Sitting of 24 May 1892

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.
QUESTIONS.

  PROCURATORS FISCAL AND CROFTER CASES.
  MR. CALDWELL: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate
  1658
  whether, as lately promised, he has communicated with the Sheriff of Argyllshire with reference to the inexpediency of Mr. W. Sproat, Procurator Fiscal, Tobermory, acting for landlords in crofter cases, and what was the purport of the reply; and whether his attention has been called to the report of a case in the Oban Sheriff Court on 13th instant, wherein it is stated that a Mr. Lawrence appeared on behalf of "Mr. Sproat, Procurator Fiscal, Tobermory, and agent for the Duke of Argyll," in a suit against crofters at the instance of His Grace?
  *THE LORD ADVOCATE (Sir C. J. PEARSON,): I have made the communication referred to in the question. Mr. Sproat is entitled to carry on private practice, and I have no power to prevent him from doing so. I am, however, informed that he is willing to sacrifice his private practice so far as regards cases before the Crofters' Commission; but he is naturally disinclined to give up acting as agent for landowners, merely because in this capacity he may be obliged occasionally to act against crofters. I would remind the hon. Member that as often as a vacancy occurs in the office of Procurator Fiscal, the question of restriction from private practice is considered. I am informed that the statement in the second part of the question is correct.

  PUBLIC HEALTH ACT AND THE ENNISKILLEN GUARDIANS.
  MR. JORDAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland with regard to the fact that the Board of Guardians of the Enniskillen Union has applied to the Local Government Board by unanimous resolution five different times, the last application the 3rd May this year, for an official inquiry into the administration of the Public Health Act, 1878, in that Union, mainly in its villages and rural districts, which has been refused by the Local Government Board, if he will take steps to ascertain on what grounds the Local Government Board refused an application so often and so unanimously made by such a Board of Guardians, and have the matter rectified?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): I understand it is the case that the Guardians of the Enniskillen Union have made application for official inquiry into the administration of the Public Health Act, 1878, in that Union; but notwithstanding repeated applications have not made known the specific grounds upon which they ask for inquiry.

  THE PERSIAN TOBACCO CONCESSION.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now communicate to the House the names of the members of the Eastern Concessions Syndicate?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. J. W. LOWTHER,): The Foreign Office were informed by the Imperial Tobacco Corporation that they had purchased the concession originally granted to Major Talbot by the State, from the Eastern Concessions Syndicate; but I am not informed, nor have I any knowledge, as to the names of the gentlemen who composed that Association.

  REMOVAL TERMS IN SCOTLAND.
  SIR D. CURRIE: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether, in view of the great inconvenience felt by Scottish farmers owing to the want of uniformity in the periods of entry into and removal from farms and buildings in Scotland, which has been submitted to him, he can now see his way to introduce an amending Act which will secure the application of the Terms Removal (Scotland) Act, 1886, to existing leases?
  *SIR C. J. PEARSON: From the information which the hon. Member has been good enough to send me, there appears to be considerable inconvenience for want of a uniform rule as to removal terms. I would gladly do anything in my power to further a satisfactory solution of the difficulty, though of course the area of the inconvenience is always narrowing as leases fall in, and there may be objections which have not occurred to me to the proposed interference with contracts.
  1660
  If the hon. Member will introduce a Bill on the subject it will afford a means of ascertaining whether the change proposed meets with general assent.

  THE HURRICANE IN THE MAURITIUS.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is able to state from official sources the number of lives lost, the number of persons wounded, and the value of the property destroyed by the hurricane in Mauritius, and if it is the intention of the Government to propose any Parliamentary grant in aid of the colony; and having regard to the fact that nearly three weeks elapsed between the catastrophe and the receipt of the information in this country, a state of affairs which might be most disastrous in the case of war, steps will be taken to assist from State resources the establishment of telegraphic communication with Mauritius?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Baron H. de WORMS,): In answer to the first paragraph of the question, I have to say that the only information as yet received from the officer administering government is that contained in the telegram which I communicated to the House on Friday; and until despatches are received it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to form any opinion on the point referred to. In answer to the second paragraph, I may say that negotiations are nearly concluded for the establishment of telegraphic communication with Seychelles and Mauritius, the greater part of the cost of which will be borne by this country and India, the rest being contributed by Mauritius and Seychelles

  THE MADRAS PRESIDENCY.
  SIR WILLIAM PLOWDEN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether he will present to the House the Memorandum on the Economic Condition of the Madras Presidency, which has been recently compiled by a native gentleman, Mr. D. B. S. S. Sriuivasa Aiyangar?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. CURZON,): Only one copy of the Memorandum has yet reached the India Office, and that only during the past week. It is now under the consideration of the Secretary of State, who is not yet in a position to say whether it can be presented to Parliament.

  MRS. MAYBRICK.
  MR. DALZIEL (, &c.): I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, in reference to the convict Mrs. Florence Elizabeth Maybrick, he is aware that four eminent counsel—namely, Sir Charles Russell, J. Fletcher Moulton, H. B. Poland, and Reginald J. Smith—in giving their opinion upon a full statement of her case prepared by Messrs. Lumley and Lumley, used the following words:—
  "We think it right to add that there are many matters stated in the case, not merely with reference to the evidence at, and the incidents of the trial, but suggesting new facts";
  and will he be prepared to give his careful consideration to any statement of the case containing the new facts referred to?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,) (who replied): The Secretary of State has received no such information as that mentioned in the first part of the question, and no such document has reached the Home Office. The Secretary of State in every case, and therefore in Mrs. Maybrick's, is prepared to give careful consideration to any new material facts which can be shown to exist.

  THE WATERFORD CONSTABULARY.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether a number of sergeants of the County Waterford force have been pronounced incompetent by the new County Inspector, Mr. T. Hayes; how many of these sergeants are on probation, to be reported on in three months by their officers as to their fitness to hold their present rank; how many of them
  1662
  are men of long service and good character, who have passed creditably the inspections of their superior officers; whether he is aware that the measures of the present County Inspector have produced discontent and insecurity among all ranks under him; and whether one of the sergeants affected, Sergeant Cleary, of Callaghans, has already claimed his discharge from the Service on a reduced pension?
  MR. JACKSON: This question refers to some details of administration, and I do not think that I can, with advantage to discipline or to the Public Service, answer the questions. It must not be supposed that any action taken implies censure or discredit on the members of the force.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: The object of my question is to allay discontent prevailing in the ranks of the force in consequence of the action of the County Inspector, and surely I am entitled to an answer.
  MR. JACKSON: I cannot add to my answer. It must be quite obvious that to accept the assumption that discontent prevails would act prejudicially to the discipline of the force.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say is it the fact that Sergeant Cleary, in consequence of the action taken, has been obliged to claim his discharge at a reduced pension?
  MR. JACKSON: I understand that is not the fact. It is not in consequence of any charge against him that he has been obliged to retire. He applied to be allowed to retire.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: Yes; but why did he not remain a little time longer, when he could have claimed the higher scale of pension?
  MR. JACKSON: His retirement was entirely from his own action, and was in no way due to the action of the officer mentioned.

  TULLAMORE GAOL.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, before the Prisons Vote is taken, he would have any objection to print the correspondence between Mr. John Cullinan of Bansha and the Prisons Board relative to the typhoid outbreak in

  1663
  Tullamore Gaol, and also such medical and sanitary reports as are germane to the matter?
  *MR. JACKSON: It is not the practice to lay correspondence of this nature on the Table. The hon. Member has perhaps seen the report made by the experts as to the insanitary condition of the gaol? If he has not, I shall be glad to furnish him with a copy.

  THE CHARGES AGAINST SERGEANT SEABROOKE, R.I.C.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the report of a Constabulary inquiry in the North Antrim Standard of 31st March, whereby it appears that Sergeant Seabrooke was found guilty of drunkenness, and having made on oath false charges against a comrade to screen himself; and also to the judgment of the Inspector General, as follows:—
  "Arising out of the charges preferred against Constable Lynch, very serious matters against Sergeant Seabrooke and other constables have come to light, and the line of action adopted by them was deceitful and indiscreet, and if persisted in would have compelled their expulsion from the force. But inasmuch as they now admit the allegations against them, this course of action would not fee adopted, but in lieu of it the following penalties would be inflicted: Sergeant Seabrooke is reduced to the rank of constable, and transferred at his own expense to the County Leitrim";
  whether the Executive have sanctioned this retention in the force of a constable who is found to have confessed himself guilty of perjury to avert a sentence of dismissal; whether Seabrooke is the same policeman who was promoted after giving evidence against the Crossmaglen prisoners, sentenced in 1883, for alleged conspiracy to murder, to seven and ten years' penal servitude; and why, after the Inspector General's decision and the findings of the official tribunal, Seabrooke is not now prosecuted for perjury on his own confession?
  *MR. JACKSON: The Constabulary authorities report that it is the case that the sergeant mentioned was punished for drunkenness, but it is not the case that he has been found guilty of making false charges against a comrade or that he has been guilty of
  1664
  perjury as alleged. He did give evidence in the case mentioned, but he did not receive promotion after giving that evidence.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the meaning of the Inspector's words: that the sergeant had been deceitful and indiscreet, and had pursued a line of conduct that, if persisted in, would have compelled expulsion from the force? Does it not mean that, though guilty of this conduct, he was after confession permitted to remain in the force? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that such a man should be allowed to remain in the force?
  *MR. JACKSON: The hon. Gentleman has been misinformed or has misunderstood the Report of the Inspector. It is not true that Sergeant Seabrooke had been found to have committed perjury, or that he was guilty of making false charges against a comrade.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: Not technically so.
  *MR. JACKSON: I will explain if the hon. member will permit me. Two charges made by him against the constable were found to be proved, but in regard to other allegations the Court found his conduct had not been straightforward. He admitted certain charges made against him which in the first instance he denied. There was no reference in the Report as to his having made false charges on oath against a comrade.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: But was it not a sworn inquiry, and did not the Inspector say that the line of conduct if persisted in would have led to expulsion? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that such a man should be allowed to remain in the force and to give evidence as a policeman against Her Majesty's subjects?
  *MR. JACKSON: The whole question was carefully considered by the Court, and there does not appear to be any reason to interfere with the decision arrived at.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: As a warning to the public, will the right hon. Gentleman say where this man Seabrooke is now on duty?
  *MR. JACKSON: If the hon. Member will put down a question I will endeavour to answer it.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I will do so, and will, if necessary, again and again call attention to the man's conduct.

  RICHMOND PRISON, DUBLIN.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he will grant the Return relating to the transfer of Richmond Prison to the War Office, and the sums expended on the prison by the Dublin Corporation?
  *MR. JACKSON: This is a question which should be addressed to the War Office rather than to the Irish Government. The promise made to the hon. Member when the Dublin Barracks Bill was before the House was made by the War Office. The Irish Government do not see any connection between the expenditure on Mountjoy Prison and Richmond Prison. The expenditure on the one was not in consequence of the removal from the other. But the War Office will give the hon. Member the information he desires.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: Surely I am entitled to ask for the information which I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have been better able to supply than the War Office. But I do not care whence it comes.
  *MR. JACKSON: The question only appeared this morning, and I have not been able to communicate with the War Office in reference to it.

  FATHER HUMPHREYS OF TIPPERARY.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Reverend Father Humphreys, of Tipperary, was accosted by Sergeant Fogarty at the gate of the Catholic Church on Saturday last, and that the constable produced a warrant against the reverend gentleman; was the warrant issued in connection with civil proceedings; and, if so, why were not the proceedings usual in civil cases adopted by the policeman on this occasion?
  MR. JACKSON: I have not yet been able to obtain the information, and I shall be glad if the hon. Gentleman will postpone his question.

  THE VICAR'S RATE AT COVENTRY.
  MR. BALLANTINE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it has been brought to the knowledge of the Crown, as patron of the living of St. Michael's, Coventry, that the vicar has exercised powers given him by a local Act, namely, 19 Geo. III., c. 60, to levy a rate upon the parish, that distraints have been made upon the goods of a large number of the parishioners in consequence of their refusal to pay the rate, and that grave disorder is apprehended when the goods seized are offered for sale by public auction; and whether the action of the vicar in putting this Act into force was instigated by instructions from the Crown as patron of the living?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): From causes of a personal nature there have been disputes for some years between the vicar of St. Michael's, Coventry, and the parishioners. I am not aware that any instructions from the Crown would be necessary to enable Dr. Mills to enforce the payment of the rate, to which he is entitled by the Act quoted by the hon. Member; nor am I aware that any such instructions were given.

  THE CHANNEL SQUADRON.
  MR. MAGUIRE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Admiralty whether the Channel Squadron intend visiting Lough Swilly in June or July this year, as is now reported; whether he is aware that it is about eight years since any number of Her Majesty's ships have visited Lough Foyle; and whether having regard to the importance of that station on account of it including a port where trans-Atlantic mails are embarked and delivered weekly he will cause the Squadron to visit it on this occasion?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Lord G. HAMILTON,): Orders have been given for the Channel Squadron to assemble early in June, but the subsequent movements of the squadron have not been decided upon, as they will depend upon the arrangements for the Naval Manœuvres in which the

  1667
  squadron will take part. I cannot, therefore, state definitely at present whether Lough Swilly will be visited by the Fleet this summer.

  THE ALLEGED DISTURBANCES AT BELFAST.
  MR. SEXTON: Since the answer was given to me yesterday with regard to the disturbances at Belfast, I have received information which in my judgment would entitle me to move the Adjournment of the House. I wish, however, to avoid that course, and I would ask your leave to make a brief statement, with a view of avoiding a discussion. I asked yesterday whether it was true that a number of boys had taken part in an attack on another boy, whose name I gave, and the Irish Attorney General replied in the following terms:—
  "I am informed that the report in the newspaper to which the hon. Gentleman has referred is wholly unfounded."
  That statement was received with laughter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman continued:—
  "There does not appear to have been any incident to suggest it beyond the fact of a trifling quarrel between two young boys of about fourteen years of age, such as might occur in any place and at any time."
  The boy referred to has been seen. His name is Longman, and he lives at 4, Waugh's Court, off North Road. He has made the following statement:—
  "I went to Queen's Island about a week before the Easter holidays to look for a job. I was there two days when the boys working at the different boats threatened that if I would come back into the yard after the holidays that I would not go out of it alive.
  What reason did these boys give for threatening you in this manner?—Because I was a Catholic.
  How did they know you were a Catholic?—There was a boy who lives not far from me, a Protestant, who knew me, and he must have told them what I was. I know that boy's name. I worked on well enough until Thursday evening last. When I was leaving my work at half-past five o'clock, the boys started at me on the Queen's Road and knocked me down. The men coming from work pulled away the boys who were beating me. When I got up I walked on to the Queen's Bridge, where there were some policemen, and the boys were afraid to touch me there. When I went on to my home up North Street they followed me, and when I went into my own house, No. 13, Waugh's Court, off North Street, they gathered round the Court and were shouting at me to
  1668
  come out again, and said what they would do if I came to work in the morning. The police, after a while, came up and chased them away.
  Did you go to your work on Friday morning?—Yes, about six o'clock, and I was lighting the fire for heating the rivets, when about fifty of the boys came up, some of them with pieces of sticks which they got lying about the yard. Two or three of them hit me together with sticks and called me a Fenian b—and other names, and one fellow drew something like a pistol or revolver, and said in the course of a month they would not leave a Fenian in the yard, that that (meaning the revolver) was for shooting them down.
  Do you know any of the boys who beat you?—Yes; I could point out about a dozen of them.
  What did they do after you were knocked down?—They kicked me and beat me about, and they wanted to shove me in the river."
  The House will remember that a man was shoved into the river in the same place only a few months ago.
  "I thought they were going to throw me into the river, and was trying to save my face with my hands when the horn blew for them to start their work again after breakfast, and they all went off the boat to go to their work again. They broke my can which was full of tea for my dinner and kicked it about, and then threw it into the water. When I was going up the yard to go to my work two or three of the men told me to go to the hospital or go home and get my face bathed, as it was in a dreadful state and all covered with blood. I went home then, as my face was swollen and bleeding, and got it bathed. I was afraid they would beat me again at dinner time. I was afraid to go for my money at half-past five o'clock, and my brother came with me at three to Mr. Wright, the head manager, and he paid me and told me to come back to work on Saturday and he would have the boys who beat me found out. I did not go to work on Saturday, as I was afraid of being attacked again.
  Did you tell the police the way you had been treated?—Yes; on Friday I told a constable in Royal Avenue, and he said if I knew any of the boys to point them out to the police, who would take their names.
  Did you tell any other policeman about the occurrence?—Yes; on Saturday morning a head constable came up to my bed, and I told him all about it.
  Did you give the head constable the name of any of the parties?—Yes; I gave him one name; that was all I could remember at the time. When another policeman came later on I gave him all the other names I remembered.
  Do you know how many were in the crowd at the time you were beaten?—There was a big crowd; I could not say how many was in it. Many of the boys were big fellows, nearly men."
  That is the boy's statement, and remembering that the Belfast riots broke out in this very same place, and that

