THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN, in rising to ask the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take the judgment of Parliament this Session upon their proposals for increasing the number of occupying owners in Ireland, and for extending to that country the principles of local self-government; to what extent, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, those measures are connected with and dependent upon each other; and whether Her Majesty's Government will consider the propriety of introducing the latter measure in the House of Lords, said:—It appears to me most desirable for many reasons, and especially from the point of view of the supporters of the Government, that there should be no misconception as to the policy and intentions of the Government in respect to Ireland as foreshadowed in the Gracious Speech from the Throne. Your Lordships will recollect the action of the Unionist Party in 1886, and you will also recollect the utterances of many of the leaders and prominent men in that Party since. It may be easy for you to put a proper interpretation upon the paragraph in the Gracious Speech from the Throne which relates to Ireland; but it may not be quite so easy for the people outside Parliament; and I think it is of great importance that some clearer delineation of the main line of the Government policy in this respect should be given us, than is possible to be given within the limits of the Queen's Speech. There were four questions relating to Ireland dealt with in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech. We were told that, owing to the improved state of the country, it was possible considerably to limit the area over which exceptional criminal procedure had to be maintained. I have nothing to say about that, except that it must be a matter of the greatest satis- 412 faction to every one who has the welfare of Ireland really at heart to find that so great progress has been made in so short a time, in spite of exceptional difficulties. Then we were told at the end of the paragraph that measures would be taken to ameliorate the condition of the people in the poorer districts. I do not know what that means, but I hope the means adopted will be successful. However, I am not concerned in that matter now. What I am interested in, and what I venture to ask some information about, is in regard to the questions of land purchase and local self-government. Those are matters of the very greatest importance, and the Unionist Party is very deeply pledged against the principle of advancing public money, or engaging the public credit, for the purchase of the landlords' interest in Ireland except under certain circumstances. What 1 am anxious to know is whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take the judgment of Parliament upon both those subjects; whether both are to be passed through Parliament; and whether they are to be considered, and to what extent they are to be considered, as united and inseparably connected with each other? I should like to know whether the scheme of local self-government is dependent upon the creation of a larger number of persons-in Ireland with a stake in the country —with a financial interest, which is only to be obtained by ownership—whether it is dependent upon the substitution of real ownership for what, in my opinion, is the most absurd system of dual ownership which at present exists; and whether it is dependent upon Ireland's being relieved to any considerable extent from the friction between classes which, for many reasons which 1 need not particularise tot a great degree exists at the present time. Farther, I should like to be informed; whether the purchase scheme is considered necessary in order to give the local self-government scheme a reasonable chance of success. Again, I am desirous of hearing whether the advance of Imperial money, or the use of the Imperial credit, is dependent upon the creation of some local authority derived from the scheme of local self-government? Your Lordships w ill recollect that a good deal of discussion took place in Parliament when the last advance was made under Lord Ashbourne's Act, 413 the operation of which has been so beneficial. It was then clearly laid down by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that further advances would not be asked. My Lords, what practical difference can be made? It appears to me that the only important practical difference is that an advance of money would be necessary for political reasons, in order to make the local self-government scheme successful, and also that some security should be provided between the British taxpayer, who finds the money, and the occupying owners in Ireland. Judging by the position of the two sentences in the Gracious Speech in reference to those matters, and by the utterances of the leaders of the Unionist Party, the natural supposition is that the two measures of local self-government and land purchase are to be considered as united questions. On the other hand, Notice of Motion for the introduction of one measure only has been given in another place. These matters, my Lords, are, in my opinion, so important that they ought to be lifted out of the realm of supposition and placed upon the solid ground of actual fact. As to the last part of my question, I would ask Her Majesty's Government to consider the advisability of introducing the Local Self-Government Bill in this House. Of course, it would be impossible 4x> introduce the other Bill hero, as it is practically a Money Bill, and the House would have no effectual means of discussing it. But it is difficult to see any constitutional reason why the Local Self-Government Bill should not be introduced into your Lordships' House. If that course can be adopted without any detriment to the public business, I hope it may be, and it would have this practical advantage—that both Bills would be before the country, and would be proceeded with concurrently, and Parliament and the country would be in possession of the full policy of the Government on both these important points. I hope the Government will be able to pursue that course; but if that is impossible, I hope they will be able to give the House such details of the general lines of their policy, as to remove all doubt with regard to the relationship existing between those two Bills, and as 414 to whether the Land Purchase Scheme can become law should Parliament reject the scheme for local self-government.
§ EARL CADOGANMy Lords, I hope my noble Friend will permit me to answer this question on behalf of the Prime Minister, who is unavoidably absent. I am afraid it will net be in my power to follow my noble Friend in the various remarks which have fallen from him—remarks which I venture to think might perhaps have boon with more advantage uttered in the Debate which took place a few days ago on the Speech from the Throne. I will content myself, however, with replying to the questions my noble Friend has asked. Undoubtedly, my Lords, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to do their best to lay before Parliament and to obtain the judgment of Parliament on those measures which were announced in the Speech from the Throne, and especially may that statement be made with reference to the proposals for increasing the number of occupying owners in Ireland and for extending to that country the principles of local self-government. I can hardly think that my noble Friend intended to ask me to give any particulars with reference to the two measures to which he has referred. I think his ingenuity would have led him to have spread his net not quite so obviously in the faee of his victim had he intended to "draw" me to that extent. It is obviously impossible for me on this occasion to make the statement which he has endeavoured to obtain from me; and I can only further say with reference to the next question, namely, "to what extent those measures are connected with and dependent upon each other," that if my noble Friend will wait for a few days longer he will, when he has heard the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland on introducing the Bill of which he has given notice, be able to judge for himself how far those two measures are dependent on each other, and how far the passing of the one is dependent on the passing of the other. Then my noble Friend asks whether Her Majesty's Government have considered the question of introducing the Local Government Bill for Ireland in the House of Lords. I can admit that in the idea of simultaneous discussion of the two Bills, one in one House and the other in the 415 other House, there might perhaps be, in the opinion of my noble Friend, some advantage. It is no doubt true that the conduct of one measure would be in the hands of one Minister in one House and the other measure in the hands of another Minister in the other House; but both those measures relating to Ireland and affecting Irish interests are practically measures promoted and guided by one Public Department, and I cannot agree with my noble Friend that it would be advisable or even possible that Parliament or the country should take into consideration two measures of such magnitude affecting the same portion of the Empire and largely affecting similar interests at the same time and during the same portion of the Session. I shall be glad if any arrangements can be made which will, by economising time, promote and forward the passing of those two measures; but I am bound to confess that I do not think the fact of the Local Government Bill being introduced in the House of Lords at the beginning of the Session would in any way promote its ultimate success in passing through Parliament. Her Majesty's Government trust that Parliament will approve the programme which they have announced and the order in which they have shown it to be their intention to pass those measures; and I hope my noble Friend will, on consideration, be satisfied to allow the Government to make their own arrangements for the guidance of Public Business.