noble Lord does not appreciate the feeling of nationality which pervades the other three countries, but when he said that they had no right to claim any nationality, and gave as his reason that there was such a mixture of blood amongst them, I would put it to

  853
  the noble Lord whether that argument might not carry him a little too far? There is such a thing as race and family. A man may be very proud of belonging to a family that has held a distinguished place in the country for a good many generations; but why should he have that pride seeing that all the wives that, have come into the family have brought an admixture of other blood? There is just as much force in that with regard to family descent as in the noble Lord's argument as to nationality. The fact is, the noble Lord is carried away by a certain love of paradox which appears to run in his family. The truth is that where there is confidence between the Government and the governed there is a healthy circulation of blood, as it were, in the political system; there is progress and activity. In Ireland we have that stagnation and want of enterprise which an arbitrary Government fosters. Is it the fault of the Irish? That is what we used to be told in the early years of this long controversy. They have faults, no doubt, as we have, but if they have why did you give them the control of theii local countv affairs, and, above all, win did you risk "100,000,000 of your credit upon them? It will not do to talk like that. It cannot be maintained for a moment. Therefore I come to this conclusion, if you realise how you stand after the measures that have been passed, that no dispassionate observer of events car dispute the proposition in this Amend merit. They deserve a better govern ment, and a government different in character and of a different order—a government springing from and controlled by the people themselves. of the existing government in Ireland no defence can be found that I know of Not even His Majesty's Government cai dispute, on its merits, this Amendment although they must, of course, oppose its formal expression here, because bi their action in this very matter, which has come so opportunely to enlighten us, they have admitted as much. Holding these strong convictions, we at least, will cordially support the Amend ment.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The speech o the right hon. Gentleman has beei studiouslv moderate in tone, but I think
  854
  nevertheless, that among all the speeches I have heard from him in recent years it is probably tne most important, in view of the issues which are to be put before the country—[OPPOSITION cries of "When?"]—I have heard for a long time. The right hon. Gentleman was bold enough to say that not even one of His Majesty's Ministers had the courage to defend the existing methods of government in Ireland. If he meant by that that none of His Majesty's Ministers was prepared to assert that no part of the fabric of State was absolutely perfect, of course nobody states that. Nobody states that reforms may not be introduced both into the sphere of government in England and into the sphere of government in Ireland. We have given notice in the Speech from the Throne this year of a change we propose to make with regard to the official arrangements of the departments in England. But if the right hon. Gentleman meant that none of His Majesty's Ministers was prepared to say that the broad lines now existing as to the government of Ireland are the lines which should be observed, I tell him that there is not one of His Majesty's Ministers who for a moment doubts the fact. It is quite true that my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland did not deal with these issues, or, if he did, not at any length in the speech he made earlier in the debate. And why? Because it is only by the right hon. Gentleman, and perhaps by one or two of his predecessors, that the Amendment has been discussed at all. My right hon. friend was not discussing the broad question of Home Rule. He was compelled by the course the debate had taken to deal with questions of a relatively narrow and wholly personal character—[dissent]—well, of a personal character, and in my opinion he dealt with them adequately. [" Oh ! "] In my opinion he dealt with them adequately; and I think that in these two nights debate far too large a portion of time has been devoted to discussing personal questions, and far too little to the greater issues which the right lion. Gentleman has, with such commendable courage, raised almost at the last moment.