  1669
  they were produced by speeches made by persons who were not then, but are now, Ministers of the Crown, I have to ask the Government two questions. In those Belfast riots thirty lives were lost, many houses were wrecked, and the disturbances continued for several months. What I want to ask is, What are the Government going to do? and how it came to pass that the Irish Attorney General, yesterday, having telegraphed to the police of Belfast, told us that there was no incident to suggest the question, beyond a trifling quarrel between two young boys, which might have occurred at any time and in any place?
  MR. JACKSON: If the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to let me have the report which he has read to the House, I shall be glad to have a full inquiry made, and give a complete answer to all the statements made in the report. The Attorney General answered the question on the information supplied by the police of Belfast, and I am quite prepared to admit that we must have some further inquiry. But I do not gather from the report which has been read by the hon. Member—and that is the only opportunity I have had of hearing the facts—that there is much discrepancy between that statement and the statement made by my right hon. Friend from the information of the police. I do not think it would be an inconsistent conclusion to arrive at that the boy had had a quarrel with another boy, whose name he mentioned, when it is borne in mind that when the head constable went to see the boy only one name was given.
  MR. SEXTON: Another policeman came later on.
  MR. JACKSON: I do not know the date of the second policeman's visit, but it is quite possible that the other names were given after the information was supplied on which my right hon. Friend made his statement yesterday. However, there is no difficulty, and if the hon. Gentleman will give me the materials, I will make inquiries and furnish him with full and complete information, so far as the facts are submitted to us. I do not, however, find any complaint that the police failed in their duty, because it appears from the
  1670
  report that has been read that at certain points they protected this boy from violence. I do not see that the police neglected their duty, and the hon. Member may rest assured that we shall enforce protection of all classes by the authorities.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Do we then understand that the right hon. Gentleman, without further communication from this quarter of the House, will make inquiries as to what really took place?
  MR. JACKSON: Certainly. Will the hon. Member tell me the name of the paper from which he read the extract just now?
  MR. SEXTON: The Belfast Irish News.
  MR. J. MORLEY: What the House wants to know — and knowing as I know what took place in Belfast in 1886, I appreciate the importance of the inquiry—is whether the Government is fully and accurately informed on this transaction, because unfortunately in Belfast there are now and again outbursts of a very serious kind, and this is a very serious matter.
  MR. JACKSON: I do not underestimate the importance of this matter, and I ask that the report should be furnished to me to enable me to give a complete and categorical answer to all the allegations. At the same time, that report does not make any specific allegations against the police.
  MR. SEXTON: I shall want the explanation on Thursday, and on that day on the Vote on Account I shall call the attention of the House to the origin of the Belfast riots in 1886, and the conduct of all concerned, and by all concerned I mean everyone from the police who gave the information to the Irish Attorney General up to the Prime Minister.

  ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MERCANTILE MARINE OFFICIALS.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the grave charges that have been made by the Sailors' and Firemen's Union with reference to the conduct of the Mercantile Marine officials at Sunderland and South Shields, and also as to the conduct of the boarding masters, who have been

  1671
  illegally supplying seamen, he will at once direct a full inquiry to be made by some responsible officer of the Board; and whether he is aware that the conduct of the Superintendent of the Mercantile Marine at Sunderland has been called into question on four different occasions, for the unfair way he has acted in encouraging the shipment of men at reduced wages and for the conveyance of such men from other ports to Sunderland?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir M. HICKS BEACH,): If any grave charge supported by adequate evidence that the Merchant Shipping Acts have been infringed, either by the Mercantile Marine officials or by the boarding masters at Sunderland and Shields, should be laid before the Board of Trade, I should certainly have it carefully investigated; but nothing has come before me at present which seems to demand such an inquiry as the hon. Member suggests. With regard to the boarding masters, I understand that prosecutions have been instituted and punishment inflicted in some cases. It is the duty of the Board of Trade officers to give every proper facility for the engagement of seamen at whatever rate of wages they may have agreed to serve; and the officers are expected to act with complete neutrality in cases of disputes between employers and employed.
  MR. DALZIEL: I should like to ask whether, as a matter of fact, considerable discontent prevails with regard to the action of the Mercantile officers; and whether it is not the case that complaint has been made to the Board of Trade representing that the officers have in cases of dispute interfered on behalf of the employers against the men?
  *SIR M. HICKS BEACH: One complaint has been made with respect to which the hon. Gentleman asked me a question the other day. I investigated it, and I found no reason to take any action.

  SANITARY CONDITION OF GRAND-BOROUGH.
  MR. LEON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has
  1672
  been called to the insanitary condition of the village of Grandborough in Bucks, and to the fact that the death rate during the last four months has been at the rate of fifty per one thousand per annum, and that there is no water fit to drink; and whether he will at once communicate with the Rural Sanitary Authority in order to improve the sanitary condition of the village?
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: I will answer the question on behalf of my right hon. Friend. The attention of the Local Government Board had not been called to the insanitary condition of the village of Grandborough, but since notice was given of the question they have communicated with the Sanitary Authority. They are informed, in reply, that the population of the village is three hundred and one, and that during the first four months of the present year there were five deaths, one from bronchitis, another from drowning, one from peritonitis, a fourth from pneumonia, and one from enteric fever. The Report of the Medical Officer of Health as to the water supply, given verbatim, is—
  "I must tell you that the only water considered unfit for drinking purposes was closed last week. Another well is being closed outside the village. With that exception I believe the quality and quantity of water are good."
  The Local Government Board are also informed that notices under the Public Health Act, 1875, and the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, have been served by the Sanitary Authority upon the owners of insanitary and overcrowded houses.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. ROBERTSON: I should like to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can give us any information with respect to the business of the Grand Committee on Trade? About a month since we received the usual notice, but as yet no business has been sent to the Committee. I should like to know whether it is the intention of the Government to send any Bills to that Committee; and, if so, what Bills will be sent?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have had the subject in my mind, and if the hon. Gentleman will put a notice on the paper I will make inquiries. I think,

  1673
  however, that I may say that no Bill of any importance will be sent to the Committee on Trade this Session. It may, perhaps, be convenient if I give notice that at the commencement of business to-morrow I shall move a Resolution having for its effect that the Grand Committee on Law do report the Clergy Discipline (Immorality) Bill by the 31st inst.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could not defer that Motion to some day not taken up by such an important Bill as the Electors' Qualification and Registration Bill, to which everyone has been looking forward. Could he not make his Motion on Thursday?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The business on Thursday is even more important than the business on Wednesday. I have no reason to believe that it will take very long, and it will leave ample time for an abstract discussion. I think, on the whole, it would be better to take it to-morrow than on Thursday.
  MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he intends to move the Closure to-night at ten minutes to seven?
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  MR. WEBB: Can the right hon. Gentleman say anything with respect to the Irish Education Bill?
  MR. BAUMANN: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to proceed with the Ordnance Factory Vote this Session, or will the Vote on Account cover it?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No, Sir. The Vote on Account is for Civil Service Estimates only, whereas the Ordnance Vote comes under the Army Estimates. In answer to the hon. Member for Waterford, I cannot mention a day for the Second Reading of the Irish Education Bill, but I hope it will not be long before we are able to take it.
  MR. WEBB: Not before Monday.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not think it can be taken before Monday.
  SIR W. LAWSON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say whether the Government intend to support the Motion if made for Adjournment over
  1674
  the Derby Day, or whether they intend to sit?
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: This is an independent Motion in which the Government, as a Government, take no part one way or the other. I myself shall vote for the Adjournment.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) BILL.—(No. 174.)

    SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment to Question [19th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    And which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    Debate resumed.
    COLONEL NOLAN: The Chief Secretary in his speech last night devoted most of his time to showing why this Bill had not been introduced before; but he had to admit that after five years and nine months of office, and after having passed a Local Government Bill for England and a Local Government Bill for Scotland, the Government had still waited until Lord Salisbury had gone on the stump, and had been ably seconded in the country by the Leader of the House of Commons. They have thought the time good enough to bring in this Bill, when we are under the shadow of an immediate Dissolution. This is not merely the case with Local Government in Ireland; it is also the case with free education. Free Education Bills have been passed for England and Scotland, but we are in the same state of chaos. In fact, Irish Business is jostled and hustled and put off till the last moment till it becomes mixed up with the Dissolution. The Chief Secretary did not say much about the details of the measure, but seemed rather disposed to support himself by the speech of the Member for West

    1675
    Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). He said that speech was a complete defence of the Bill and of all the details, and he endorsed that speech. Therefore, he said that the Government had put a good Bill before the House, and we ought to accept it as a good Bill and a satisfactory solution of the question. I allow that the Irish Members have to show that this is a bad Bill, or a Bill not sufficiently good for us to accept, and I think the manner in which the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) dealt with the Bill was the proper one, to go through it step by step, and detail by detail, and that that course should be followed. The right hon. Gentleman is a shrewd tactician, and he put his best leg forward in this matter. He started by challenging us on the franchise, and asked us if it was not good. I admit it to be a good franchise. He then expressed his own dislike to the cumulative vote, but pointed out that that was not sufficient reason for refusing to accept the Bill. I will give him that point also. It is a somewhat dangerous experiment for Ireland, but you have it in England and Scotland, and it is not a sufficient reason for throwing out the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman also said the Bill was excellent, as it made the illiterate voter vote the same as any other man. His contention was that he did not desire to disfranchise any man, but would compel every illiterate voter to avail himself of the cloak of secrecy. With that I am entirely content, and I do not think there are many Irishmen in this House who oppose it. On the committee on the Ballot Act, at the request of the Chairman, I moved a Motion that the illiterate voter should vote like everybody else. That was for Parliamentary purposes, but it should be extended to County Council elections. There are three ways of voting in Ireland. There is the open voting for Poor Law Guardians, and that is shocking, for the result is that people are set against each other for years, and their votes are objects of contention. Then there is the man who cannot read. Nobody in the booth can ask him if he can read, and, unless he
    1676
    says he cannot, he votes like any other man, and in ninety-five per cent of the cases he could vote as he wished to do. I have spoken to many men on the subject, and they desire that the illiterate voter should not have the privileges he now possesses, but should have the greater privilege that nobody should make him disclose his vote. The illiterate vote at present is practically secret, though the voter does not think so. He only tells his vote to three persons. The presiding officer forgets all about it, the agent is his friend, and the personating agent takes an oath of secrecy, which, if he broke would be raked up against him years afterwards, and if he appeared in a Court of Law it would be said that he had committed legal perjury, so that I think the voter is practically safe. I approve of this secret illiterate vote. But here I part company with the right hon. Gentleman and hardly agree with him in anything else. He declared that the control of the police is not a question of great importance in Ireland, and asked why the County Councils should want it in Clare or Galway, when they had not got it in London. The cases are not analogous. We should be compared with a county like Devonshire in England, or Pembrokeshire in Wales, and there, I believe, the police are under the control of the County Council or a Joint Committee. If this Bill put us on the same footing as England on the question, it would cease to be a grievance. The right hon. Gentleman said the County Councils would have control of all the business managed by the County Councils in England, and in addition the control of woods and forests, county infirmaries, the working of the Factory Acts, and sanitary legislation. Under the Bill the control of woods and forests is absolutely illusory, as any proposal for purchase will have to go before the Joint Committee of the Grand Jury and County Council. As far as the infirmaries are concerned, it will be a slight improvement to have them under the control of some County Authority. As to the control of the working of the Factory Acts, that would be useless in many counties; we have very few factories, but we want to create them, and we would rather

    1677
    watch how you control them in England, and then follow your example. I attach no importance to that part of the Bill. There is some use in sanitary legislation. The right hon. Gentleman said that was the most important part of Local Government. It may be so in a large town like Birmingham, where it affects the health of the whole of the inhabitants; but it is not so important where the people are scattered over a large extent of country. The right hon. Gentleman has a proposal to spend ten millions on sanitary matters in Birmingham, but such things do not occur in Ireland, and we have a fair system of sanitary administration at present by the Poor Law Guardians, who have done their work very satisfactorily. Water has been brought to some of the small towns, and the burial grounds have been walled in; but, on the other hand, there has been a deal of money spent or wasted. If you transfer those duties to the County Council they will have to compensate the old officers and pay new ones; and I do not see how the County Councils would work the sanitary legislation, except through the present Poor Law Boards. The area would be too large for the County Councils, and the Baronial Councils do not sit so often as the Poor Law Boards. I do not, therefore, attach much importance to the question of sanitary legislation for the county districts. The right hon. Gentleman then found fault with us for being angry with the amount of security taken from the the County Councils; he said we were wrong to call out and say that we were insulted by these securities, and that their effect was almost nil, and that under the Acts of 1882 and 1885 some similar securities were taken. Those securities exist now, and we do not much object to them. We do not object to the Councillors being sued if a legal action lies against them, but what we regard as an insult is the insertion of a certain clause providing for the trial of County Councillors; and it is not merely the clause, but the clause coupled with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury. The First Lord of the Treasury is one of the most accomplished speakers and debaters in the House, but his speech
    1678
    on the introduction of the Bill was not a happy one. I do not know if he secretly dislikes the Bill. For an English Member to bring in a Bill containing a clause which is not in the English and Scotch Bills, and to state that if a County Council was found guilty they would be punished, was stating the case with a good deal of brutal frankness; and if we have used rather stronger words than necessary in speaking of the clause, the blame is due to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham tried to soften this down, and said it was quite certain the majority would change the wording of this portion of the Bill, and put another word in place of "oppression." There are a considerable number of Gentlemen who follow the right hon. Gentleman, and doubtless his promise would be effective; but I expect the new word would mean practically the same thing, and that if we proposed words with another meaning they would be rejected. It has been said that Poor Law Boards have been suspended, but they are not such important bodies as the County Councils would be. But, as a general rule, if a Board pays its way, and does not spend too much money, there is not much danger of its being suspended. We protest against the position of the County Council, for the Clerk to the Grand Jury acts as their Clerk, and they would have no control over him, could neither appoint nor dismiss him, and yet he would be there, constantly reminding them that they were acting illegally, and observing the whole of their actions. With this clause the Bill is absolutely useless, and the Councils will have nothing to do. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham declares that only three per cent. of the whole money administered would be out of the exclusive control of the County Council—that 97 per cent. would be in their hands. How on earth the right hon. Gentleman arrived at that conclusion I cannot possibly conceive. If he had reversed the proportions I think it would have been nearer the mark. My own impression is that about fifteen per cent. will be under the control of the County Councils. The right hon. Gentleman made

    1679
    the statement as an absolute fact, but gave no figures to prove it. I will take some of the figures and show that he is wrong. The right hon. Gentleman said—"You are going to appoint all the officers except two, the Secretary to the Grand Jury and the County Surveyor"—there are two Surveyors in some counties. There are only three classes of officers under the Bill. The Clerk is the legal adviser of the Council, keeps all the records, does all the writing, and has control of the general management of the Council. The County Surveyors manage the whole of the roads and bridges, and practically the Grand Jury, or their subordinate tribunals, the Presentment Sessions, control the Surveyors. The Baronial Council is a fine-sounding name, but the baronial constables do nothing except collect the rates; and, so far as I can make out the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, the County Councils are simply to be allowed the appointment of the officers who collect the rates. I am not even certain that they can appoint the baronial constables, because I do not find it in the Bill. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland will give me some information on this point. I believe they are appointed at present by the Presentment Sessions and the county at large, where all the magistrates are present, and the appointments are afterwards fiated by the Grand Jury. But if they can appoint them, that is all the power that is left to the County Councils; the whole management will be in the hands of an official. I have often presided at these Baronial Sessions, and assisted at them. A number of contracts are given out for the repair of roads. We always choose the cheapest tender, but the County Surveyor may object to the cheapest, and if we interfere he tells us he has the law on his side. Practically, we cannot interfere with his objection, and, so far as I can see, these Presentment Sessions have no power whatsoever. We can ask the County Surveyor, as a great favour, to make or repair the roads a little better, and he may say he would do so to oblige us. The Grand Jury have the power of dismissing him, but that
    1680
    power is not to be given to the new County Council, and therefore I say that the whole management of the roads and bridges is left in the hands of the Joint Committee. The County Councils will be entirely in the hands of the Surveyor for the ordinary repair of the roads and bridges. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) is generally very accurate in his facts and figures; but I think he made a mistake when he said that it did not appear to him that the representatives of the Grand Jury on the Joint Committee can fairly be described as landowners, and that they include a number of the largest cesspayers. Practically they are nothing else whatever but landowners. At the Baronial Sessions a number of the largest cesspayers are put on along with the magistrates, but on the Grand Jury there is nothing of the kind. I think the right hon. Gentleman mixed up the two things. The Sheriff has absolute control of the Grand Jury, and, to a great extent, he is limited by custom and precedent. What he practically does is to call the largest landowners. Where there is a titled Peer he calls his eldest son, and sometimes his agent, in his place. Sometimes he calls a Member of Parliament. But I think, on the whole, the Grand Jury is a fair working body. It is not a particularly dishonest body. I have heard that when certain appointments are to be made the Sheriff calls certain members of the Grand Jury who he thinks would be favourable to one side or another. I have heard that when large Railway Companies were likely to come into conflict with the Grand Jury they adopted the course of having some of the Directors belonging to the Grand Jury. I believe it to be true, though there is a difficulty in proving it, that a Grand Jury was actually called to give one company a preference over another. People are not called on the Grand Jury because they are cesspayers, a very large number of the largest cesspayers in the country are left out, and the Grand Jury is essentially composed of the landowners. As to the question of the odd man in the Joint Committee, who is still in dispute,