  855
  I do not propose to detain the House long, but I must say a word upon both the personal aspect and the general aspect of the question which has occupied us through all these hours of debate. Let me say, first, that there is one aspect which has, I think, not been touched upon in any offensive sense, except by one speaker. But one man in the course of the two days debate has cast a doubt upon the word of my right hon. friend the Chief Secretary. The hon. Member for Mayo, and the hon. Member for Mayo alone, in a long and elaborate speech, endeavoured to show that my right hon. friend was concealing the truth.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: We all associate ourselves with that speech.
  AN IRISH MEMBER: We believe it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am ready to extend to hon. Gentlemen opposite the courtesy they have not extended to my right hon. friend. I accept their statement. I know they believe it, and I say it is not a creditable belief to entertain. The allegation must mean, if it means anything, that my right hon. friend in reality was cognisant of this particular scheme of devolution now known as Lord Dunraven's scheme, that he kept the knowledge of it from the world at large, from the Irish Members, from his supporters in Ireland, from his colleagues in England, from all those who might either agree with him or disagree with him. It must further be held that my right hon. friend was not only betraying the Unionist cause—for that is what it comes to—not only betraying the convictions that through his whole political life he has championed without change, without wavering, with out hesitation, but that, having set to work to make this insidious breach in the Unionist cause, he went abroad and left the poison to work, and, on the very first day of his return, publicly repudiated his own handiwork. That is not merely accusing my right hon. friend of deception; it is accusing him of something on the verge of absolute idiocy. Some hypothesis of this sort might be constructed by the morbid ingenuity
  856
  of hon. Gentlemen opposite. They might, perhaps, say that no doubt the Chief Secretary did intend this scheme to be thrown before the public for discussion and acceptance, but that when it became known his colleagues or his friends pointed out the dangers of the course, and he hastily withdrew from his position, and repudiated his own handiwork. But my right hon. friend made his repudiation, as it were, at the very hour of landing, without communication with any human being, without consulting his colleagues or his friends, merely because he saw how much mischief this unfortunate declaration was calculated to convey. Conscious that it was in absolute antagonism to all his own views, he did what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mayo said was an unusual thing for a Cabinet Minister to do, he sat down at once and wrote to The Times a full repudiation of the essential elements of the project. That, Sir, ought to be, and I believe is, conclusive, to every candid man, and I do not think that I shall do my right hon. friend the disservice of thinking that it is worth while arguing further to this House, who know him, or ought to know him, upon the absolute candour and directness of his character.
  Then, Sir, I have been asked by the right hon. Gentleman whether Sir Antony MacDonnell had not been given such a latitude at the time when he became Under-Secretary as would justify him in starting these projects on his own account without consulting my right hon. friend, and in support of that theory the right hon. Gentleman quoted a phrase, I think, from Lord Lansdowne, or at all events alluded to the debate in the House of Lords and to the debate here. I think that view is based upon a profound misconception.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: It is the view of the Viceroy.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With all respect to the Viceroy, I think if the Viceroy has made that statement, which I do not remember at the moment—
  MR. JOHN REDMOND: Lord Lansdowne read a letter to that effect in the House of Lords.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member knows perfectly well, having sat in this House as a Member of the Irish Party for a number of years, that the person primarily responsible for the government of Ireland is the member of the Irish Government who is in the Cabinet and, after him, the Cabinet itself. I say, therefore, that that view is founded upon a misconception. The misconception appears to be this, and I do not believe that Lord Dudley ever gave his countenance to the theory which I think I may justly attribute to hon. Gentlemen opposite—the theory, namely, that Sir Antony MacDonnell, at the time when he became Undersecretary, was given authority outside his office and irrespective of the Chief Secretary to initiate projects of legislation, or projects which he might consider to be projects of reform. That is the belief, apparently, in which this case has been argued. That, clearly, is entirely inaccurate. After all, what is the status, and what must be the status, of a Civil servant in this country? The person responsible primarily is the Parliamentary head of the office. It depends, no doubt, upon his character and upon the character of the permanent official at the head of his department what shall be the relations between them. In certain cases it may have happened in the administrative history of this country that, either through the fault of the Parliamentary head or through the fault of the permanent head of the department, the relations between them were little more than the relations of a public servant who submitted minutes and recommendations, and a Parliamentary head of the department who considered, commented on, and decided upon those minutes. I do not think that is the best way of conducting an office. I am glad to think it is not the way in which I personally ever conducted an office. But it is a way in which offices have sometimes been conducted, and it is perfectly consistent with the scheme of government in this country. You may go from that extreme case at one end of the scale up through the whole gamut, and you will reach a condition of things, far more satisfactory in my view and according to my experience, in which the Parliamentary
  858
  head of the department discusses in the freest and most open manner every aspect of the policy connected with his department, in which the permanent head of the department feels that he is on such terms with his chief that he can give advice, make suggestions, and initiate policies for the consideration of his chief. That, I think, is the method, if it can be practised, by which most is got out of that admirable body of men, the Civil Service, and by which the Parliamentary and responsible head is most likely to be well served.
  In the case of this great and distinguished Indian official, the Government went outside the ordinary Civil Service, and Sir Antony MacDonnell had the right, as others in a similar condition have had the right—and he was justified in exercising that right, as others have exercised the right—of insisting that if he were temporarily to leave the main line of his career he should, at all events, be in a position of absolute confidence with the man under whom he was to serve. But it has never been suggested that Sir Antony MacDonnell had powers outside the ordinary office of the Chief Secretary. It has never been suggested that those were the terms on which he was asked to serve. They manifestly I could not be the terms. It is an impossibility, because what do they amount to? Let the House consider. You have a government of Ireland for which the Chief Secretary is responsible to the Cabinet, and the Cabinet is responsible to this House. But if any Civil servant were placed in the position in which hon. Members have fondly supposed Sir Antony MacDonnell was placed, is it not plain that you would have—or you might have—the Chief Secretary and the Cabinet committed to a policy of which they had never heard, and for which they could not be responsible. And I do not believe that in the wildest dreams of Constitution-mongers it would be suggested that even in the worst form of government—which I suppose in the view of hon. Members opposite would be the government of Ireland—there should be an official not directly responsible to the House, not a member of the Cabinet, not a member of the Government, and nevertheless having

  859
  the power and the right to initiate great schemes and policies about which the Cabinet had never been consulted.
  MR. DILLON: Will the right lion. Gentleman publish the letter containing the terms of the appointment?
  MR. A J. BALFOUR: I am stating what I believe to be the fact. ["Oh, oh!"] I am stating what obviously must be the fact. ["Oh!"] Does anybody—can anybody believe after the description I have given of the inevitable relations between the officials and the Government—["Oh, oh!"]—does anybody believe that a Government would be so insane as to allow policies to be initiated in their name on which they had never been consulted? ["Oh, oh!"] The proposition has only to be stated for its absurdity to appear.
  MR. DILLON: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but the Chief Secretary said he would be desirous that the letter should see the light.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then let the hon. Gentleman ask the Chief Secretary. ["Oh, oh!"] I see no reason why the letter should be published. ["Oh, oh!"] I can assure hon. Gentlemen that the Government never would be responsible for so wild a project as that I have described, I suppose I have not taken pains to make myself clear, because otherwise so plain a truth could hardly remain obscure, If there is any hon. Gentleman opposite I who has had any converse with the practices of government, or if he has ever thought of the way government is carried on, he will not believe for a moment there could be such a position. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose would never, under any circumstances, not even if the Archangel Gabriel offered his services as permanent Under-Secrctary for Irish affairs, allow even that angelic Minister to initiate a policy of which he was not to be informed and for which he was to be responsible.
  MR. JOHN MORLEY: I never would have allowed
  860
  the Archangel Gabriel or any other candidate to hold a position in an office of which I was the head on any special terms at all—it is unconstitutional, novel, and mischievous. I only wish to ask, is not the Lord-Lieutenant part of the Government?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman has travelled by his question to another part of the subject, and I am willing to follow him. He asks whether the Lord-Lieutenant is not part of the Government. Of course the Lord' Lieutenant is a portion of the Government, but when the Chief Secretary is in the Cabinet, and the Lord-Lieutenant is not, the Lord-Lieutenant is not, in any true sense of the word, the head of the Irish Administration. The very last man in the world to deny that proposition would be the right hon. Gentleman himself. That, I think, disposes of the allegation that permission or consent, not given by the Chief Secretary, could be given by the Lord-Lieutenant.
  MR. DILLON: It was given.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It could not be.
  MR. DILLON: It really was.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member is mistaken; it was not. It is true that the Lord-Lieutenant did discuss the matter with Sir Antony MacDonnell, and he understood from Sir Antony MacDonnell that the Chief Secretary did know what was going on. ["Oh, oh!"]
  MR. DILLON: Does the right hon. Gentleman call Sir Antony MacDonnell a liar?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Sir Antony MacDonnell was mistaken. ["Oh, oh!"] Is that an impossibility? No man in the House has greater admiration than I have for Sir Antony MacDonnell's administrative achievements; but he is not infallible, and in this instance he made a mistake, and in consequence the Lord-Lieutenant believed erroneously ["Oh, oh! "]—erroneously that my right

  861
  hon. friend did know of this Home Rule project. ["Oh, oh!" and "Produce the letter."] I am not criticising either Sir Antony MacDonnell or Lord Dudley in this matter, but I am stating what occurred. One hon. Member asks if I call Sir Antony MacDonnell a liar. He is very fond of making suggestions of that sort, and occupied an hour and a-half this afternoon in making them. ["Oh, oh!"] I have the profoundest confidence in Sir Antony MacDonnell's ability, and I have the profoundest confidence in his honour; but have hon. Members never heard of misunderstanding between two men of absolutely unblemished and untarnished honour? Is that outside their experience? Has there never been misunderstanding in that happy family? No, Sir; I profoundly regret a misunderstandirg like that which has occurred, but I refuse for one instant to entertain the suggestion that it touches the honour even in the smallest degree of any one of the persons concerned. I think it will be admitted by all who have listened to this debate that this personal aspect of the affair would not have excited the vehement passion of which we have seen evidence both yesterday and to-day had it not been associated with a cause which is itself calculated to excite, and has excited in our recent political history, the most vehement passions between, different Parties, different individuals, and different sections of society. Mv noble fiiend the Member for Greenwich, in a very interesting speech made yesterday, told the House that in his judgment Home Rule was dead or swooning.
  MR. FLAVIN: It is more alive than himself.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: He recommended my hon. friends from Ulster to
  862
  do nothing by their speech or their action to suggest to the British public that this question was still a living one. I agree with a great deal that my noble friend said in his speech, but I do not agree with that particular statement. I think that if he had listened to the debate as it progressed to-night he would have come to the conclusion that Home Rule is not dead, that Home Rule is not even swooning, but that it is in a high state of activity, and, at all events on that Bench, it has a considerable measure of activity still left to it. My memory goes back to the election of 1880 and to the controversies which preceded that election. There was hardly a man in the country carried away by the vehemence of the controversy which Mr. Gladstone had raised on the question of the Near East, there was not an elector whose vote was changed by that mighty storm of impassioned eloquence, who even dreamt that the problem of Ireland was coming upon them in the acutest stage within the next few months. Mr. Gladstone was returned to power; the Near East was absolutely forgotten as if it had never existed; and we found ourselves in the middle of an Irish controversy which for its bitterness has never been exceeded even in some of the bitterest years which have succeeded. What happened in 1885? In 1885 there was an appeal to the country, and after the controversy on which that appeal was made—an appeal of an electoral kind connected with a Reform Bill—no one dreamt that Home Rule was upon them. It never crossed their imaginations, or those of Mr. Gladstone's colleagues, that he would propose within a few months to attempt to carry a great scheme of Home Rule. I remind my noble friend of these facts, and he

  863
  has only to listen to what comes from the Benches opposite to know that Home Rule is one of the most living and burning questions that we have got to deal with.
  The hon. Member for North Louth in a brilliant speech this afternoon described himself, his Party, and his country as being trodden under the heel of an alien tyranny. In the rest of his speech he explained how they had turned out Mr. Gladstone in 1885, how they had turned out the Tories in 1892—I forget how many other Governments they had turned in. It seems to me that these Government-makers can hardly complain of being trodden under the heel of British tyranny and at the same time boast that they are the makers of British Administrations. The two things are hardly consistent. I believe that of the two statements, neither of which is absolutely accurate, the second is much more accurate than the first. I believe that the political power which these gentlemen wield and boast of using——
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken in saying that I boasted of it. I did nothing of the kind.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. and learned Member will look at the report of his speech he will see that he spoke of the Irish Party turning out Mr. Gladstone here and the Tory Party there; and he quoted a document in which the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool requested all Nationalists to vote for the Tory candidates, which, by the way, they did not do.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: The right hon. Gentleman
  864
  is quite wrong. They did, and we expelled from the organisation every Irishman that did not.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is an appalling revelation as to the secrecy of the ballot.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: You said the same thing.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURdissented.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The right hon. Gentleman said that though the Irish electors were advised to vote for the Tory candidates they did not do so.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman will know, if he takes any trouble, that the fact whether the Irish vote goes with you or against you is tolerably obvious from the canvassers. [Cries of "Oh!"] But what I want the House, and not least hon. Gentlemen on this side, to realise is that to-night not a new departure, but a new reaffirmation of an old principle, is in the act of being made by the whole of the Party opposite. The hon. Member for Bolton in his speech earlier in the evening adjured his leaders to take a plain, open, and candid course on Home Rule. He said he was a Home Ruler, and that the sympathies of the Party opposite were all for Home Rule, and what they wanted was a lead. I imagine that I am to take the utterances of the right hon. Gentleman this evening as a lead. They were not given in the triumphant tones of a leader assured of his followers; but at all events did state with adequate lucidity that he had been a Home Ruler, that he was a Home Ruler, and that he thought that Home Rule was an impending and immediate question.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN:
  As a matter of fact, I do not think I used a single one of the words attributed to me by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not profess to be quoting the right hon. Gentleman. Am I, then, to understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not consider Home Rule to be an impending and immediate question? [Cries of "Oh!") Does he belong to the academic school of the right hon. Gentleman near him?
  AN HON. MEMBER: He belongs to the school of MacDonnell."
  MR. SPEAKER: This continual running commentary makes it impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to continue his speech.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I make no complaint; but the House will recognise that I have not been treated with the consideration and courtesy extended to the Leader of the Opposition. I do not think that the House has failed to follow the trend of my argument, and my argument is this, that, whereas last night the more sanguine of us might perhaps have taken the view of my noble friend the Member for Greenwich—we might have taken the view that the only object of hon. Gentlemen opposite was decently to bury Home Rule—no man can take that view to-night. No man after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and after the speeches of other Members below the gangway can doubt that the power of which the hon. Member for Louth spoke is going to be exercised in the future as they have endeavoured to exercise it in the past for driving the not unwilling flock in front of them. [An HON. MEM-
  866
  BER: What about Wyndham?] Now, Sir, if that be, as I think it is, the situation in which we stand, I would ask my hon. friends from Ulster, who have naturally taken so anxious an interest in this question, whether they think that in this, perhaps the first of the skirmishes in the new combats that are going to take place around this great central and perennial problem, whether they think that in that skirmish they should be found lagging behind. They have made boast not untruly, of the courageous loyalty with which they have served the Unionist Party. We cannot flatter ourselves that the battle in which they have taken so creditable a part is a battle which is over. But I look forward to its consummation without anxiety and without fear if, and if only, the great Party which has ranged itself in favour of the Union remains undivided and undisturbed. [OPPOSITION laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laugh when I describe it as a great Party. It has hurled them to defeat in the past; it will hurl them yet again to defeat in the future. [Cries of "Try it then."] I trust—and this is the only piece of advice which I shall offer to my hon. friends—I think it absolutely vital, if this contest is to be fought out with success, to sink all smaller causes, and, as we are firmly united to attain the end which we have in view, we should not imperil it by any of these smaller controversies, which sink into absolute insignificance beside the great national and Imperial issues which are before us.
  MR. BLAKEsaid that although he agreed that the personal question of Sir Antony MacDonnell had taken too large a part in the debate, yet it had an important bearing upon the vital and main question which was now