    1681
    impartial men are not easily got even in England. At any rate, the Grand Jury will have a large representation on this Joint Committee, and under this Bill the County Council will be bound at every step, and in every movement it makes it will find itself stopped by this Joint Committee, and it will be able to take no independent action whatever, except to a trifling extent watching the repair of roads and bridges, but even that only through an officer whom the Joint Committee can dismiss. They will be able to appoint the baronial constables who collect the rates; they will have the collecting of the money, and the Joint Committee will have the spending of it. It may be said that what is proposed by the Bill is better than the present state of affairs. Well, I do not say it is not. There is a certain sort of election, and I do not say that it is not better than the Grand Jury system; but we must remember that we shall have to pay a large amount of hard cash for it. It will take a good deal of money to start it for four or five years. Any Bill, however, will cost money; but why should we go to that expense for a bad Bill at the fag end, I will not say of a Session, but of a Parliament? This Bill is so bad that no change would improve it satisfactorily, unless it were remodelled lock, stock, and barrel. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Armagh (Colonel Saunderson) said he represented the strongest Irish Party in this House, and that they supported this Bill. I have counted them, and I cannot make more than eighteen, including the right hon. and learned Gentlemen the Members for the Universities, and I do not know exactly whether they are under the control of the hon. and gallant Gentleman or not. There are eighty-five Nationalist Members. He has pointed out that they are at present disunited. I am sorry to say that is so, but we are united in thinking that this is a perfectly bad Bill, and I believe that when a really good Bill is introduced we will be united again. This is such a very bad Bill that we could not possibly support it. The Members for Ireland were prepared to give this Bill a fair hearing, and if it had been
    1682
    acceptable to them they would have gone to their constituents and told them this was a good Bill they had got for them, and they would have supported it. But this Bill is so bad that it is quite out of the question. I do not think the Government could change the Bill so as to make it a good Bill. What I ask the Government to do is to make up their minds, when there are eighty-five Irish Members against and only eighteen Irish Members for this Local Government Bill, to pass the Irish Education Bill. Then they can do anything they like with this Local Government Bill. They can pass it or throw it up if they like, but I shall deny the manifestly unfair statement that it is a good measure, equal to those which were given to England or to Scotland.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I have been rather unfortunate so far as this Debate is concerned, having been from necessity absent almost throughout the entire discussion. I am sorry the hon. Member for North East Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) is not in the House at this moment. He said some unkind things about me which were perfectly gratuitous, for I had taken no part in the Debate; and, inasmuch as I am going to speak very plainly about that hon. Gentleman, I should have been very glad if he had now been in his place. The hon. Member appeared yesterday, so far as this Bill is concerned, in a somewhat new rôle. He professed to speak for the whole of the Nationalist Members, and for the Ulster Protestant farmers. He said that this Bill was rejected by the entire Nationalist Party in Ireland, and that it was despised and contemned by the Ulster Protestant farmers. Now, I am not going to challenge the hon. Member's right to speak for the Irish Nationalists—that is their business and not mine—but when he speaks in the name of the Protestant farmers of Ulster I must ask him where he got his mandate and his instructions? The last time that the hon. Member appeared before these Ulster farmers he was ruthlessly driven from the country, and I will now make this challenge to him. We are not far from a General Election, and I am glad of it, and if the hon. Member for North-East

    1683
    Cork has any love for the Ulster Protestant farmers, and thinks that he is their true Representative, I invite him to go back to his old constituency of South Tyrone, and I will undertake to prove not only to himself, but to the country, that the hon. Member never had, and has not now, the slightest title to speak for or to represent that body. He will not, if he goes there, require the protection of the Royal Irish Constabulary—he requires that in Cork—he will not require any protection whatever; the Protestant farmers will deal with him with other weapons; he will be killed with ridicule and with the contempt which he has so richly earned. Any verdict upon the Bill now before the House must depend, I believe, entirely upon what individual Members expected the Bill to be. I can quite understand the disappointment of those Members who thought the Government were going to introduce a Home Rule Bill under the guise of Local Government; and also of those Members who expected that instead of the reform of county administration the Bill was to deal with the administration of Dublin Castle. Such Members have a right to be disappointed with the Bill. It is not a Home Rule measure, or a Bill for the reform of Dublin Castle, but it is precisely according to the pledge given by the Government, namely, that they would introduce a Bill on the lines of the English and Scotch measures. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) thought that it would be a possible Bill if it had proposed to buy up the grass farms in Ireland.
    COLONEL NOLAN: No, I did not say that.
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: At any rate, if that provision had been within the four corners of the Bill, it would have commended itself somewhat to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    COLONEL NOLAN: Hear, hear!
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Yes, but a Bill that proposed such powers would probably not have commended itself to this House, or to the taxpayers of the country; and I do not know what hon. Gentlemen sitting around me, who have almost sworn that they will never give another sixpence for such a purpose,
    1684
    would say to such a proposal as the buying up of the grass lands in Galway or all over Ireland. But what the Government undertook to do was to propose a reform in the county administration of Ireland, and the real question is whether the Bill redeems that pledge. I am bound to say that if the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) intended in his speech to burlesque the Bill then his speech was an exceedingly successful effort. But burlesque is hardly the thing for this House, and I prefer to look at the Bill and see what it really does. First of all, regarding the franchise, let me ask this question of any hon. Member. I do not care what part of the House he sits in. Has the Government redeemed its pledge so far as the franchise is concerned? I put it to this test. I will assume that this Bill passes into Committee. Would it be possible for any hon. Member on this side of the House to move an Amendment that would widen the franchise that is given by the Bill? That is a fair test. If this Bill passed into Committee hon. Members would not be able to propose an Amendment in Committee that would widen the franchise that the Government have given.
    MR. SEXTON: Certainly.
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: If they did, they would take the franchise beyond the franchise that has been conferred either in England or in Scotland. This Bill gives a vote to every cesspayer. You cannot go deeper than that. The Bill gives every cesspayer, whether he lives in a cottage or in a castle, the same vote. I hold that, with such a franchise, it cannot reasonably or fairly be contended that the Bill is not "broad-based upon the people's will." Then, as to the functions of the new body. Let us see what the Government have done there—let us see if they have redeemed their pledge upon that point. In one respect the Bill is better than the English Act—I was going to say it was better than, but it is practically on the same lines as, the Scottish Act. It not only gives County Councils to administer county finance, but it creates District Councils, a thing which has been asked for

    1685
    almost every week by hon. Members sitting beside me. Therefore, upon that point, it is an improvement on the English Bill. As to the functions of the new bodies, I say unhesitatingly that all the fiscal business of the Grand Juries is handed over and transferred to these new bodies. In addition to that, they are at liberty to take over the sanitary work of the locality. They take over the powers relating to the Cattle Diseases Acts, and other Acts of that kind. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Nolan) made light of some of that work. He talked about factories, and asked what was the use of conferring powers regarding factories on a country that had no factories. But the hon. and gallant Gentleman fell into the mistake of thinking that Galway is Ireland. I quite admit that there are no factories in Galway, and it is an exceedingly interesting question how it comes that there are no factories there. But there are factories elsewhere. There are factories in my own constituency, and I do not think it of no importance that the body which has the administration of county affairs should have the control of the laws regulating those factories. I say, so far as the functions of those bodies are concerned, that, roughly speaking, the same powers that were transferred under the English Bill from the English Justices, and under the Scottish Bill from the Scotch Commissioners of Supply, have been transferred to the Irish County Councils, plus this: that there are District Councils in this Bill as well as County Councils. There are four complaints made on this head. The first is that the Bill does not give powers over the police to the County Councils. My first answer to that is that the police were not under the control of the Grand Juries. This Bill proposes to transfer certain functions from the Grand Jury to the County Council. The Grand Jury never had any control, any power, over the Police Force of Ireland. Therefore, what they had not could not be transferred. Then, in the second place, the police, as everybody knows, is a centralised force in Ireland. It is not, and has not been, amenable to local control, and it is certainly a large order to ask that that force, which you
    1686
    refused to hand over to a Home Rule Parliament, should be handed over to a County Council. I say that is a wonderful growth in six years; it is a wonderful piece of procedure, but I do not think that any reasonable man, looking at the state of Ireland during the last thirteen years, can complain that the Government have not proposed to hand over to these Local Bodies the power of the Irish police when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) was not prepared, in 1886, to hand these policemen unreservedly over to an Irish Parliament. The London County Council has no power over the police. The English and Scotch County Councils have not complete control over their police. They have only the control of the police in conjunction with the Standing Joint Committee, and is it to be contended or argued that Ireland is to be the country where this first step is to be taken and where this tremendous experiment is to be made? Is it to be contended that Ireland offers precisely the field that is suitable for this great experiment. I think you cannot fairly ask that Ireland should be the theatre for the first experiment of the kind that you have withheld from the County Council in London, and that you have refused to do and have not done in any English county. The next point of objection is that the malicious injury presentments have not been transferred to the County Council. That is true, but the awarding of sums for malicious injury is not a matter of county administration. It is a judicial, or at least a quasi-judicial function. I do not think myself that the provision to leave that in the hands of the Grand Jury is a proper provision. I should like to see it changed. I should like it to be given to a judicial authority; but I say without the slightest hesitation that the worst possible authority you could give it to would be the County Council. If you handed this power over to the County Council every member of that body would be pecuniarily interested in throwing out every application. It would be to his own personal interest, apart from the interest of his constituents, to throw out every application. Another objection is that the Grand Jury is left at all. Hon. Members

    1687
    think that the Grand Jury ought to have been abolished. But Grand Juries have not been abolished in England; and if this Bill becomes law, the Grand Jury will practically be left only with judicial functions, and all the fiscal functions that they possessed will be transferred. Here, again, I repeat that we are not entitled to make such an experiment in Ireland first. The most important objection of all, however, is the objection dealing with the Standing Joint Committee. The hon. aud gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan) said if that provision and one or two others were out of the Bill he thought he could reconsider his decision to vote against it. I would like to deal with this question of the Joint Committee seriously. The hon. Member for West Belfast, in what I call a speech which burlesqued the Bill—
    MR. SEXTON: In reference to that observation, I beg to say that I categorically and most precisely specified to the House several particulars in which the Standing Joint Committee controls the County Council, and I am prepared to affirm, prove, and justify my contention in every particular here or anywhere else.
    *MR. RUSSELL: I have no doubt of that. I am only giving my opinion of the gist of the hon. Member's speech. In the first place, I would like to say that whatever objection may be taken to the Standing Joint Committee it is distinctly within the pledge given by the Government. It is in the Scotch Bill, and the Government proposed to introduce a Bill on the lines of the English and Scotch measures. Unquestionably the County Council, apart altogether from the question of the Standing Joint Committee, would be able to control the ordinary expenditure, which the Grand Jury now control. That is a great amount of the total expenditure, and the capital expenditure is small in comparison with the ordinary or current expenditure. It was only on the point of capital expenditure, roughly speaking, that the control of the Standing Joint Committee came in. I would ask hon. Members this question. Do they think, does this House think, that there ought to be no control in this matter? Just let us look at who pays the cess
    1688
    in Ireland. Surely taxation and representation ought to go together. We have been deliberately warned, on more than one occasion, that we may create these County Councils if we like, but that they will be captured and held as Nationalist positions. But let me take one instance from the West of Ireland—that of the barony of Castlerea. The total valuation of this barony is £40,534, and the total number of cesspayers in it is 2,600. Now, nine men out of the 2,600 pay one-fourth of the total county cess, and thirty-five more than half of the entire amount. These are precisely the class of men who have very little chance of being elected on the County Councils. Why? Because the Councils are to be captured and held as Nationalist positions. What hon. Members say is that the people who pay the greatest amount of county cess shall have absolutely no representation or control at all, and yet that the large majority of cesspayers who pay the smallest moiety shall have control over the entire cess. Now, I do not see how we can yield to such a demand as that. These people have a right to some reasonable control over the expenditure, but not to the entire control. It has been said that the real reason why the Standing Committee was appointed for Scotland was that the landlords pay half the rate. That is absolutely true; but I have given the case of one barony in Ireland, and that one is only a sample of the whole country.
    MR. FLYNN: Not as to the landlords.
    *MR. RUSSELL: The hon. Member for North Cork is simply drawing a bow at a venture, and making an assertion without any ground whatever. It is true that in Scotland the landlords pay half the rate, but the House will see that in this case the landowners are occupiers as well, and I hold that such men have some right to protection at the hands of the House. I now come to another difficulty connected with the franchise, and it is one to which I should be glad to call the attention of the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton). When this Bill was read a first time I had some doubts as to the usefulness of the cumulative vote. My

    1689
    general idea at that time was that it would give a substantial representation to Catholic minorities in the North of Ireland, and a very unsubstantial representation to Protestant minorities in the South. I have since had reason to change my mind. Take the North of Ireland, for instance, and what do we find? In the County of Antrim, for example, out of a total population of 172,000, excluding Belfast, there are 36,000 Roman Catholics. If we take the County of Down we find that out of 173,000 inhabitants 73,000 are Catholics. There, again, the Catholics are in a great minority, and they would run the risk of not having a fair share of representation.
    MR. SEXTON: In reply to the appeal of the hon. Member, I would say that, in my opinion, the Catholics in the Counties of Antrim and Down would have their share of representation.
    *MR. RUSSELL: I am interested in the testimony of the hon. Member; but I think evidence has been given upstairs on this subject.
    MR. SEXTON: No; the hon. Member must be aware that not a single witness has been called before the Committee.
    *MR. RUSSELL: I will not contradict the hon. Gentleman in regard to evidence which has not yet been reported. My view is that, so far as the cumulative vote is concerned, it is one of the best features in the Bill. A right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench seems to be very much amused in regard to that statement. I do not see why. I do not believe in the divine right of majority representation. It may commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Sir W. Harcourt), but I have parted company with it.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The hon. Member must be referring to a statement of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain).
    *MR. RUSSELL: I am not bound to agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham in everything. I say that, under the special circumstances of Ireland, the cumulative vote is a fair plan to adopt in a measure like this, and that it is not a
    1690
    new plan. In all the School Board elections in England you have adopted it in precisely the same way. Now I come to the question of the illiterate voter. Why should he be placed in such a position that when he goes into the polling booth another person has the power to intimidate him under the excuse that the voter is ignorant and unable to read and write? I do not take refuge in the fact that only a fortnight ago this House passed a Resolution approving of the principle of withdrawing the privilege which the illiterate voters now possess. I only point out that there is no proposal in this Bill for the disfranchisement of the illiterate voter. To disfranchise any man you must disqualify him, and strike his name off the list of voters. Neither of these things is done by this Bill. The illiterate voter is in the same position as other voters. He will be free to go into the polling booth and do what he likes in it. We may be very anxious to court the smiles of the people, but we need not bow down to ignorance. There is only one thing more about which I wish to say a few words. This Bill has been largely discussed on the Second Reading as if it had been in the Committee stage. I do not profess to agree with all its details—I do not care, for example, for the clause giving the Grand Jury the power of dealing with the question of malicious injury, nor for the provisions which make the Sheriff the Chairman of the Standing Committee.
    An hon. MEMBER: He is not to be.
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: He is suggested as the Chairman. As to the safeguards provided by the Bill, I repeat now what I said on the First Reading. I am not able—and if it comes to the vote I shall not be able—to vote in favour of the clause which enables the members of a County Council to be taken before a Judge. I have not changed my mind in the least in regard to that. I think that the present law is sufficient to deal with malversation and corruption, and I would not put the County Councils in such a position. But that is not of the essence of the Bill, and I set very small store indeed upon the declaration of hon. Members below the Gangway with regard to the hostility which they say exists to the