  867
  commanding the attention of the House, because the whole of that fresh and novel incident was a striking exemplification of the truth of the proposition stated in the Amendment. It was also an exemplification and demonstration of the fact that the present system of governing Ireland was intolerable, and not in accordance with constitutional principles. Every one of the propositions contained in the Amendment they had defended and were prepared to defend, and to each of those propositions the assent of a very large body of Members of the House of Commons was about to be given. The Amendment proposed to—
  "Represent to Your Majesty that the present system of government in Ireland is in opposition to the will of the Irish people."
  Who could deny that? The truth of that proposition had been demonstrated by returns to Parliament at election after election almost with-out variation, and four-fifths of the representatives of the Irish people had, session after session, and Parliament after Parliament affirmed its truth. The next proposition in the Amendment was that it
  "Gives them no voice in the management of their own affairs."
  It was true that the present system gave them a voice in the sense of enabling them to register their protest against the mismanagement of their affairs, but it gave them, in the spirit in which that voice was accepted and regarded by the majority in this House, no effective voice in the management of their own affairs at all. They often protested, but their protests were disregarded. Quite a different spirit was manifested with reference to the affairs of Scotland. Scotland might find progress slower
  868
  than she desired in regard to her reforms, but there was no attempt made in the House of Commons to legislate for her in opposition to the will of the people, and Scotch legislation was in accordance with the views of the majority of the representatives for Scotland. Why was Ireland treated differently? The fact that any proposal had the support of the Nationalists generally caused it to be regarded with suspicion. The Amendment further suggested—
  "That the system is consequently ineffective and extravagantly costly, does not enjoy the confidence of any section of the population."
  Was that disputed? If so, he would refer hon. Members to the words of Lord Lansdowne, himself an Irish landlord, in his speech in another place, in which he spoke of the condition of Irish government and its defects. That the Irish Government did not enjoy the confidence of any section of the population had been abundantly proved by the speeches which had been made during the debate. The Amendment concluded by affirming that the present system of government in lreland
  "Is productive of universal discontent and unrest, and has proved to be incapable of satisfactorily promoting the material and intellectual progress of the people."
  In his opinion Irishmen would be unworthy of their name and fame if they were otherwise than unrestful under such a system of government. With regard to the material and intellectual progress of the people did any one contend that the present Government was even capable of satisfactorily promoting the material progress of Ireland? If they contrasted the population of Ireland and its resources, its wealth and its poverty in the scale of all things material, with that of their

  869
  more fortunate neighbours on this side of the Channel; if they contrasted the position of the rulers with those they ruled, he ventured to say that in all these respects they would find that the Irish Government had proved itself incapable of satisfactorily promoting the material progress of the Irish people. The Prime Minister had told them years ago that the Unionist Party would not be doing its duty by the country which it was professing to rule if it did not meet the demand for a Catholic University, which was demanded by fourth-fifths to of the population. Although the right hon. Gentleman in his individual capacity held these views and expressed them in the House, he now declared that it was impossible to give effect to them, or to give Ireland that opportunity of the promoting her intellectual progress which he admitted was her due.
  Why was that? It was because the North-east corner of Ireland was represented by hon. Members opposite who were opposed to intellectual progress being carried on in accordance with the views of the great majority of their fellow-countrymen. Had it not been proved by the action of the Chief Secretary for Ireland? The right hon. Gentle-man participated in the Prime Minister's views, but he declared that it was hopeless to attempt to give effect to these views unless there was the consent of that small minority to which he had alluded. Their veto interposed and prevented for all time, or until their hearts changed, the intellectual progress of the Irish people according to the views professed by the first Minister of the country, and also by the Minister who was mainly responsible for the government of the Irish people. The same statement was true of any of
  870
  the propositions affirmed by the Amendment.
  Those who voted against the Amendment had the responsibility imposed on them to find a remedy for the miseries, the injustice, and the distressing conditions which existed in the government of Ireland. The Nationalist Members had not disguised now or at any time what they believed to be the only effective remedy. He ventured to close the debate by repeating the statement that it was by the acceptance of the view that the Irish people should be free conduct their own internal affairs according to their own views, suffering for their misconceptions if they did misconceive, profiting by their experiments if they did make them successfully, and undertaking responsibility for the conduct of their own affairs—in that way and in that alone would they find an effective remedy. The feelings and status of the people must necessarily be degraded so long as they were governed from this House in domestic affairs practically irrespective of their own will, and that degradation would be confirmed and deepened, and the conditions of difficulty and despondency would be made greater, if they were compelled to continue, as they would do, the sacred struggle for the rights of the people. They did not profess absolute I wisdom and omniscience as to the remedy. Experiments had been suggested of one kind and another. Half-way houses had been talked of by various politicians, but no definition had ever been given at any time, except the definition given in the Dunraven programme, of what these steps should be. The Nationalists did not enter into them; they were not their proposals. Their views were in favour of self-government, but it was the