    1691
    measure. I heard such a declaration in the discussions on the Land Bill of 1890. The Leader of their Party then came down to the House and moved the rejection of that Bill, and the whole of the Party marched into the Lobby against it; but in the following year I saw them come back—all glad to get a worse Bill.
    MR. SEXTON: Not glad.
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Well, I may put my own interpretation upon it. I saw what happened in that case, and I now say that I believe that this Bill is a substantially good Bill in principle. I do not commit myself to all its details, but I shall certainly vote for its Second Reading.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It is with some reluctance that I enter into this Debate. It is far more agreeable and satisfactory to me to meet what I may call the imperfect measures of the Government such as we have had in former Sessions and in the present, and to lend my humble efforts towards the improvement of those measures, than to take up the ground of objecting to the whole basis of a Bill and to appear as an opponent to a measure which, in the view of the Government, is calculated to be for the good of Ireland. It is remarkable that we are now debating the Second Reading of a measure with regard to which we have no means of forming a judgment whether it is intended to make a serious effort to pass it into law. However, having the Second Reading before us, and viewing the very important position that this measure holds in respect to the professions of parties, and to the whole policy of the Government, I do not feel that I can avoid taking part in the discussion. It has been said that this is a Bill of a limited scope for the improvement of—the hon. Member behind me said with perfect truth that it makes no profession to do more than to improve—the Local Government of Ireland by means of County Councils, and that it may be discussed upon that basis alone. However, we have to consider of what professions made at a former critical period when the Members of this House received their commission from their constituents this
    1692
    Bill is the solitary and lingering representative. It was not then intimated to us that we were to deal with Irish Local Government upon a basis—as we think we find it here—distinctly inferior to that which has been adopted for England and Scotland. It was not then told us that Local Government was all that the Party which obtained a majority at the General Election was able to offer to the country. Local Government for Ireland, put upon full equality with the Local Government of England and Scotland, was the minimum of the promises that were made by the leaders of Parties, and especially by the leaders of that Party which has made the minority of the Government into a majority, and which has effectively carried on the Government and made possible its existence for the last six years, and which went far beyond the promises of merely local institutions. I speak of the Duke of Devonshire and my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). These gentlemen were not content to say that they offered a good Local Government Bill for Ireland in lieu of the Home Rule Bill. They spoke of everything that was short of an independent Parliament; they spoke of provincial assemblies; they spoke of radically re-constituting the whole Irish administrative system. That was the promise of the new Government. They spoke of a large devolution even of national powers to an Irish Assembly. All these promises have dwindled away in the Bill which is now before us. Take their last—that is, their new—promise; because, by all that is known of it, we shall ultimately have to try this Bill. I take, as an instance as the minimum of what they offered to Ireland, the utterance of my right hon. Friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. He said—
    "Against a policy of separate and uncontrolled executive in Ireland the Unionists set up a policy—"
    [At this point the right hon. Gentleman, being unable readily to decipher the manuscript from which he was quoting, turned to Mr. JOHN MORLEY, saying, "Will you kindly read it for me?" This Mr. MORLEY did, as follows:—

    1693
    "Against the policy of separate and uncontrolled executive in Ireland the Unionists set up a policy of the extension of the power of self-government in Ireland on lines applicable—subject to necessary modification—to the people of England and Scotland as well."]
    That was the declaration on the part of a right hon. Gentleman who certainly never has been distinguished by the liberality of his ideas with regard to Ireland. On the part of the Government of that day, we have the letter of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord R. Churchill), in which much more was stated, because there the local institutions which were to be given to Ireland were to be not only equivalent, but contemporaneous, with the gift to England and to Scotland. And now, after six years, we are engaged in discussing as the entire result of those promises, and of the pledges made before the country in 1886, a Bill which, while undoubtedly it is confined to Local Government, starts from the very minimum of what the most parsimonious among those promisers offered to give, a Bill which in giving that minimum of Local Government, as we undertake to show, stamps Ireland all through with inequality and inferiority, and stamps the gift as less than that which has been awarded to counties in England and in Scotland, and falsifies even the last miserable and contracted relic of those engagements which were offered to the country, and which were taken by the country, as the condition on which the commission of 1886 was entrusted to the present majority in this House. Well, Sir, I must also consider not only what is the Bill offered, but who are those that offer it, and with what accompaniments. We were, at the period of 1886, much disposed to concur in opinions which had been delivered by Lord Salisbury as to the special dangers or difficulties that would attend the foundation of local institutions in a country like Ireland, apart from any source in a local Parliament which might be established in Ireland, and from the control which such a local Parliament could exercise. The people of Ireland have not been sighing and longing during these six arduous years for Local Government, but for something more than Local Government, and this Local Government with which
    1694
    they are now desired to be content—this Local Government is given them in lieu of that larger measure on which their hearts are set. And the very Minister, the head of this Government, who offers to them the Bill now before the House, warns them that if instead of accepting this Local Government Bill they prosecute the object dearest to their hearts, they prosecute it at the hazard, at the certain expense, of civil war, to which that Prime Minister holds the language of distinct encouragement. It is necessary, Sir, that this should be stated in this House, and that I should go so far, with your permission, as to give distinct and definite explanation of my meaning in order that we may know whether those opinions of Lord Salisbury are the opinions of the Ministry at large, or what defence is intended to be alleged or set up on behalf of the use of such language by persons holding such a position. It will be very easy to sustain at length the statement I have made, but I will only give the upshot of the declarations of Lord Salisbury on 6th May. I have with me now the speech reported in the Times on the 7th; and if the fairness of my statement is challenged, I will quote the words of Lord Salisbury and the actual passages of the report. The upshot of the statement was this—that to pass a Bill constituting a Parliament in Dublin, subject to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, is to place the people of Ulster under Dr. Walsh and his political friends; and that to place the people of Ulster under Dr. Walsh and his political friends was one of those excesses of power, one of those violations of understood principle by which all Parliaments and Governments are limited, which would throw the people back upon the rights which they exercised, according to Lord Salisbury, in the reign of James II.; and, finally, that if to maintain the law against rebellion it were necessary in such a case, after the passing of such a law in the Imperial Parliament—if it were necessary to use the Forces of the Crown to maintain such a law against rebellious disobedience—that would be such an outrage as would rend society in two. That, Sir, is the declaration of the Prime Minister—not a prophecy alone—but a distinct en-

    1695
    couragement, if such a law should be passed, to the few misguided men who might be capable of imbibing the dangerous doctrines of the Prime Minister—a distinct encouragement to them to resort to the use of unlawful arms against the constituted Authority of this country and against its deliberate decision. What is the state of the law against which Lord Salisbury thinks such action might be adopted? What is the state of law which is now maintained? It is the state of law established by the Act of Union. What was the condition of Ireland before the Act of Union? It was that of a country governed by a Parliament as entirely separate and as entirely independent as is the Parliament sitting within these walls at the present day. The whole powers of that Parliament were given away; the national life and traditions were made over without even the previous process of a Dissolution—were made over by men who sat within its walls upon their own discretion to another land, to another body; and there indeed—if you can have an excess of power bringing into question the first principles of society—there is one of the most glaring instances of it to be found in the records of history. That offers no difficulty to Lord Salisbury; that was a perfectly regular proceeding, although the supreme power was given away. But should this House—this omnipotent Parliament—should this Institution think fit to exercise its discretion—in what sense?—not in the sense of giving back the supremacy to Ireland, not in the sense of altering the seat of the supreme power, but in the sense of investing Ireland with the control, and independent control of its own local affairs—then, indeed, the foundation of society will be broken in two! Sir, it is impossible to conceive a more perfect contempt for all history, for all political principle, or all practical wisdom or sagacity, than as it appears to me is contained in this declaration. And as I think we have a right to know from the Government whether, in case the Legislature should think fit to give back to Ireland a portion of what we took from it, that law will be a law which it will be the duty of the Government to support, and, in case of need, to enforce against disobedience and rebellion.
    1696
    Those are the conditions on which Irish Members, and on which this. House have offered to them, the stinted gift that is supposed to be contained in the Bill now before the House. But surely, Sir, after such a reduction of promises, after the re-constitution of the administrative system has vanished into thin air, after the exhibition of Dublin Castle as an object suited to call out the horrors of mankind has been entirely forgotten, after even Provincial Councils in Ireland are no more within the scope of the political horizon, at least we ought to expect that this County Government Bill would emulate the Bills for Scotland and for England in generosity and efficiency, and to that last test we have now to subject the provisions of the Bill. I will not go through all the points of controversy in a large and complicated Bill; but what I see in endeavouring to analyse it is this: that Her Majesty's Government have been hampered by the recollection that there was to be some relation or other between the Irish Local Government Bill and the Bills for England and for Scotland. Consequently, they had gone searching here, there, and everywhere for something in the nature of a precedent that might abet their aim in restricting the already dwarfed measure that they were about to produce to the House. Well, Sir, in these Local Government Bills for England and Scotland, and here and there in our legislation, there are of course a number of doubtful enactments, and there are some, in my opinion, of unquestionable unwisdom. Wherever that is the case it has been carefully adopted. Not only has it been made to do duty as a precedent; but in carrying it over to Ireland it has been magnified, it has been exaggerated, it has been applied to new subject-matter, it has been stripped of every limitation and safeguard that qualifies the mischief it might do in this country, and then it is offered to the Sister Island as the final boon of a generous Government, and as a fulfilment of the promise of 1886. Let us look at these cases and see how they stand, because it is better not to dwell upon a great number of instances. And the first case I take is the case of that

    1697
    provision of our law which has fixed the boundaries of electoral divisions by an authority extraneous to Parliament. So far as I recollect, in our various Reform Bills that has always been found necessary. Parliament has not absolutely fixed, in the first instance—but it has been done by subsequent Act—the actual outlines of the several electoral divisions. There is a principle taken from English and Scotch law, from the Parliamentary law of the country, which enables us to say that we may give some discretion outside Parliament in fixing the divisions of the counties that are to exercise the franchise under the present Bill. Here I will make one reference to the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. T. W. Russell). He says, with perfect fairness, that the franchise is a very wide franchise; but let me say that the width of the franchise most essential to a good popular Constitution, where it is accompanied with other provisions, is worthless unless those other provisions are supplied to make sure that the franchise, when it has been exercised, shall lead to a well-organised system of proper and adequate results. You will find no more extended franchise, I believe, than the franchise which determined that Louis Napoleon should be Emperor; but upon that aye or no the whole virtue of the Franchise was exhausted; and though there can be no objection to it in point of width, there are great objections to it in point of efficacy. The efficacy of this franchise depends, first of all, upon the manner in which it is to be given, and the very first of all, upon the mode in which the counties are to be marshalled and to be divided for the purpose of electing County Councils. And what does the Bill say upon that subject? And how does it stand in connection with the English precedent? In the English precedent every electoral division is fixed by Parliament. Then for the determination of the boundaries strict rules are laid down, and, finally, the applying of those strict rules to the facts of the case is a task entrusted to an impartial and a non-political authority. How stands that function in the present Bill? It is handed over bodily to the absolutely unlimited
    1698
    and arbitrary discretion of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He is to divide up the counties—the Bill does not say into how many divisions, nor does it say that they are to be made relative to the population. He is under no restraint whatever as to the size of these divisions, as to the number of people they shall contain, or finally as to the number of representatives in a County Council, which it is in his power to commit to them. He may go through the five counties of Ulster where there is a Roman Catholic majority, and he may in any one of those counties so manipulate the divisions that a large number of the County Councils must be returned, I will not say hostile, but, at all events, opposed to that Roman Catholic majority. There is no limit to his discretion. He may make a division here of 50,000, with two representatives, and a division there of 5,000, with five representatives. The whole of this Bill, by that one provision as it now stands, absolutely places at the command of the Lord Lieutenant—for the purpose of enabling him, if pleases, to destroy the whole effect the Bill as a Bill enfranchising for the purposes of Local Government—the population of the counties of Ireland. So much for the case of the boundaries. It will be observed, then, that there is a precedent for calling in the aid of an extraneous authority; and while we invoke so far its countenance, we studiously cast aside and throw overboard all the limitations which make the exercise of that authority safe and convenient, and we constitute an absolutely unlimited power in a manner which cuts at the very root of this Bill, by enabling the Lord Lieutenant to defeat the whole purpose of the Legislature. Then, Sir, I take the next of the three precedents which I intended to touch upon—that is, the dissolution of an elected body by a non-elected authority. And here I must give myself the satisfaction of paying a just compliment to the speech of the hon. Member behind me (Mr. T. W. Russell), who has just sat down. He has shown by that speech and he has shown, I think, on other occasions, if he will forgive me for saying so, that he can stand a good deal, but there are

    1699
    some things which he cannot stand; and it does him honour, as it gives me satisfaction to record that this provision for the dissolution of the County Councils upon the dictum of two Judges is more than he can endure, and he intends to offer to it a stout resistance. That provision, however, is a vital part of the Bill. In the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Irish Attorney General (Mr. Madden) I observed that the epithet "vital" was introduced, and, I think, repeated at the particular portion of his speech which immediately preceded the provisions about the Joint Committee and the provisions about the dissolution of the Councils, and I think the hon. Member will have to look out in order to see that he can with safety exercise the liberty which he has promised to himself to put in use, or he may find he is in the condition of disturbing the foundations of this great Administration and endangering the unity of the Empire. And how do we stand with regard to this principle of dissolving an elected body? It appears to me that this is a very serious affair indeed, and the precedents which exist are, in my opinion, open to some questioning in themselves. As far as I know there are two precedents—one of them in Ireland with regard to the Boards of Guardians, and the other in England with regard to the School Boards—where provisions are undoubtedly embodied in a law for the dissolution by an authority that is non-elective of a body which is elective. Well, Sir, how do these stand? In England a School Board may be dissolved at the discretion of the Education Department for certain offences, and likewise for failures of duty, which I must say are described in rather large and loose words, which I have difficulty in justifying. But when a dissolution of a School Board has been effected, what takes place? A re-election. But there is to be no re-election of a County Council in Ireland by the same constituency after it has been dissolved. The Government have before them the precedent of the School Board where the large and loose words of power to dissolve are accompanied by a stringent provision for re-election by the same popular constituency, yet here, as in every other case, they cast aside the
    1700
    good part of the enactment, and adopt the bad. They make the large and loose words far larger and looser still; but they abandon the safe and salutary provisions of the Education Act of 1870, which requires the re-election of another School Board by the same constituency. Then take the case of the Boards of Guardians. Precedents in Ireland are not entitled, perhaps, to very great veneration in themselves. But what is the case of the Boards of Guardians in Ireland? They can be dissolved by the Local Government Board. I admit the Local Government Board cannot be considered as an impartial civil authority. It partakes of a political colour, because it is, I believe, under the control and discretion of the Chief Secretary. But that is not all. That power of dissolution, even of Boards of Guardians, must be exercised upon conditions that are rather strictly defined. They can only be dissolved either for not holding meetings which are recognised by the proper authority, or for default of the purposes contemplated by the Act. So that the meaning of that is that the Guardians are dissolved by summary process for not having conformed to the conditions of the Act of Parliament, instead of being subjected to the more cumbrous process of being dissolved by the Courts of Law. But what I want to point out is that in the case of the School Boards, where the words are large and loose, but are covered by the provision for re-election, the re-election is cut out and the large and loose words are retained. In the case of the Boards of Guardians where there is no re-election, where the Executive Authority steps in and appoints paid officers to discharge the business of the Poor Law, they perform exactly the same process in principle, with a complete inversion in form—that is to say, they retain the portion with regard to reelection, but they part with the loose words that confine within limits the exercise of the prerogative of the central authority. That, Sir, I affirm is the manner which all through, so far as I have been able to examine, the precedent is not used but abused. It is transformed, transplanted, misapplied, it is given to new subject-matter, and