  871
  bounden duty of those who acknowledged the intolerable condition of the present system, and who conceived that amelioration could be found by some minor change, some progressive change, to produce plans, and when such plans were produced they would, no doubt, receive the respectful and attentive consideration of Irishmen, who, in all the heat of this struggle, had pressed for those material ameliorations, which might be made much more effectively by an Irish Parliament. If any honest plan could be devised for ameliorating the condition at the Irish people, in God's name produce it, and they would consider it, and if it was a scheme which showed signs of amelioration, and which was not proposed to them as a finality or as more than a progressive step, why, of course, it would be considered. But if they proposed to give something which substantially did not accord with that which they believed to be vital and essential, it should be understood by anticipation that they, as a self-respecting people having the national instinct of freedom, must meet the proposal with deserved rejection.
  He did not agree that the discussion of the question which had been mainly discussed in the debate was irrelevant. On the contrary, he thought it furnished fresh demonstration of the fact that in these days, after all that had been done, the government of Ireland was condemned by those who were attempting the task of governing. Incidentally, personal questions and political questions, all of a constitutional nature of no mean importance, had been raised. He did not think that the experiment which admittedly had been tried on this occa-
  872
  sion had met with such results as to be likely to induce a repetition. He did not himself understand, after all that had been said on the subject, what precisely was the novel position which had arisen. He did not understand the precise terms and arrangements with reference to Sir Antony Mac Donnell's appointment, nor did he understand the view which was taken of the objects, the attainment of which was to be attempted by his action and the action of the Chief Secretary, without seeing the letters which formulated those views. The Chief Secretary said yesterday—
  "I had talked over Ireland with him before I suggested he should become Under-Secretary, and it was because we were both deeply interested in the possibility of doing something for the good of Ireland, that, after a fortnight's consideration, he decided he could undertake the task, and we embodied in our letters the conversations in which we had been engaged; and these letters make it perfectly plain and clear that Sir Antony MacDonnell was invited by me rather as a colleague than as a mere Undersecretary to register my will. And I was glad to have his advice, to welcome any suggestions from him, and it was made clear, subject, of course, to my control, that he was to enjoy a certain freedom of administrative action. Let me be blamed for that if my hon. friends think I made a mistake in the appointment. I do not think I did. But I made clear to Sir Antony MacDonnell all the subjects which I thought within the conceivable bounds of legislative action. It has been suggested, not here this afternoon, but elsewhere, that when I invited Sir Antony MacDonnell to help me in Ireland I had in my mind, and that I imparted to him, some desire to carry out what is called devolution. That is certainly not the case. Nothing of the kind was ever mentioned by either of us. The letters are extant—they are in Sir Antony MacDonnell's possession—and they show that no such problem was contemplated by me at the time of his appointment. We had proposed to deal, in the first place, with the maintenance of order."
  The Chief Secretary had given his version of what the letters contained and did not contain. He had made a statement

  873
  with reference to documents in writing affecting this political question, and the hon. Member conceived that under the Rules of the House on that subject they ought to be laid on the Table. These letters were now in the possession of the Under-Secretary. Let the letters be produced and they would speak for themselves, and their speech and their silence would be alike eloquent in the elucidation of this subject. What did the right hon. Gentleman say that the subjects mentioned in these letters were? The right hon. Gentleman in his speech yesterday said—
  "Here are the problems we hoped to deal with then, and the order in which they were placed—(1) The maintenance of order; (2) a Land Bill on the lines of voluntary purchase, or, where that was impossible, an automatic and cheap system of fixing rents instead of the existing litigious system; (3) education in the spirit of the Prime Minister's views; (4) the co-ordination, direction, and control of detached boards. The co-ordination, or correlation, as I used to call it, of the various boards in Ireland does not suggest to me, and never will suggest to me, the introducing of another board which is to be of an elective character."
  They knew how the suggestion as to education was acted upon, and that there was a communication with the authorities at Belfast on the subject, by Sir Antony MacDonnell; they knew that an effort was made to carry out the Prime Minister's views. But the curious thing was that they were not the Prime Minister's views; they were the views of Mr. Balfour, and he did not entertain those views as Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman had declared that he could only speak in his private capacity and in his capacity as a Member of Parliament, but that, as Prime Minister he could not bring forward those views at all. The Prime Minister being debarred from taking legislative action
  874
  on this question, what did the Chief Secretary do? He made education part of the programme which he and his Under-Secretary were to advance, in accordance with the Prime Minister's views. Sir Antony MacDonnell was therefore encouraged and authorised to go on in the formulation of a programme and a propaganda on education in the sense of the Prime Minister's views. Nothing could more clearly indicate the extraordinary degree of power imparted to Sir Antony MacDonnell, and nothing could better demonstate the absolutely unique and unexampled character of the arrangement between the Chief Secretary and that gentleman. The proposal to co-ordinate the forty-two or forty-three detached boards in Ireland involved an immense problem, and it went to the root of the whole question of administrative reform. It seemed to him that the gravest injustice had been done by the Chief Secretary to Sir Antony MacDonnell. The right hon. Gentleman used these words—
  "I had spoken on these lines to Sir Antony MacDonnell, and he, with his Indian experience, found nalogies between my ideas and the views which he had formed in India. But here comes the first source of serious misunderstanding. When Sir Antony MacDonnell has spoken to me of the Indian Budget and of provincial contracts I, who am colossally ignorant about Indian affairs, did not know that in India there is a semi-elective council with a voice in these matters; and therefore it never occurred to me during the conversations I had with Sir Antony MacDonnell that, in pointing out the analogy between Indian finances and some of the ideas I had in my mind, he had in his mind, unexpressed, or at any rate not clear to me, the idea that another board would come into existence partially elective, a board to which I should have to submit my Estimates, in addition to the Treasury and this House."
  In view of the arrangement made between the Chief Secretary and Sir Antony MacDonnell and the action of Sir Antony, one could well understand

  875
  that misunderstanding might arise, but what one could not understand in the face of the conditions disclosed was how such a harsh censure should have been passed upon him as had been when he was told that his conduct was indefensible. He agreed with the noble Lord the Member for Greenwich that the nearer they got to the truth in this matter the better it would be. It was essential to secure efficiency in the public service, but how could they get the best men if they were to be treated as Sir Antony MacDonnell had been in this matter. His conduct was not indefensible. There was a misunderstanding, but that mis-
  understanding ought to have been stated. He was reasonably justified in believing that he had authority for proposing the scheme which was proposed. The discussion of this question had shown the abnormal character of the Irish Government, and the only way to get out of the situation which existed in Ireland was to let the Irish attend to their own domestic concerns.
  Question put.
  The Housedivided—Ayes, 236; Noes, 286. (Division List, No. 6).

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N. E.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Crombie, John William

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  Allen, Charles P.

  Cullinan, J.

  Hammond, John

  Ambrose, Robert

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Asher Alexander

  Davies, Alfred (Carmarthen)

  Harmsworth, R. Leicester

  Ashton Thomas Gair

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan

  Harrington, Timothy

  Asquith,Rt.Hn. Herbert Henry

  Delany, William

  Harwood, George

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Devlin, Chas. Ramsay (Galway

  Hayden, John Patrick

  Barlow, John Emmott

  Devlin, Joseph (Kilkenny, N.)

  Hayter, Rt, Hon. Sir Arthur P.

  Barran, Rowland Hirst

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.

  Healy, Timothy Michael

  Barry,E. (Cork, S.)

  Dilke, Rt, Hon. Sir Charles

  Holme, Norval Watson

  Bayley, Thomas (Derbyshire)

  Dillon, John

  Hemphill, Rt. Hon. Charles H.

  Beaumont, Wentworth C. B.

  Dobbie, Joseph

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Bell, Richard

  Doogan, P. C.

  Higham, John Sharpe

  Benn John Williams

  Douglas, Charles M. (Lanark)

  Hobhouse, C. E. H. (Bristol, E.

  Black, Alexander William

  Duffy, William J.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Blake, Edward

  Duncan, J. Hastings

  Hope, John Deans (Fife, West)

  Bolton Thomas Dolling

  Dunn, Sir William

  Hutchinson, Dr. Charles Fredk.

  Brand,Hon. Arthur G.

  Edwards, Frank

  Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley)

  Bright, John

  Elibank, Master of

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Bright, Allan Heywood

  Ellice,CaptEC (S.Andrw'sB'ghs

  Johnson, John

  Broadhurst, Henry

  Ellis, John Edward (Notts.)

  Joicey, Sir James

  Brown, George M. (Edinburgh)

  Emmott, Alfred

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Brunner Sir John Tomlinson

  Evans,Sir FrancisH (Maidstone

  Jordan, Jeremiah

  Bryce Rt. Hon. James

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Joyce, Michael

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Farrell, James Patrick

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Burke E Haviland

  Fenwick. Charles

  Kennedy, P. J. (Westmeath, N.)

  Burns, John

  Ferguson. R. C. Munro (Leith)

  Kennedy,Vincent P. (Cavan, W.

  Buxton, Sydney Charles

  Ffrench, Peter

  Kilbride, Denis

  Caldwell, James

  Field, William

  Kitson, Sir James

  Cameron, Robert

  Findlay, Alexander (Lanark N. E.

  Labouchere, Henry

  Campbell, John (Armagh,s.)

  Flavin Michael Joseph

  Langley, Batty

  Campbell Bannerman, Sir H.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Law, Hugh Alex. (Donegal, W.)

  Carvill Patrick Gco. Hamilton

  Foster, Sir Walter (Derby Co.)

  Lawson, Sir Wilfrid (Cornwall)

  Causton, Richard Knight

  Fowler, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

  Layland-Barratt Francis

  Cawley Frederick

  Freeman-Thomas, Captain F.

  Leese,SirJosephF. (Accrington)

  Channing, Francis Allston

  Fuller. J. M. F.

  Leigh, Sir Joseph

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Gilhooly, James

  Levy, Maurice

  Churchill Winston Spencer

  Gladstone. Rt. Hn Herbert John

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Clancy John Joseph

  Goddard, Daniel Ford

  Lloyd-George, David

  Cogan Denis J.

  Grant. Corrie

  Lough, Thomas

  Condon, Thomas Joseph

  Grey.Rt,Hon. Sir E. (Berwick)

  Lundon W.

  Craig. Robert Hunter (Lanark

  Griffith. Ellis J.

  Lyell, Charles Henry

  Crean, Eugene

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  MacNeill, John Gordon Swift

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Spencer, Rt. Hn. C. R. (N'thants)

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah

  O'Shee, James John

  Stevenson, Francis S.

  M'Arthur, William (Cornwall)

  Parrott, William

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  M'Crae, George

  Partington, Oswald

  Sullivan, Donal

  M'Fadden, Edward

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  M'Hugh, Patrick A.

  Pease, J. A. (Saffron Walden)

  Tennant, Harold John

  M'Kean, John

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Thomas, Abel(Carmarthen, E.)

  M Kenna, Reginald

  Power, Patrick Joseph

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.)

  M'Killop, W. (Sligo, North)

  Rea, Russell

  Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr)

  Mitchell, Edw.(Fermanagh, N.)

  Reckitt, Harold James

  Thompson, Dr E. C. (Monagh'nN

  Mooney, John J.

  Eeddy, M.

  Thomson, F. W. (York, W. R.)

  Morley. Rt. Hn. John (Montrose)

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Tomkinson, James

  Moss, Samuel

  Reid, SirR. Threshie (Dumfries)

  Toulmin, George

  Moulton, John Fletcher

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Murnaghan, George

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Ure, Alexander

  Murphy, John

  Roberts, John Bryn (Eifion)

  Waldron, Laurence Ambrose

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Roberts, John H. (Donbighs.)

  Wallace, Robert

  Newnes, Sir George

  Robertson, Edmund (Dundee)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Nolan,Col.John P.(Galway,N.)