    1701
    everything that keeps it within safe bounds and limits is dispensed with in order that provisions, really quite new, may be presented for the acceptance of the people of Ireland. I must say another word, apart from the question of precedent, on this dissolution of an elected body. In the first place, it appears to me as if these provisions had been devised by men who, strangely enough—I cannot account for it, I cannot and do not impute it—intended, and who have acted in such a way—a way that this must be the result—to deter every man with a grain of self-respect from entering the County Council. I should like to know how many gentlemen in this House, be they Irish, English, Scotch, or Welsh, would consent to enter into County Councils liable to be hauled up before two Judges, possibly two ex-Attorney Generals, who never said one word in all their political career except in antipathy to the interests and feelings of the people of Ireland. But apart from that, and granting that they were the best Attorney Generals, how many men would consent to sit on a body liable to be hauled up before such a tribunal? Would the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) or the hon. Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) sit upon such a body? Why, Sir, I think too well of them both to believe they would for a moment entertain such a proposal—a proposal which has never found its way within the precincts of this country, and which never in the whole vicissitudes of political affairs will be heard of in connection with the Government of Great Britain. Is it to be laid down as a general principle that the Judges outside the law are the persons best qualified to weigh the propriety or impropriety of the discharge of administrative offices. How did they acquire that capacity? Whence does it come to them? I heartily admire those efficient provisions of our system which are given to the Judges to compel every civil and administrative officer, however high his position, to conform to the requirements of the law; and therefore, with regard to the punishment of corruption on the part of a Council Council, my one observation is that I cannot conceive why a new provision
    1702
    is requisite. With regard to malversation, I am not quite sure what it means, but putting on it the most favourable construction, it means, of course, a departure from the fixed intentions of Acts of Parliament, and, if so, why is a new provision requisite? The whole pith of this new provision lies not in corruption and not in malversation, but in that undefined word "oppression," which may be inflated, twisted, magnified, or tortured into anything and everything that prejudice may suggest. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) said in my hearing last night that it would be quite easy to provide a definition of oppression. Why has he not tried his hand at it?
    MR. JOSEPH CHAMBERLAIN: We are not in Committee.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It would have been a great consolation if the right hon. Gentleman had shown us in what way he would define oppression, inasmuch as this is no Committee matter, but it goes to the root and heart of the Bill. I observed that the right hon. Gentleman come out yesterday as a man equipped with a large store of legal learning, because although he did not profess to give a legal opinion on his own part concerning the Bill, yet he told us what the lawyers would say, and he was able to do that because he is a better lawyer than they are, or at least quite as good. But I was astounded to hear him say he could define oppression quite easily. Why has no one done it? Is it not the first requisite of all conditions of freedom that the law shall be defined? Why are we to have a new form of Brehon Law introduced into the Bill, and why is not this most necessary definition of oppression to be supplied? The Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Madden), a very competent Gentleman, I need not say, was ready to supply a legal definition.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. MADDEN,): I was not. I was answering a speech addressed to the House by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton), whose only observation on this provision was that he declined to argue the point. Therefore, I had

    1703
    nothing to answer in connection with this matter.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That is perfectly true. But the Attorney General's duty, as the organ of the Government explaining this Bill to the House, ought not to have been limited to a mere reply to particular points mentioned by an hon. Member. Besides, the right hon. and learned Gentleman cannot avail himself of that shelter, because he complained of the Member for West Belfast for having declined to impeach this provision, and he said that, although it was not impeached, he would proceed to define it. Why did he not do so with that which most of all wants defence—namely, the audacity—I hope that is not too violent a word—which has led to the introduction into an Act of Parliament in a country where, as we are told by the Government itself, excited feelings prevail, of a new word absolutely undefined, and capable of being applied, unless defined, to suit purposes of prejudice, passion, and malignant animosity in any and all the shapes which, in a distracted country, from time to time they may assume. So much on the subject of the dissolution of the Councils. Now, I come to the question of the Joint Committee, and here the old rule holds. Everything in the nature of a precedent, or what could be made to seem so in England or Scotland, has been adopted as far as it was bad, and has been set aside so far as it was good. I am not now going to enter a debate on the larger principles to be fought out on future occasions between the right hon. Member for West Birmingham and the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan). But it may be interesting for the right hon. Gentleman to know that in his absence to-day his computation respecting ninety-seven per cent. of the county expenditure being subject to control of the County Councils, and three per cent. being exempt from that control, has been by the hon. and gallant Member, with some detail and care, nearly turned inside out, and, as he contends, it will be far nearer the truth to say that three per cent. will be subject to the control of the County Councils, and ninety-seven per cent. not subject to their
    1704
    control. But I will not enter into that, because I wish to come to the illustration of what I think is the main proposition in this Debate—namely, the manner in which the promise to apply equality of principles to Ireland as compared with England and Scotland, has been, as I say, entirely disregarded and abandoned. The Government were determined to introduce into this measure the question of a Joint Committee. The hon. Member for North Longford (Mr. Timothy Healy) did not understand why there should have been a Joint Committee at all, and I certainly have not heard any adequate argument in favour of it. But still there are Joint Committees in England and Scotland. Let us see whether they afford any precedent or supply any real guidance for the constitution of Joint Committees in Ireland. I take the English Joint Committee, and I begin by complaining on the part of a very large minority of this House that in our view the Joint Committee in England is altogether bad. It was objected to and was resisted by us to the best of our ability, and I firmly hope and firmly believe that the time is removed from us by a very few months when there will be a House of Commons disposed to make very short work indeed of these Joint Committees. I have no right to complain that the Government should have passed their Bill in that form, because they made a fair declaration of principle. But what is the English Joint Committee in England? It is limited to the single function of taking care of the police. That is not at all what we believe in, but it would have been a great deal too much to expect that the Government should offer us anything in the nature of a substantial attempt at decentralisation in Ireland. There is nothing in the nature of an attempt to invest the people with the control of their own local affairs in their own local centres, and I admit that would have been too much to expect of the Government. It would have shown that we do not at all understand the spirit of the majority with which we have to deal. But I observe that the Joint Committee is extended from one function to a vast range of functions

    1705
    of the most vital consequences. The Joint Committee in England has one good point, and that is that it is fairly constituted. Its balance is good. There are seven County Councillors and seven Magistrates, and there you have an example of a fair balance. They meet and fight it out and come to some arrangement or accommodation. Why do you not allow the Irish to do the same? No, the one feature in the English Joint Committee—namely, that of a fair balance of parties—is studiously thrown over, and the English precedent is upset before it is transplanted into Ireland. Then we have a Scotch precedent, and there the function is more extended. In Scotland the Joint Committee exercises a control not only over patronage, but over capital expenditure, which is a control nearly as extended, I suppose, as is proposed to be given to this Irish Joint Committee. Yes; but why? Because in Scotland the landlord has paid his rates as the occupier on the land that he has occupied, and has paid half the rates on the land that he does not occupy. And, therefore, he has a very large and direct interest and is recognised as a separate authority, and is entitled to separate representation. In Ireland he pays nothing, except in cases comparatively trifling. With the exception of a very small portion which is occupied by the landlord, the land is let and the landlord does not pay the county cess. In Scotland there is a preservative and a safeguard, for a judicial officer sits and holds the balance between the representatives of the landlords and the representatives of the County Council. That is a good provision, a safe and conservative provision, and as a matter of course it is thrown overboard in constructing the Bill of the present Government. So that as you go along from point to point whatever provision is against the people is adopted, and whatever secures the exercise of power in their favour, and the due and equal representation of the people is entirely cast aside. Then the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham and the Attorney General for Ireland, with the gracious assent of the First Lord of the Treasury, say that if we can find an
    1706
    impartial man the Government will be prepared to accept him. But it is not our business to amend the vital faults in the proposals of the Government. We must estimate the Bill by the provisions it contains, and not from appeals made by them to independent Members of this House to do what they ought to have done themselves. It is all very well, but what is the promise that has been made? What if we can find an impartial man, they will let him in. But are they bound to take as an impartial man the one whom we propose? No; objection will be taken to our impartial man by the majority, and no doubt the objection will be allowed to stand. And what is the arrangement as it stands? By dint of adopting what is bad, and excluding what is good in the Scotch and English precedents, you constitute a Joint Committee in Ireland, and that Joint Committee is provided with a standing majority to support the separate interests and class views of the landlords against the representative body that you are engaged in constituting. But there is one provision still more extraordinary in this Bill, touching on the business of the Joint Committee, as to which I can entertain no doubt as to the meaning of the words. Of course my construction as to the legal position may be wrong, because I have not the legal attainments of my right hon. Friend. What are the powers of this Joint Committee in respect to the overtures or proposals that it receives from the County Councils? Are they powers of simple assent or dissent? No, Sir. They may not merely assent or dissent; they may assent in whole or in part, and they may assent absolutely or conditionally. That is to say, the County Council may prepare provisional bye-laws or plans for the government of county affairs.
    MR. JACKSON: Not bye-laws.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That is merely a question of name; call them what you will. What do you call them? Give me the right name. The plans or proposals—call them what you like—go from the County Council to the Joint Committee for their approval. What are the Joint Committee to do? Not merely to assent or dissent,

    1707
    but to amend them as they please, to cut out what they please, to put in what they please. They may alter the whole financial conditions, and when they have done it what happens? As I read the Bill, the plan or scheme so altered takes effect and becomes law. (Mr. JACKSON expressed dissent.) It is very well to shake the head, but the words you will find are these—
    "That without the assent of the Joint Committee the plan of the County Council shall not take effect."
    MR. JACKSON(reading):
    "The capital expenditure of the County Council, if not assented to, shall be invalid."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I beg pardon. Those are not the words at all; they are not near the words. The assent of the Joint Committee is necessary in the sense that the proposals shall be invalid without it. But if they are invalid without it, I presume they are valid with it. Is not that so? They are valid when they have got that assent, and what is that assent? It is not an assent simply affirming the plan or simply rejecting it. It is an assent which may alter the plan, which may take one part of the plan and throw aside another, which may insert in the plan what conditions the Joint Committee please, and then, forsooth, the plan becomes valid. And this is the splendid and munificent gift of a liberal, popular, and local institution which is to give the Irish people control over their own affairs. Then it is said there ought to be protection for the minorities in Ireland. The Attorney General has read some words from a speech of mine in 1886. I adhere to those words, but their whole relevancy depends upon the provisions in reference to which they are spoken. What is the meaning of a Government when they say that minorities ought to be protected? The meaning of the Government is that minorities ought to be protected by having the majorities delivered into their hands. By providing for that minority you set up a standing majority in behalf of that minority to put down the majority, to whom you profess to be giving this emancipating Bill. That is not what we mean by protecting the minority. Then it is said it is necessary to protect
    1708
    the large cess payers. If you want to protect the large cess payers, then why do you not say so? Are they not the grazing farmers? What common interests have they with the landlords? Though we have no such provision in this country, if you think there is a necessity to protect the large cess payers, protect them, but protect them by putting power into their hands, and not by enabling the Sheriff of the county to nominate a group of landlords who are to look after their own interests and the interests of their own class, under the pretence of being the representatives of the large cess payers. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken must have felt that there was a vital flaw in his argument when he referred to the great cess payers. It might, perhaps, be equitable to make a special provision on their behalf, but this is not that provision. This is not a provision for large tenants, but for landlords, and the position of the landlords is just as distinct from that of the large tenants as their traditions, their class, are distinct from the case of the smaller tenants. Then, Sir, the most plausible argument, I think, that has been made on this part of the Bill is that the control of the Joint Committee only applies to new expenditure. Well, Sir, what I am afraid is that in Ireland almost the only expenditure that we care about is new expenditure. The essence of the Irish complaint is that the legitimate wants of the country have been systematically neglected by Grand Juries, and if that is so it is vital to a good plan of Local Government that popular influence should have fair scope, even in regard to new expenditure. No; you establish a standing majority of landlords against the whole popular influences. You have no such provision in England. In England the whole of the property of the landlord is dealt with by the County Councils, freely, without limitation. You introduce not only limitation, but a nullifying limitation into Ireland, and then you say you are giving Ireland the same institutions as to England, subject to necessary modifications in detail. It is not difficult to make intelligible the nature of my general objections to the Bill, and I shall spare the House further

    1709
    discussion of details, though I must confess I am very much tempted to enter upon one of those particulars, namely, that of compensation for malicious injuries. It was a singularly infelicitous reference by the right hon. Gentleman to a very distinguished man—he meant Lord Melbourne—when he said that the quotation was the remark of a serious statesman. Lord Melbourne was a man of very great weight, and, in my opinion, in some important and vital respects, was a model of what a Prime Minister ought to be. But, considered as a practical reformer, the right hon. Gentleman ought to know Lord Melbourne had been educated under another system, and had grown up and acquired the habits of his mind before there had found its way into representative institutions any fit sense at all of the needs, wishes, or rights of the people of the country. Considered from that point of view, Lord Melbourne was one of the worst instances the right hon. Gentleman could have quoted. He said Lord Melbourne made use of that unhappy expression in regard to one of the greatest measures of the century, in which the interests of humanity and justice were more than almost ever before concerned, and the right hon. Gentleman quotes that as his reason and authority for leaving alone the present established arbitrary provision for compensation for malicious injuries which has been, in my opinion, most grossly misapplied. Well, Sir, this is my complaint. This Bill purports to be the redemption of a pledge for giving to Ireland local institutions substantially equivalent to those of England and Scotland. Professing to redeem that pledge, it has a number of points in which there is an apparent or avowed reference to English and Scotch precedents. I think I have shown in each of those cases which I have quoted, and they are all vital cases, that what is good in the precedent is left out, and what is bad in the precedent is maintained, aggravated, and misapplied. And this refuse of legislation is a great boon, to signify the generosity of Parliament, its adequate sense of Irish wants, and its disposition to outbid Nationalism and Home Rule by professing to give Ireland something
    1710
    more acceptable and beneficial! With regard to the use made of these precedents the Government might as well do this. A man who is to give an entertainment might send round to every house in the neighbourhood and ask for the bones, the waste, the refuse, and the washings, and put them altogether and serve them up to his guests as the banquet on which they were to feed. That is a jest in this country, but according to this Bill it is no jest in Ireland. It is the reality of the case that is before us. What I feel is that this Bill has conferred on the Liberal Party in this country one obligation—a great obligation—it tends to clear the issue. It gives the people the power of measuring and determining exactly what was the value of the great and splendid promises of 1887. If they are misled with evidence like this before them, it is their own fault; but they will not be misled. They have arrived, and have shown that they have arrived, at a tolerably fair estimate of these proceedings, and if anything is needed to complete the process this Bill undoubtedly will supply it. What I find, Sir, is that this measure in all its provisions is everywhere marked from one end to the other with the stamp of inequalities—inequalities adverse to Ireland, whether it is a large question or a small one, an old question or a new one. Go back with me to the period of the Union and to the arguments then used. The opponents of the Union entreated the ruling party not to do away with the ancient historical institutions of Ireland, not to sacrifice its national life, but to give some scope to the action of freedom within the limits of the country; and what was the answer made? The answer made by the more candid supporters of the Union was: It is true you are losing much, you are sacrificing your Parliament; you are surrendering your traditions; you are losing much of that which you cherish in your heart's core; but look at the enormous advantage that you are going to attain. You are going to attain a position in which you will have, and have for ever, and have irrevocably, under the seal and stamp of the greatest and the most upright country in the world, absolute equality of laws with Great Britain.