  Robson William Snowdon,

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Nolan. Joseph (Louth, South)

  Roche, John

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Norman, Henry

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Weir, James Galloway

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Rose, Charles Day

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Runciman, Walter

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  O'Brien, James F. X. (Cork)

  Russell, T. W.

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  O'Brien,Kendal (TipperaryMid

  Samuel, Herbert L.(Cleveland)

  Whiteley, George (York, W.R.)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Schwann, Charles E.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  O'Brien, P. J. (Tipperary, N.)

  Scott. Chas. Prestwich (Leigh)

  Whittaker, Thomas Palmer

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Shackleton, David James

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)'

  O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool)

  Shaw. Thomas (Hawick B.)

  Wills.Arthur Walters(NDorset)

  O'Doherty, William

  Sheehy, David

  Wilson, John (Durham, Mid.)

  O'Donnell, John (Mayo, S.)

  Shipnian. Dr. John G.

  Woodhouse,Sir JT(Huddersf'd)

  O'Dowd, John

  Sinclair, John (Forfarshire)

  Young, Samuel

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Slack, John Bamford

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N

  Smith, Samuel (Flint)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir

  O'Malley, William

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Thomas Esmonde and Cap-

  O'Mara, James

  Soares, Ernest J.

  tain Donelan,

  NOES.

  Agg-Gardner, James Tynte

  Bull, Willaim James

  Dickinson, Robert Edmond

  Agnew, Sir Andrew Noel

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Dickson, Charles Scott

  Allhusen,Augustus HenryEden

  Butcher, John George

  Dickson-Poynder. Sir John P.

  Allsopp, Hon. George

  Campbell, J.H.M.(Dublin Univ.

  Dimsdale.Rt.Hn.Sir Joseph C.

  Anson, Sir William Reynell

  Carlile, William Walter

  Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Carson. Rt, Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Dixon-Hartland.Sir FredDixon

  Arnold-Forster.Rt.Hn.HughO.

  Cantley. Henry Strother

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers

  Arrol, Sir William

  Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.)

  Doxford, Sir William Theodore

  Atkinson, Rt. Hon. John

  Cavendish, V. C. W. (Derbysh.)

  Duke. Henry Edward

  Bagot, Capt. Josceline FitzRoy

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Dyke.Rt.Hn. Sir William Hart

  Bailey, James (Walworth)

  Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich)

  Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton

  Bain, Colonel James Robert

  Chamberlain.Rt.Hn.J. (Birm.)

  Elliot. Hon. A. Ralph Douglas

  Baird, John George Alexander

  Chamberlain.Rt Hn.JA(Worc.)

  Fardell, Sir T. George

  Balearres, Lord

  Chaplin, Rt, Hon. Henry

  Fergusson.RtHn SirJ.(Manc'r.)

  Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J.(Manchr')

  Chapman. Edward

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Balfour.RtHn GeraldW(Leeds)

  Clare, Octavius Leigh

  Finlay.Sir RB.(Inv'rn'ssB'ghs.)

  Balfour, Kenneth R.(Christch.)

  Coates, Edward Feetham

  Fisher. William Haves

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E.

  Fison, Frederick William

  Bartley, Sir George C. T.

  Collings, Rt. Hon. Jesse

  FitzGerald, Sir Robert Penrose

  Bathurst, Hon. Allen Benjamin

  Colomb.Rt.Hn.Sir John C. R.

  Fitzroy, Hon. Edw. Algernon

  Beach,RtHn.Sir Michael Hicks

  Colston, Chas. Edw. H. Athole

  Flannery. Sir Fortescue.

  Bentinck. Lord Henry C.

  Compton. Lord Alwyne

  Flower, Sir Ernest

  Bhownaggree, Sir M. M.

  Cook, Sir Frederick Lucas

  Forster, Henry William

  Bigwood, James

  Corbett, A, Cameron (Glasgow)

  Galloway, William Johnson

  Blundell, Colonel Henry

  Cripps, Charles Alfred

  Gardner, Ernest

  Bond, Edward

  Cross, Alexander (Glasgow)

  Garfit, William

  Boscawen, Arthur Griffith

  Crossley, Rt. Hon. Sir Savile

  Gibbs, Hon. A. G. H.

  Bousfield, William Robert

  Cubitt, Hon. Henry

  Godson, SirAugustusFrederick

  Bowles.Lt.-Col.HF (Middlesex)

  Cust, Henry John.

  Gordon, HnJ.E. (Elgin&Nairn)

  Bowles,T.Gibson (King's Lynn

  Dalrymple. Sir Charles

  Gordon, Maj Evans-(T'rH'mlets

  Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John

  Davenport, William Bromley

  Gore, Hon. S. F. Ormsby-

  Brown. Sir Alex. H. (Shropsh.)

  Davies'.Sir HoratioD(Chatham)

  Gorst. Rt. Hn. Sir John Eldon

  Brymer, William Ernest

  Denny, Colonel

  Goschen, Hon. George Joachim

  878

  879

  Goulding, Edward Alfred

  Lowe, Francis William

  Sadler, Col. Samuel Alexander

  Graham, Henry Robert

  Lowther, C. (Cumb. Eskdale)

  Samuel,Sir Harry H.(Limehouse

  Gray, Ernest (West Ham)

  Lucas,Col. Francis (Lowestoft)

  Sandys, Lieut.-Col. Thos. Myles

  Green, Walford D.(Wednesbury

  Lucas, Reginald J.(Portsmouth

  Sassaon, Sir Edward Albert

  Greene.Sir EW(B'rySEdm'nds)

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Greene, Henry D.(Shrewsbury)

  Macdona, John Cumming

  Seely, Charles Hilton (Lincoln)

  Greene, W. Raymond (Cambs.)

  Maconochie, A. W.

  Seton-Karr, Sir Henry

  Grenfell, William Henry

  M'Arthur, Charles (Liverpool)

  Sharpe, William Edward T.

  Gretton, John

  M'Iver,SirLewis (EdinburghW.