    1711
    It entered into the famous quotation of Mr. Pitt—
    "Paribus se legibus ambæ
    Invictæ gentes æterna in fœdera mittant."
    The equality of laws was the soul and essence of the speech of Mr. Pitt. It was the one, and as he thought the only, adequate compensation that he tendered to Ireland for the sacrifices she was called upon to make. Where is that equality of laws now? How is it represented by the present Bill? Are we to say that Ireland is wrong in rejecting this Bill? No, Sir, the stamp of inequality for the people is the brand of degradation, and if Ireland were capable of accepting as a redemption of pledges made to her a measure bearing that stamp, she would be unworthy of the high hopes and aspirations she so long has cherished; she would be unworthy of the great men who have led her in times of adversity, and she would be unworthy of the happier and better destiny which, as we trust, believe, and, so far as the future is open to us, are convinced and know, she is about to accomplish.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down excels those who have spoken on the same side of this question in this Debate in authority, in vigour, and in eloquence, but he excels them also in one other peculiarity, which is, that he has thought fit to drag into a controversy that should by right have been confined to the discussion of a particular measure of Local Government for Ireland, considerations wholly alien to that measure. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman began his speech by offering a challenge, in form, to the Members of the Government by asking them whether they did or did not agree with Lord Salisbury in certain observations the Prime Minister made in a recent speech in regard to Ulster. The right hon. Gentleman himself was pleased to denounce those observations; he described them as incitements to rebellion, and as observations, not only that no Member of the Crown should give utterance to, but as unworthy even of a law-abiding citizen. I have a good deal to say about the Bill, and shall
    1712
    not long detain the House on this point, but I will briefly respond to the challenge the right hon. Gentleman has thrown down. I have sent for the extract of the speech of the Prime Minister to which reference has been made. I find that Lord Salisbury advanced three propositions. The first proposition was that it would be a gross act of public immorality to place Ulster under the heel of the rest of Ireland. With that proposition I beg to associate myself in the fullest manner. The second proposition advanced by Lord Salisbury was that if an attempt was made to put Ulster under the heel of the rest of Ireland, Ulster might not improbably resist by force. Sir, that is a question of what is likely to occur. Lord Salisbury thought it likely to occur; I think it likely to occur. But he offered it, and I offer it, merely as our own forecast of what might probably happen. The third proposition of Lord Salisbury was that if Ulster did resist, and that if an attempt was made to put down the resistance of Ulster by the British standing Army, then, in Lord Salisbury's own words, "an outrage would be perpetrated which would rend society in two." With that proposition also I associate myself. I note that right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who conceive that they are shortly to be sent back to power for the purpose of passing a Home Rule Bill which would put Ulster under the heel of the rest of Ireland, contemplate as a probability that has to be faced that Ulster will have to be coerced by the British Army. It is no abstract or academic question in their minds. It is a question of practical politics. It is a question of what will probably occur, and I note that in the opinion of right hon. Gentlemen the result will—
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman says that that is my opinion. I have not said one syllable to that effect. I deny it. The words that I used were that I believed the very few foolish people whom Lord Salisbury might act upon would not resort to force.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the right hon. Gentleman was of opinion that under no circumstances would the British Army be required to put down

    1713
    Ulster, I cannot conceive why he got into such a fury of righteous indignation on a purely abstract question. It is easy enough to see through the protestations of right hon. Gentlemen opposite the uneasiness which possesses their souls. They know well enough that this question of Ulster cannot be lightly set aside, and their vehement expression of indignation is merely the external sign of that interior disquietude which naturally assails them whenever they contemplate face to face the problem with which the Prime Minister was dealing in the speech to which reference has been made. I pass from this question—which I frankly admit appears to me, if connected at all, to be connected only by the remotest links with the Local Government Bill—to the criticism which the right hon. Gentleman was pleased to pass upon that Bill. Now his first attack upon us—and, in fact, the special attack of all those who have spoken against the Bill—was this, that we have not carried out the pledges that we gave with regard to Local Government in Ireland. I entirely deny that statement. I maintain that this Bill fully carries out every pledge that has ever been given on the subject. The right hon. Gentleman quoted—and quoted perfectly accurately—various utterances which had for their object to show that when we dealt with the question of Local Government in Ireland we should deal with it on the same general principles which had been adopted in England and in Scotland; but I say that we never—that no Minister that I ever heard of pretended for a moment that the Bill to be applied to Ireland should be identical with either the Bill applied to England or to Scotland. Identical with both it could not be. But surely every statement upon a broad question of that kind must be qualified by the view that the Bill must be suited to the particular circumstances of the people with whom it has to deal; and you cannot transfer bodily from one condition of things to a wholly different condition of things a long and elaborate statute. I have already touched on this policy of the Government more than once since I have been Chief Secretary for Ireland, and I believe that on every single
    1714
    occasion on which I had to deal with it, I foreshadowed the fact of the difference that there must be between the two Bills, which undoubtedly arises from the condition of Irish society when compared with the condition of society in England and Scotland. Perhaps the House will pardon me, and I may be permitted to read from a speech which I made on 5th June, 1889, at Portsmouth. I then said:
    "I am in favour of extending Local Government to Ireland. I hope to bring in a Bill to extend Local Government to Ireland; and I say you must follow with regard to Ireland the same course of action as must be followed when you are dealing with other countries. You must fit your Local Government to the needs and necessities of the country with which you are dealing."
    My noble Friend the Member for Paddington (Lord R. Churchill) has been quoted over and over again in this Debate as having announced that Ireland was to be dealt with on the principles of similarity and simultaneity. He did announce that, and he announced it with the authority of the Cabinet, of which I was not then a Member.
    MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: Equality?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Yes, equality. But my noble Friend could not have intended to represent by that that we were to be tied down to the dead level of a uniform enactment when dealing with a condition of things so absolutely different in the two countries. I believe I have listened to every speech, or almost every speech, delivered in the course of this Debate against the Bill; and upon my word I do not believe a single statement was made by any speaker, a single hint was given by any controversialist, that the condition of Connaught and of Munster was not as the condition of Midlothian or Kent. I do not believe that one single word was dropped from any hon. Gentlemen opposite to show that Ireland has been rent in twain by controversies, the bitterness of which cannot be comprehended in this country, and that one of the favourite weapons of the parties on one side of the controversies was especially directed against the social and material destruction of a class.
    MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: Which side? Your side?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman who has been good enough to interrupt said yesterday in his speech, "We are as good as you are, and we are as bad as you are." I do not in the least desire to enter upon a minute examination as to on which side the scale of virtue falls; and if the moral merits of Ireland be compared with the moral merits of England, I do not say Ireland is worse. What I do say is that Ireland is different; and I do not see how that proposition can be denied. We all live a Party life. Party feeling is the breath of our nostrils. We are all Party politicians. We belong to Party. We are all accustomed to Party controversies; and that which is a mild attack in this country is a virulent and fatal disease in Ireland. It attacks the Irish constitution with a violence of which you have no conception. Even friends in Ireland, when they do fall out, use language to each other which would quite stagger the more steady-going politicians on this side of the Channel; and when that occurs with people who yesterday were friends, and who will be friends to-morrow, how much more must it occur in these perennial, or, at all events, long-standing differences which have divided creeds, races, and strata of society in that country? The right hon. Gentleman did not hear at question time the question asked by the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Sexton) dealing with a case, of the merits of which I know nothing, but a case in which the hon. Member for West Belfast stated that gross tyranny and outrage were practised by Protestants in Belfast against a Catholic boy in that town.
    MR. SEXTON: Produced by your speech.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I have made no speech which would in any way justify anything of the sort, but even if it were true, would not that prove my case? I have never had it attributed to me that my oratory had such an effect in any other part of the United Kingdom; and if it has produced a result of that kind it must have fallen on a curiously
    1716
    prepared soil. I say if you listen to Irish gentlemen sitting on that side of the House when they explain the kind of outrages to which Catholics are subjected in Belfast, just as when you listen to Irish gentlemen sitting on this side of the House when they are explaining the outrages to which the small minority in the South and West are subjected, you will then have brought practically home to you that there are divisions in Ireland, and modes of political warfare unknown in this country, capable of the grossest abuse in Ireland; and if a statesman ignored their existence in any Bill of this kind he would show himself utterly incapable of government. It is not merely that Irish society is divided in the way I have described which required us to make special provisions in our Bill, but it is that in large parts of Ireland the economic condition of the people is wholly different from what it is in other parts of the United Kingdom. I am glad to say, except perhaps in a corner of the North West of Scotland, you get nothing at all resembling the condition of things which meets you face to face in the South and West of Ireland. There you have an enormous number of small occupiers, small cottiers, paying annual rates of threepence, fourpence, sixpence, or tenpence, who have unfortunately had from time to time to be aided by the establishment of relief works out of public funds, and who are therefore accustomed to look for employment on such works as roads and bridges for obtaining the means of satisfying their needs. These men, if it was not for the provision of the Joint Committee, which I shall refer to more particularly presently, would be absolutely able themselves to vote for the relief works on which they were going to be employed. The minimum wages paid on the relief works would be ten shillings a week. The head of a family would thus earn in one week seven times, fourteen times, twenty times that which he would pay for the whole year in county cess. And then you say these people pay the rates, and surely you must trust them. I pass from these general considerations, which never seem to have occurred to the minds of the right hon. Gentleman or any of the other critics of the Bill.

    1717
    But before considering the particular provisions by which we have endeavoured to meet the exceptional state of society in Ireland, let me say one word about the criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of the boundaries. He began his attack on the Bill by saying in substance, "You have so arranged matters that the Lord Lieutenant will be able to jerrymander." He did not use so vulgar a word—"to manipulate for Party purposes the districts, and arrange the areas within your counties—proceedings which you never attempted with regard to England or to Scotland." What we have actually done is this. As was stated by my right hon. Friend yesterday when we were framing the Bill, we instructed the Registrar General, the head of the Ordnance Survey in Ireland, and the head of the Irish Local Government Board, to draw out a map of Ireland divided into districts, mainly with these two directions—that the area should be convenient in size, and that under no circumstances was the boundary of a barony to be cut; and the scheme so prepared will be submitted to Members at a later stage of the Bill. If—which I do not in the least contemplate—the arrangement is objected to, of course some other plan can easily be devised by a Commission or otherwise. But there is no use in settling this until we have settled what scheme of representation we should have. We have framed the Bill on the plan of the representation of minorities by the cumulative vote. That requires Ireland to be divided into areas returning fifteen members each, about the size of a School Board. If you are going to have the single Member constituencies which the hon. Member for West Belfast desires, you must have a different system; and it is premature (though we have our plan ready, and will submit it to the House later on before passing the Bill), to propose it as an effective scheme until we see how the clause establishing minority representation has been dealt with in Committee. I pass, however, from that small point to the more important issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman, and I will take them in the order in which he dealt with them. The first clause which he dealt with was that empowering two
    1718
    Judges to dissolve a County Council; and here the right hon. Gentleman applied a method of criticism which he applied in turn to all those special purposes, in which he says, "You found an English precedent and yon have taken what was bad in it and have left what is good." This particular English precedent which he seems to have conceived as illustrative of his proposition is the English School Board. He said—"It is true the Education Board has power to dissolve a School Board; but then it has to elect another. You have left that precedent behind in dealing with Ireland, and in Ireland practically no second election is required." The right hon. Gentleman has been ill-coached in this matter. He has made two mistakes. He has made a mistake, as I understand it, about the Irish question, and he has made another mistake about the English precedent. It is not accurate to say that the locality can be permanently disfranchised by two Judges.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I do not say permanently.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Well, the force of the right hon. Gentleman's arguments seemed to carry that conclusion, but I am far from desiring to attribute to him words which he did not use. I would, however, remind the House that under the Bill the maximum time that a County Council which is guilty of corruption, malversation, and oppression can be dissolved for is three years. What is the case with an English School Board? The right hon. Gentleman appears to be under the impression that as soon as an English School Board is dissolved a new election is to take place. That is not the fact. It is precisely the reverse of the facts, and so far from it being necessary to have a re-election at once there is absolutely no date stated in the Act of Parliament at which there need be an election at all, and it is actually in the power of a Department—a creature of the Party opposite—in England to dissolve a School Board, say in London, representing, by an absolutely democratic vote, five millions of population—it is actually in the power of a Parliamentary Education Department to dissolve that Board, and there is no power of compelling them to have a

    1719
    new election at all. And this is the precedent that entitles the right hon. Gentleman, after a critical examination of the Bill and of the precedents from which the Bill may have been derived—that entitles him, in his opinion, to say that we have taken from the English precedents all that was against the people and left all that was in favour of the people. But I should like, on this point, to ask the right hon. Gentleman another question. He turned to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), and to his hon. Friend the Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings), and said: "Would you serve upon a Board which could be dissolved in this kind of way? Would your self-respect permit you in any circumstances to put yourself in a position in which you might be brought up before two Judges, and would you belong to a body which might suffer dissolution at their hands." It appears to me that no man's self-respect hitherto in England has been thought to be interfered with by his serving on a School Board. And why are Irishmen supposed to be gifted with so much sensitiveness of character that what Englishmen can stand at the hands of a Department they cannot stand at the hands of two Judges of the High Court? Then, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman attacked the particular machinery by which this dissolution is to be effected. He told us that these Judges are not competent, and that even if they were competent, we have given them a law to interpret so vague and so general that nobody can interpret it. I am not wedded to that tribunal, though I believe it to be the best tribunal. But to say that the Judges are not specially competent to deal with matters of fact in these cases appears to me to ignore the whole value of judicial training.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: What about oppression?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman interjects the word "oppression." He seems to think—I do not know who has given him the information, probably the same person who gave him the information about the School Boards—that the word "oppression" has never been the subject of legal disquisition or definition before.
    1720
    He is wholly misinformed on that matter. I can assure him that "oppression" has been the subject—as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland did state the other day—has been the subject of legal discussion and definition; and it appears, so far as I understand the matter, to be precisely the sort of oppression that was contemplated by the writers of those legal text-books that we have to think of now. It is perfectly true that, in society as it has been constituted up to this time, oppression was most likely to occur—if it occurred at all—at the hands of magistrates and other non-elected persons endowed with great power. You have substituted for them really elected bodies and government by majorities. Henceforth, oppression, if it occurs, will be oppression by those majorities. And why I am not to apply to them the same legal acumen which has not found it impossible to deal with the question of oppression, not by elected bodies but by magistrates and other high authorities, I do not know.
    MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: Where are the words taken from?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am correct in my statement with regard to the legal text-books, but the hon. Member must not press me too far with these legal points. I think he will find that I have not in any way misled the House. Then, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say "these vague powers you hand over are capable of indefinite extension, and may be malignantly used." There were other strong epithets which escaped me, but "malignantly" I preserved. I confess I am wholly unable to place myself in the frame of mind of the gentleman who thinks it natural and probable to expect that a Judge will use the powers entrusted to him with malignity, and who thinks it incredible that a majority of an Irish County Council should ever do the same thing. The only people who can err in Ireland are the Judges of the High Court; the only people who may be attacked without hurting the susceptibilities of the Irish Representatives are the Irish Judges. I confess it seems to me the plan we have adopted—by which, instead of giving the powers

    1721
    of dissolution to the Local Government Board, as is given in the case of Board of Guardians, or to the Education Department, as is given in the case of School Boards in England, we propose to hand them over to two Judges—who, if they do not fulfil all the qualifications which hon. Gentlemen would like to see in them, are, at all events, the most impartial authority which, even they will admit, exists in Ireland—it seems to me this plan is far better and far safer, and far more in the interests of impartial administration. The special justification of this clause is what I have before adverted to. It is the undoubted fact that one Party in Ireland, and largely represented in this House, have steadily announced their intention of waging social warfare against a class, as a means of obtaining their political objects. They do not deny that. They do not deny that they have professed that doctrine; they will not deny that they have done their best to carry it out, and it is lunacy to ignore the intention which they have expressed, and to give over the class which they publicly announce their intention of ruining absolutely unprotected. I pass to the Joint Committee. Here the right hon. Gentleman applied the same old argument that he had already used with regard to the Judges and the School Board. He says—"You have taken the English and the Scotch precedent; you have magnified in it all that is obnoxious, and you have removed all that is beneficial." I deny that. I observe the right hon. Gentleman carefully abstained from touching on the case of the Scotch parallel, but he dealt at great length with the case of the English parallel.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I mentioned fully the Scotch parallel.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman says he mentioned fully the Scotch parallel. If it was on the Scotch parallel he based his facts, he must be as ignorant of the Scotch Act as he is of the Education Act. The parallel between our clause and the Scotch clause is absolutely complete in every substantial particular, with the single exception that the Sheriff of the county is taken as one of the ex-officio members, while in Scotland there is a judicial officer.
    MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: Who pays the rates?
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will come to the payment of rates presently. With regard to the Sheriff, I have really nothing to add to what I stated on the introduction of the Bill. I then, in the most open manner, told the House that this was a part of the provision I was not fully content with; and I said that if another and a better plan could be suggested I should be glad. How has the right hon. Gentleman replied to that? The right hon. Gentleman says—
    "It is not our business to help you in this Bill. It is your business to make a good Bill of it."
    Then what is the use of the Committee stage in this House? What is the use of all those offers of assistance which the right hon. Gentleman has given us when he likes a Bill, and which he refuses us when there seems to be some political reason for rejecting a Bill? Was there ever such a reason given as that for rejecting a Bill on the Second Reading—that we have not been able to find in the organisation of the Irish County Councils any person qualified to take the place of the Sheriff? I think it is a blot on the clause, but that surely is no reason for departing from the whole practice of Parliament, and rejecting the Second Reading of the Bill. I think it will require something much stronger than a mere colourable excuse to lead the House to reject the Bill. It is perfectly true, as has been admitted, that in Scotland half the rates are paid by the landlord, and that in Ireland the landlord does not pay the cess. But the right hon. Gentleman glided very lightly over what was said by the hon. Member for Tyrone, who referred to the case of nine landlords—was it not?
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Yes, nine landlords.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Who are in occupation, and who pay it.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Yes, to that extent.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There are many cases where the landlords as occupiers pay the largest—an enormous portion—of the whole county cess. But we base our contention on something

    1723
    much more fundamental than the fact that here and there the landlord is the biggest cesspayer; and here I may express my regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby has left the House. He is fond of dilating upon this topic. I do not propose to argue the point with the right hon. Gentleman, for the facts of the case are simple enough. If you impose a rate in an agricultural county the occupier will pay that rate until the terms of his occupancy are revised, and he will not have the same permanent interest that the landlord has. In England it is different, because, as the House knows, a tenancy will go on for generations without any modification of the rent. We all know what happens. The tenant continues to pay. In Ireland the rents are revisable every fifteen years, and not only is it the practice of the Fair Rent Courts to take account of the amount of the rate, but, by a decision of the Queen's Bench, they are compelled to take it into account, so that every tenant who at the end of his judicial term goes into the Court may have the whole of the rate thrown upon the owner. No human being will deny that it is fair to give the persons who bear the permanent charges some voice in the determining of what those charges shall be. Is it not possible that, where there is an enormous mass of small ratepayers who may desire public works not generally required by the wants of the community, an attempt might be made to throw very heavy burdens on the landlords which they would be unable to bear? That is not a new argument. It has been advanced by every speaker on this side of the House, but no answer has been attempted on the other side. It was used by the right hon. Gentleman by my side, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian never touched it. It never occurred to him that such an argument existed. I believe that the case of the Joint Committee is absolutely unassailable, and that the same considerations which induced the House to establish it in Scotland will justify its establishment in Ireland. I have detained the House at great length, but I think I have gone through all the objections which have been raised against the Bill. I want
    1724
    to know what they come to after all? The Member for West Leeds, who spoke on Thursday night, examined this Bill with a microscopic eye, and he found that every clause bears trace of the desire of the First Lord of the Treasury or of the Attorney General to limit the powers of the County Councils, and to heap insults on the Irish people. As a matter of fact, the greater part of the Bill is identical with the English and the Scotch Acts. Certainly, nine out of every ten clauses, sentence by sentence, will be found to be taken verbatim from the Acts already passed for England and Scotland. It is also a fact that this Bill confers powers on Ireland which never have been given to England and Scotland, but which I hope will be given. It gives absolute control over every county officer but two, and if it were worth while I would explain why they are excepted. Thus most of the officers and the whole of the work done by the Grand Juries—far more of the work than was transferred by the English and Sctoch Acts—are transferred bodily to the Irish County Councils. Why, then, has this Bill been opposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite? Are we to place any faith in the thin and futile pretence that this Bill is an insult to the Irish people? Are we to suppose that practical men will reject this measure, will refuse to give it further consideration, on this flimsy pretext founded on two or three clauses of the Bill? A much better reason must be found, and I think a much better reason exists. The vacant laughter and inarticulate indignation with which this measure was met at its first introduction have now been slowly translated into something of the nature of argument, and to what does the argument amount? It amounts to this—that here and there, in a Bill of seventy-three clauses, there may be found provisions which hon. Gentlemen think might be modified with advantage. My belief is that it is not because they think the Bill is an insult that they reject it. It is because they believe that the Bill will not serve the purpose which they hope to effect. They have made the most explicit statements, the most frank statements—because frankness is one of their chief merits—as to the way in which they intend

    1725
    to treat a Local Government Bill. They are not going to treat it as a Bill for establishing Local Government. They are going to treat it as a ladder by which to climb to Home Rule, and possibly through Home Rule to separation. If they have been frank as to the object they desire to attain, they have been equally frank as to the methods they desire to adopt. They have never made it a secret for the last ten years that the methods by which they intend to wring from reluctant Radicals the granting of Home Rule were by disorder and the oppression of a particular class in Ireland which they have the power to afflict—the ruin of the landlords, the expulsion of the landlords, the destruction of the landlords—these are the familiar topics of their eloquence when in Ireland—these are the avowed methods by which they hope to succeed. The reason why they have changed their views on that subject and are now anxious to reject this Bill on the Second Reading and to prevent its discussion in Committee is that they clearly see, whatever else it will do, it will do nothing for them in the direction of Home Rule. The difference between us on this side of the House and those who are on the other side of the House is two-fold. We do not desire their objects, and they do not desire our objects. Their object is Home Rule; our object is Local Government. We sincerely believe that Local Government may be made a great boon and a great blessing to the population which knows how to use it. We desire earnestly and sincerely to confer this boon upon Ireland. They are perfectly indifferent whether it is conferred or not—they do not value it because it helps to Local Government and confers a very great boon on the population. They do not value it a pin for these reasons, and they reject it without scruple. They value it, or they did value it, before they saw the provisions of the Bill. They did not set the least store on what the Government were going to do for Local Government, but they thought it might be made an instrument of torture for further extracting Home Rule. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian said that one benefit, at all events, that this Bill conferred
    1726
    upon his Party was that it cleared the issue. It has cleared the issue. As far as in us lies, at all events we have made it clear in the last six years what the whole policy is of which this is but a fragment, though an important fragment. We have endeavoured in the clearest manner to show how we thought the true interests of the Irish people were to be attained, and how all the benefits, and more than all the benefits, we have been able to confer upon England or Scotland could be conferred by the Imperial Parliament upon Ireland. So far we have endeavoured to clear the issues. So far we have shown of what our broad policy, of which this is an element, really consists. It rests with the right hon. Gentleman to clear the issues on his side. The country knows by acts, by deeds, by legislation which have been accomplished, by legislation which has been most sincerely and earnestly attempted, what it is we desire to do. What the right hon. Gentleman desires to do no human being knows. And if we have done our part, as we have done, to clear the issues, all we can ask him is to do his part; to lay before the electorate of the country in the same plain, unmistakeable outline, the policy which he desires to see adopted.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I rise to explain. The right hon. Gentleman has made a great point against me of being totally ignorant of the Education Act; and, in his own elegant expression, he said I had been badly "coached" in it. The question is, who has been badly coached in the Education Act? I quoted Section 66 of the Education Act of 1870, and I believe that section is still in force. I suspect that the right hon. Gentleman has been deluded by some too rapid informant who has examined some other enactment which did not deal with the School Board at all. The enactments about the School Board in this 66th section are precisely as I quoted, and the House will judge as to the correctness of the right hon. Gentleman's statement when I read, to save the time of the House, only the middle part of the section, which I think is sufficient—
    "And after the date fixed by any such order the then members of the Board shall be deemed to have vacated their seats, and a new election

    1727
    shall be held in the same manner, and the Education Department shall take the same proceedings for the purposes of such election as if it were the first election."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR(reading):
    "Where the Education Department are, after such inquiry as they think sufficient, satisfied that a School Board is in default as mentioned in this Act, they may by order declare such Board to be in default, and by the same or any other order appoint any persons, not less than five or more than fifteen, to be members of such School Board, and may from time to time remove any member so appointed… After the date of the order of appointment the persons (if any) who were previously members of the School Board shall be deemed to have vacated their office as if they were dead… The members appointed by the Education Department shall hold office during the pleasure of the Education Department."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman has not told me what he has quoted.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The 63rd section.
    MR. GLADSTONE: My statement is perfectly accurate.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: The clause of the Bill—("Order!") I have a perfect right to speak.
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman was not called upon by me. Before the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian rose to make a personal explanation I had called upon the hon. Member for East Mayo.
    MR. DILLON: In the speech of the right hon. Gentleman we have had a most instructive example of the bias which affects the mind of his Party in dealing with the Irish people. Right hon. Gentlemen have been appealed to as to whether there might not be brought about so great a crisis as to rend society in twain, and to render it necessary to employ coercion and the Forces of the Crown against the people of Ulster. For my part, I have not the slightest fear that it will become necessary to employ either coercion or the Forces of the Crown against the people of Ulster, except in the streets of Belfast, on the 1st July next. What was the great horror which the right hon. Gentleman conjured up? He said that in his judgment, as well as in that of his illustrious relative, it was perfectly possible that the people of Ulster might resist by force the will of this Parliament. But are not
    1728
    the people of Ulster as much bound to recognise the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament as we are, and if it be no crime for Ulster to deny the supremacy of this Parliament and this Crown, why are we denounced for a crime of which we have not been guilty? But there is this further consideration. The right hon. Gentleman, pursuing the path marked out for him by the Prime Minister, denounced in most unmeasured language the horror of placing the people of Ulster under the feet of their fellow-countrymen; but is there no compunction on that side of the House at the keeping of the whole population of Ireland under the heel of the small and corrupt minority in Ireland? When we are told with wild alarm of the consequences which might result if the minority of the people of Ireland were placed under the control of their own countrymen, we are prompted to ask why hon. Members see no illiberality, no wrong, in placing the vast majority of the people of a country under the heel, not of the people of Ulster, but of a corrupt and exceedingly small minority who grasp at that Government for no other reason than their own financial advancement. What there is to be afraid of is that on the 1st and 12th of July the streets of Belfast will be reddened with the blood of the people of Ulster and of Her Majesty's soldiers who, in spite of what is said in this House, will be obliged to turn out and shoot them down on those days as they have done before, in 1886. The Leader of the House went on to declare, with that audacity which is all his own, that the Government had redeemed every one of the pledges that had been given. I wonder if the right hon. Gentleman was present in the House in 1886, when in the course of a Debate on the Estimates—I think it was the Vote for the Board of Works in Ireland—the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord R. Churchill) interrupted me in the course of a speech and requested us to abbreviate the Debate, on the ground that before that day next year we should ourselves have the control over those matters in Ireland. We do not seem to be any nearer having that control than we were six years ago. In alluding to the social war which

    1729
    had distracted Ireland for so many years, did not the cause enter into the mind of the right hon. Gentleman? Is it from the exercise of legal liberties that class has been divided against class, and that all those troubles have arisen? Is it not from that system of placing the majority under the heel of the minority? He points to the system of the Government against which we are struggling as a reason why this misgovernment should not be changed; but I say that if weight were to be given to arguments of that character, no reform could ever be carried out in Ireland. It is impossible to get rid of these social disturbances and symptoms of social disorder, until you remove the disease that gave birth to them. There is one more point in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; he repeated an extraordinary statement which on a former occasion I challenged him to prove. He brought forward, as another reason for the difference between this Bill and the English Bill, the inferior economic condition of the Irish people. He made the statement that in the South and West of Ireland there is an enormous number of small occupiers paying annual county cess amounting to fourpence, fivepence, and sixpence only. Now, the county cess in Ireland varies from one shilling to two shillings in the pound, and so, even incases where the rental is only £2, £3, or £4, the county cess amounts to half a crown and up to five or six shillings. While it is perfectly true that in some districts a large portion of the cesspayers would pay a very small sum—but something very different from what the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned; I should think it would always exceed two shillings—I may inform him that to these poor people a penny is more than £10 or £20 would be to him. The right hon. Gentleman endeavoured to give force to his argument in this way: He said the County Councils would be called upon by these poor people to start relief works, and that they would thereby be able to earn seven shillings a week by paying a few pence in cess. The fact is, it would be impossible to place any considerable proportion of people on relief works, because, if any attempt were made to
    1730
    start relief works on a liberal scale, the small cesspayers would be the first to raise an outcry against it. Now, I should like to say a few words on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), who sought to give us a great deal of instruction on this subject. The right hon. Gentleman on this occasion laid aside his usual offensive and aggressive manner and adopted an entirely business tone. He told us he approached this subject with a large experience of municipal matters, and that he was, therefore, entitled to indicate the proper way in which to govern Irish counties. Well, I have not been Mayor of Birmingham, nor a Town Councillor, and therefore I would not for a moment enter into a controversy with the right hon. Gentleman as to the best way to conduct the affairs of that great Municipality; but I think it is a singular illustration of the frame of mind of men like the right hon. Gentleman that because he has had experience in conducting the municipal affairs of Birmingham he thinks he is entitled to lay down the law with regard to the way of governing Mayo and Kerry. Although I have not had experience of municipal affairs in England, I think I know something more as to what are the burning questions of the Irish rural districts than the right hon. Gentleman. One illustration that occurs to me in connection with his speech is this: He spoke of the Sanitary Acts, and he said that in his judgment one of the most important duties for Local Governing Bodies to perform is the administration of the Sanitary Law. I have no doubt that in great Municipalities like Birmingham, and Glasgow, and Manchester that is a burning and most important question. But in Mayo and Kerry, and similar districts, the administration of that law is not a burning question; and although good might be done, no doubt, in certain districts in this direction, it is absurd, and characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman, to put it in the forefront of a Bill like this. Take the case of the rural districts in Ireland. The only proper course to take in administering the Sanitary Laws there would be to knock down every single house

    1731
    and re-build them. How can you administer the Sanitary Laws where there is only one room with a thatched roof? I should like the right hon. Gentleman to go and try to administer the Sanitary Laws in my constituency. If he did make that attempt I think he would come back a sadder and a wiser man. Well, Sir, there is a sadder aspect of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman than these smaller questions I have alluded to. He reached the last stage in the long record of his broken promises to the people of Ireland in the speech he delivered in this House yesterday. One would have supposed, to have listened to him yesterday, that his hands were free from pledges and promises. But what has been his record? He has pledged himself to the hilt to give a system of Local Government to Ireland only short of what was proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone). In 1885 he sketched out a scheme of the most advanced character, and published it with the full authority of his name. In 1886 he solemnly repeated again and again, as one of the leaders of the Liberal Unionists, that while he was not willing to go the whole length proposed by the right hon. Member for Midlothian, yet if the Home Rule Bill were rejected he would give a measure of Local Government far in advance of anything England was prepared for, and in speech after speech he declared he fully recognised the fact that the peculiar circumstances of Ireland demanded from this House a far wider and more extensive system of Local Government than anything the English people cared for. Not content with all these speeches he brought forward that well-known proposal, published in 1888, by which the proposed Council for each province of Ireland would have very nearly all the powers that would have been conferred on the Central Parliament by the Home Rule Bill. In spite of all these pledges and promises, the right hon. Gentleman was not ashamed to come down to this House yesterday and make a speech in support of a Bill which not only denies to Ireland all those wide privileges which he had promised to extend to it, but which,
    1732
    furthermore, seeks to place the Irish people in a position of great inferiority to the people of England. Then we listened to a long story from the Chief Secretary for Ireland stating what legislation this Government have carried out for Ireland, and expressing his conviction that it had redeemed every single pledge given to the Irish people. Well, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to place a limit on the audacity of Ministers in this respect, but how it is possible for the Chief Secretary to affirm that the Government have redeemed their pledges on this question of Local Government in the face of the events of the last six years, surpasses my comprehension. The Chief Secretary told us that Bills had been passed to make light railways and for land purchase in Ireland, and other admirable things. But that is not what the Government undertook to do for us in 1886. The pledge they gave to us was that they would introduce a Local Government Bill which should be a substitute for the Home Rule Bill. It does not matter whether the legislation passed by the right hon. Gentleman has been good or bad, the fact remains that the pledges given by the Government have been shamefully broken. Once more I must affirm our position. It is not true that we have opposed, obstructed, or sneered at any good measure proposed for Ireland. The policy I have always advocated, and shall continue to advocate so long as we cannot get and until we get full right to deal with our own affairs, is that we should take every bit of good legislation we can worry out of this Parliament. What we have done and what we shall continue to do—and experience has taught us it is the only way to get any good out of this House—is this, that when measures of a faulty and deficient character are brought before the House, then we criticise them and endeavour to amend them. I say and I maintain that the criticisms we have offered to measures introduced by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors in office, every blot or weakness we have indicated, every amendment we have proposed has been justified by subsequent experience of the working of the measure in Ireland. It is untrue to say that we have sought to