  Shaw-Stewart, Sir H. (Renfrew)

  Guthrie, Walter Murray

  Majendie, James A. H.

  Simeon, Sir Barrington

  Hain, Edward

  Manners, Lord Cecil

  Sinclair, Louis (Romford)

  Hall, Edward Marshall

  Marks, Harry Hananel

  Skewes-Cox, Thomas

  Halsey, Rt. Hon. Thomas F.

  Martin, Richard Biddulph

  Smith,Abel H. (Hertford,East)

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Maxwell,Rt.Hn.Sir HE(Wigt'n

  Smith,HC (North'mb.Tyneside

  Hamilton,Marq.of (L'nd'nderry

  Maxwell, W.J.H. (Dumfrieshire

  Smith,RtHn JParker(Lanarks.

  Hamilton,Rt,Hn.LdG(M'd'sex)

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Hardy,Laurence(Kent, Ashford

  Milner.Rt.Hn.Sir Frederick G.

  Spear, John Ward

  Hare, Thomas Leigh

  Milvain, Thomas

  Stanley,Hon.Arthur (Ormskirk

  Harris, F. Leverton (Tyne'mth)

  Molesworth, Sir Lewis

  Stanley.Rt.Hon.Lord (Lanes.)

  Halsam, Sir Alfred S.

  Montagu, G. (Huntingdon)

  Stewart, Sir Mark J. M'Taggart

  Haslett, Sir James Horner

  Montagu, Hon. J.Scott (Hants.)

  Stirling-Maxwell, Sir John M.

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Moon, Edward Robert Pacy

  Stock, James Henry

  Heath, Arthur Howard (Hanley

  Morgan,David J(Walthamstow

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Heath, Sir Jas.(Staffords.N.W.)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  Stroyan, John

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Morrell, George Herbert

  Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley

  Helder, Augustus

  Morrison, James Archibald

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Henderson, Sir A. (Stafford,W.)

  Morton, Arthur H. Aylmer

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Hermon-Hodge, Sir Robert T.

  Mount, William Arthur

  Thorburn, Sir Walter

  Hickman, Sir Alfred

  Mowbray, Sir Robert Gray C.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Hoare, Sir Samuel

  Muntz, Sir Philip A.

  Tollemache, Henry James

  Hobhouse, Rt. Hn. H. (Som's't, E.

  Murray, Charles J. (Coventry)

  Tomlinson, Sir Wm. Edw. .M.

  Hogg, Lindsay

  Myers, William Henry

  Tritton, Charles Ernest

  Hope, J. F. (Sheffield Brightside)

  Nicholson, William Graham

  Tuff, Charles

  Homer, Frederick William

  Palmer, Sir Walter (Salisbury)

  Tufnell, Lieut.-Col. Edward

  Houldsworth, Sir Wm. Henry

  Parker, Sir Gilbert

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Hoult, Joseph

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Tumour, Viscount

  Houston, Robert Paterson

  Pease,Herbert Pike (Darlington

  Valentia, Viscount

  Howard J. (Midd., Tottenham)

  Peel, Hn.Wm. Robert Wellesley

  Vincent, Col.Sir C E H (Sh'ffi'd)

  Hozier,Hn.James Henry Cecil

  Pemberton, John S. G.

  Vincent, Sir Edgar (Exeter)

  Hudson, George Bickersteth

  Percy Earl

  Walrond,Rt.Hn.Sir WilliamH.

  Hunt, Rowland

  Pierpoint, Robert

  Wanklyn, James Leslie

  Jeffreys, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fred.

  Pilkington, Colonel Richard

  Warde, Colonel C. E.

  Jessel,Captain Herbert Merton

  Plummer, Sir Walter R.

  Webb, Col. William George

  Kennaway,Rt,Hn.Sir John H.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Welby, Lt.-Col. A. C. E. (T'n'ton)

  Kenyon, Hon.Geo.T.(Denbigh)

  Pretyman, Ernest George

  Welby, Sir Chas. G. E. (Notts.)

  Kenyon-Slaney,Rt.Hon.Col. W

  Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward

  Wharton, Rt. Hon. John Lloyd

  Kerr, John

  Purvis, Robert

  Whiteley,H.(Ashton und.Lyne

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Pym, C. Guy

  Whitmore, Charles Algernon

  King, Sir Henry Seymour

  Quilter, Sir Cuthbert

  Williams, Colonel R. (Dorset)

  Knowles, Sir Lees

  Randies, John S.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E. R.

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Win.

  Rankin, Sir James

  Wilson, John (Glasgow)

  Laurie, Lieut-General

  Ratcliff, R. F.

  Wiison-Todd,Sir W. H. (Yorks.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Glasgow)

  Reid, James (Greenock)

  Wodehouse, Rt, Hn. E. R. (Bath

  Lawrence,Sir Joseph(Monm'th

  Remnant, James Farquharson

  Worsley-Taylor, Henry Wilson

  Lawson.Hn. H.L.W. (Mile End)

  Renshaw, Sir Charles Bine

  Wortley, Rt, Hon. C. B. Stuart

  Lawson.John Grant (Yorks, N. R.

  Renwick, George

  Wrightson, Sir Thomas

  Lee,ArthurH. (Hants.,Fareham

  Roberts, Samuel (Sheffield)

  Wylie, Alexander

  Legge, Col. Hon. Heneage

  Robertson, Herbert (Hackney)

  Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George

  Leveson Gower, Frederick N. S.

  Rollit, Sir Albert Kaye

  Yerburgh, Robert Armstrong

  Llewellyn, Evan Henry

  Rothschild, Hn. Lionel Walter

  Lockwood, Lieut.-Col. A. R.

  Round, Rt. Hon. James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir

  Loder, Gerald Walter Erskine

  Royds, Clement Molyneux

  Alexander Acland-Hood and

  Long, Col. Charles W. (Evesham

  Rutherford, John (Lancashire)

  Mr. Ailwyn Fellowes.

  Long,Rt.Hn.Walter (Bristol,S.

  Saekville, Col. S. G. Stopford

  Main Question again proposed.
  And, it being after Midnight, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed to-morrow.
  Adjourned at twelve minutes after Twelve o'clock.