    1733
    defeat measures which contained even the germ of good for the people of Ireland. We have done what we could, and sometimes with considerable effect, to criticise in the most strenuous way evils we have found, and we have exposed unsparingly all the weaknesses we have discovered in legislative proposals. I do not propose to go into details of this Bill: it is now too late to do so. Here I have in this pamphlet what may be called the "Bible," the sacred scripture of those who promote this Bill, and from this pamphlet hon. Members opposite draw their quotations. Here I find the boiled-down opinions of the ascendancy party in Ireland, and here I find set down by the Loyal and Patriotic Union the dangers of Local Government against which the Government are warned. First we are told that in the giving of contracts undue favour will be shown to the personal friends of members of the Councils. Here is a case if ever there was one of Satan reproving sin. What has been the past history of Local Government in Ireland? It is one mass of jobbery from beginning to end, under the appointments made by Grand Juries. Then it is alleged a danger will be that the County Councils will appoint incompetent men to offices under the Council. Could absurdity reach a higher point? Is it not perfectly notorious that, except in the case of County Surveyors, the competency of a man has been the last consideration in the appointments made by Grand Juries? Is it not notorious in the past history of Poor Law Boards and Grand Juries that the one thing which brings Magistrates from any distance—even from England—to attend a meeting is the scent of a job of any kind? Is it not grotesque to have such warnings now, knowing as we do that the past history of county administration is a record of the most scandalous and outrageous jobbery? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) quoted the cases of certain Poor Law Boards suppressed under a Liberal Government; but I repudiate the idea that the cases in these Poor Law Unions can be taken as fair samples of local popular administration in Ireland, because these suppressions arose for the most part
    1734
    not from causes of corruption; they had their origin in the disturbed and distracted condition of the country. I affirm, without fear of contradiction, that in direct proportion to the increase of popular control over Local Boards has been the decline of corruption and jobbery. I might illustrate this by a reference to local administration in Dublin, contrasting the administration at the present day with the time when control was in the hands of the "loyal minority." But it would be idle for me to attempt to go into details with the impatience of the House for the impending Division. I object to this Bill because it is an imposture upon the people of this country; because I do not wish to see the Government going to the constituencies with a lie in their mouth. I do not wish to see them doing as they did the last time, when they carried the verdict of the country on a false and misleading issue—when they appealed to the electors to give them power to grant equal laws to Ireland and to govern without coercion, and when they were returned they broke all their pledges and destroyed our liberties. I object to the Bill because it is a gross falsification of the pledges given to the people of Ireland, pledges confirmed and endorsed by the leaders of the Unionist Party. I object to the Bill, because if it should pass into law it would be one more object lesson to the people of Ireland to put no trust in British faith. I object to the Bill because it is an illustration of the way in which when we ask for bread, you give us something worse than a stone; because, when we ask for some institution which would serve as an organ by which we could give expression to our national life as a nation, which, though small, is as distinct from your own as that of one nation can possibly be from that of another; when we ask for some institution to give expression to our national life, and to restore contentment to our distracted country, we are told by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) we may clear out the cesspools of some country villages. I object to the Bill, because it is an attempt to take advantage of the present dissensions and

    1735
    distractions in our Party, to put the Irish people off with a miserable imposture, and because it will leave a legacy of evils to those who come after us.
    Question put.
    (6.45.) The House divided:—Ayes 339; Noes 247.—(Div. List, No. 139.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Thursday.
    It being after Seven of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER suspended the Sitting till Nine of the clock.

  EVENING SITTING.
    MOTIONS

      CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (DISESTABLISHMENT AND DISENDOWMENT).
      RESOLUTION.
      DR. CAMERON: The Resolution I propose to bring before the House is to the following effect:—
      "That, in the opinion of this House, the Church of Scotland ought to be Disestablished and Disendowed."
      To understand the Disestablishment question in Scotland it is necessary to appreciate the position which the Established Presbyterian Church bears to the Presbyterian religion in Scotland, a position entirely different to that of the Episcopalian Church towards that religion in England and Wales. In England the Episcopal Church—certainly it is the case in Wales—may embrace but a minority of the population; but in both cases the Church is co-extensive with, and practically embraces, the entire population professing the Episcopalian religion. In the case of the Episcopalian Establishment, assuming the postulate—which I do not, except for the sake of argument—that Episcopacy is the true faith, and that it is the duty of the nation to support the true faith out of the national funds, a case can be made out to support that Establishment. But in Scotland the case is wholly different. The Scottish Established Presbyterian
      1736
      Church is not only confessedly the Church of a minority of the population, but it is also only one of three great Presbyterian Churches. Many years ago the Free and the United Presbyterian Churches seceded from the Establishment, in consequence of the interference of State restrictions with what they considered, and what the whole Church of Scotland pronounced, to be vital points of faith. For conscience sake they left the Establishment, relinquishing its privileges and endowments, and at unparalleled sacrifices they built up alongside the Establishment a magnificent ecclesiastical organisation which is doing precisely the same work as the Established Church—doing that work as well and as efficiently, and without State support. Now, since 1843, the date of its foundation, the Free Church has expended twenty-one and a half millions sterling in founding and maintaining its churches, and the United Presbyterian Church since 1847 has expended twelve millions on similar objects. These sums, making together thirty-three millions sterling, make twice as much as the entire revenue of the Established Church from the public funds, local contributions, Church rates, and teinds during that period. These non-Established Churches embrace a portion of the Presbyterian population of Scotland, which, even on the admission of the Established Church, is not very considerably less than the number within the Establishment; and, on our contention, based on statistics of church attendances and contributions to religious work, these non-Established Churches embrace a larger portion of the Presbyterian part of the population than the Establishment does. Their revenues are ample; their zeal and activity are unquestioned. During the past eighteen or twenty years these non-Established Churches have seen the Establishment availing itself of its privileges and endowments to sap their foundations and lure away their flocks. Year after year the Free Church and the United Presbyterians have been forced to denounce the continuance of the Establishment as unjust, inexpedient, a standing menace to the voluntary churches, an offence to the consciences of a large number of Presbyterians,

      1737
      and as detrimental to the cause of religious peace and unity in Scotland. The question in Scotland is not only whether it is right that a single denomination should monopolise State support, but whether the churches which have grown up outside the Establishment, professing the same faith with it, should be left to work out their destiny without State interference, or whether the resources and patronage of the State should continue to be enjoyed by a single branch of the Presbyterian community for the discomfiture and disintegration of the other two branches. Of course, the question in Scotland, as elsewhere, concerns not merely Presbyterians; it is a question of religious equality, in which every citizen is concerned. Independently of the large body of United Presbyterians who hold that all connection between Church and State is wrong and inexpedient, there are in Scotland twenty five or thirty per cent. of the population outside Presbyterian bodies, and on what grounds and on what principle of justice are these taxed for the support of a creed the teachings of which they disapprove? We hold that the revenues arising from teinds are just as much national property as the subsidies by Parliamentary grants or the revenue raised by local rates, and their allocation to a single branch of one religion can only be defended on the same ground as subventions raised by taxation direct and avowed. These revenues from public sources are mere fractions of the revenues of Presbyterianism in Scotland. If members of the Established Church were to combine with that liberality which distinguishes members of the Free Church and the United Presbyterians there would be no difficulty in making good any deficit that might arise through the cessation of public endowments. As a matter of fact, in a considerable number of cases where the Established Church is most vigorous and flourishing, it is self-supporting, and Disestablishment and Disendowment, if they came to-morrow, would there create no appreciable disturbance of the existing state of things. It may be said these endowments are necessary for the poorer districts. But it is precisely in
      1738
      those poorer districts that State interference has been found useless. This is notoriously the case in the Highlands. I could, if time permitted, give a list of a dozen parishes in the Highlands with a population of 16,000 inhabitants and only sixty-three communicants of the Established Church kept up at the cost of £8 or £10 per head for a miserable minority of the population. The people in these parishes are strictly Presbyterian, but they belong to the Free Church, and have nothing to do with the Establishment. Speaking on the Bill introduced in 1886 with the avowed object of inducing the Highland parishes to abandon the Free Church, the hon. and learned Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay), who is about to move an Amendment to my proposal now, epigrammatically stated the case in these words:—
      "In the country districts of the Highlands the endowed Church had no people, and the people's Church had no endowment."
      The hon. and learned Member desired to rectify the anomaly by endowing the Church of the people, but we believe it is a far more just plan to disendow the Churches which have not the people. Now in these Debates, though I do not know that it is very germane to the question, the question of the true tenets of the Free Church on the doctrine of State Establishment continually crops up. In vain the Free Church, by resolutions year after year, pronounces in favour of Disestablishment and Disendowment. We are told that position is inconsistent with the creed of the Free Church; and in the discussions on the Bill I have referred to, my hon. and learned Friend quoted the opinion of counsel to the effect that—
      "Anyone who did not hold the Establishment principle rejected an essential part of the constitution of the Free Church."
      Well, if that is so, then the Free Church must be more deeply committed to that principle than the Establishment from which it sprang, for in the Campbeltown case—"Smith v. Galbraith," decided in the Court of Session in 1839, shortly before the disruption—the Court laid down in most emphatic terms that the

      1739
      doctrine of State Establishment never had been the doctrine of the Church of Scotland. In support of that decision Lord Meadowbank, a great authority on ecclesiastical law, and on this subject in perfect accord with his brethren on the Bench, in the course of his judgment said—
      "The argument of the pursuer rests, first, on the proposition that it is an essential part of the faith of the Church of Scotland that the State shall maintain and endow that Church for the religious instruction of the people.… On that point I entirely concur with the views which your Lordship has so luminously explained. I never heard that, spiritually speaking, it ever was required in the Established Church that the principle of an Established Church in connection with or endowed by the State should be professed as an article of faith. Sure I am that not a word having any tendency to such a doctrine is to be found in any one of the recognised Confessions of Faith promulgated by the Church from the period of the Reformation down to the present hour. On the contrary, the whole history of those tenets, which our Church has ever maintained, is hostile to such a principle."
      Then he goes on to quote the Confession of Faith recognised and enforced by Parliament, 1567, cap. 3, which, he says—
      "Is utterly and entirely repugnant to any such principle."
      It may relieve the minds of those who profess to see an attack made upon the tenets of the Church by such a Motion as this to know, on the highest legal authority, the decision of the Court of Session, that if Disestablishment and Disendowment should become law to-morrow not a single principle or tenet of the Established Church would suffer the smallest hurt or damage. Now, in the Amendment which stands in the name of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Finlay), and indeed in all the Amendments, with one exception, it is asserted that Disestablishment and Disendowment would not be consonant with the wishes of the Scotch people. My hon. and learned Friend will doubtless base his statement upon the statistics of Petitions presented to this House against Mr. Dick Peddie's Bill. But many of these Petitions were analysed and their worthlessness demonstrated at the time. I will not enter into the matter further than to say there is no Ballot Act existing in connection with Petitions and no Corrupt Practices
      1740
      Act to prevent a man signing as many Petitions as he likes. But we have had two General Elections and many bye-elections since that date; and when we are told of large numbers of members of the Free Church and of the United Presbyterians having signed these Petitions in favour of Establishment, we may set against these the resolutions passed by the General Assembly and the Synod year after year in favour of Disestablishment and Disendowment, and we may also retort, by asking why, with these Petitions, indicating such numbers in favour of the Establishment, do they not make their views felt by the Members returned to the House? In 1887 Lord Hartington stated that the question was one that should be decided according to the desires of the Scotch people themselves, and that whenever the Scotch people made up their minds upon the question, the Liberal Party would be prepared to deal with it on its merits. My Resolution has been three times before the House in two successive Parliaments. In 1886 there were for every three Scotch Members in its favour only two against, and on the second occasion there was an absolute majority of Scotch Members in its favour. Bye-elections have shown a greater proportion in favour of this proposal among the candidates returned; and on the last occasion in 1890, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian declared that the conditions laid down by Lord Hartington had been fulfilled and the Liberal Party were committed formally to the support of the Resolution, on that occasion forty-three out of the seventy-two Scotch Members voted or paired in its favour. I do not see how these facts can be denied or ignored when the principles of Parliamentary representation are recognised. But the hon. and learned Member for Inverness says—
      "It is not desirable in itself, nor consonant with the wishes of the people of Scotland, that the Church of Scotland should be disestablished and its endowments diverted to secular uses; and that, in the opinion of this House, it is highly desirable that the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland should be re-united upon a national basis, and that the endowments should continue to be appropriated to religious purposes."

      1741
      Well, it may be highly desirable that the Churches should be united on a national or, as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. de Lisle) would have it, "Catholic" basis, but that will never be accomplished on the basis of any Parliamentary interference short of Disestablishment or Disendowment. That is not only my opinion, but the opinion of men who hold opposite views. When the Patronage Act of 1874 was passed through Parliament, it was again and again alleged that the effect would be to bring about a union between the Established and the Free Churches. The Duke of Argyll, who has always taken a deep interest in Scotch ecclesiastical subjects, saw the fallacy of this contention, and when the Bill was before the House of Lords spoke as follows:—
      "I have always said there is no hope of a union of the Free and Established Churches, except on the basis of Disestablishment and Disendowment."
      An hon. MEMBER: What was the date?
      *DR. CAMERON: The Duke of Argyll said that in 1874. If the Duke has changed his opinion since then, the facts on which he then rested it remain unaltered, for he went on to say that there were insurmountable physical difficulties in the way. There were nine hundred ministers who separated themselves voluntarily, and what would become of them? They would starve. That may be the opinion of the Duke of Argyll, but I strongly object to the noble Duke's way of putting it. The Free Church ministers have before now faced starvation on account of what they considered to be their duty. But as to the justice of his main contentions the events of the last eighteen years have left very little doubt. Then there is another opinion expressed by a Gentleman who does not, perhaps, carry the same weight as the Duke of Argyll—the Marquess of Lorne. He has been Governor-General of Canada, and he looks at Church questions in Scotland in the light of his Canadian experience. Writing in 1885 in the Scottish Review the Marquess of Lorne asked—
      "Can any honest Presbyterian now believe that union is possible under the Establishment banner? We know it cannot be."
      1742
      With that opinion I cordially agree. A number of non-established Presbyterian Churches have united. The United Presbyterian Church is an example of this, and the Free Church has been strengthened by the accession of smaller Presbyterian Churches. The Free and United Presbyterian Churches were long engaged in negotiations for union, and if it had not been for obstacles arising out of the existence of the Establishment they would probably have been united long ago. Union can only be brought about by mutual agreement; it can never be brought about by the seduction of individual members, and it can never be brought about by Parliament altering its laws or the conditions of endowment to meet this or that individual's scruples, to tempt this or that individual's cupidity. In the Amendment which is about to be moved the hon. and learned Member practically confesses that the present Establishment in Scotland is unsatisfactory, and modestly asks Parliament in this tenth decade of the nineteenth century to construct a new National Church. He confesses that the application of the endowments is unfair, and he asks the House to endow that new Church. The proposal is presumably that of the Laymen's League, of which he is a distinguished member, and it is to this effect: that Parliament should pass an Act declaring the spiritual independence of the Church; that the endowments of the Establishment should be participated in by the Presbyterian Churches, and that every Presbyterian minister in a parish should be declared the parish minister. But there has been an extremely guarded approval of the last two proposals by the Established Church itself, and the Free Church gave its reply to those proposals last year, when a resolution condemning them was carried by a majority of 7 to 1. The rejection by the United Presbyterians has been even more emphatic. That Church says that it can be no party to any proposals regarding the union of the Churches on the basis of a civil Establishment or participation, by itself or others, in any State endowment or other public funds. What, therefore, would be the result if

      1743
      legislative effect were given to the Amendment which is to be proposed? It would be that State endowments might induce a certain number of seceders to abandon the Free Church and join the Establishment; but the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church would more than ever resent the attack made upon them, and would support more vigorously than before the policy of Disestablishment and Disendowment. It has been said that it would not be easy to give practical legislative effect to my Resolution, but I think that would, be vastly easier than to give practical effect to the Amendment if it were accepted by this House. The endowments of the Church of Scotland are not a fixed quantity. They are being constantly augmented, even when they are paid from local sources. The Town Council of Greenock is now engaged in resisting a claim for a stipend of £400 to the parish minister. This claim has arisen out of an undertaking to pay not less than £55 11s. 1½d. per annum, entered into by the predecessors of the Town Council some one hundred and fifty years ago. Already the dispute has cost one expensive lawsuit; a second is going on, and probably there will be appeals to the House of Lords. The whole matter appears to be involved in such confusion that the counsel who drew up the agreement by which Greenock agreed to pay double the sum stipulated, having occasion, as a Judge, to consider the case, and forgetting his previous connection with it, declared that he could not understand the principle on which this agreement had been arrived at. If we give to the Scotch people this sort of thing multiplied by three, you will get a state of feeling that will not promise well for the Establishment which my hon. and learned Friend proposes to set up. We have been asked, why should this motion be brought forward at the end of an expiring Parliament, when the public outside take very little interest in our proceedings? Our reply is this. If we allow this Parliament to close without moving the question, and a new Parliament came in, we should be told, as
      1744
      we have been told again and again, that this question was not before the people of Scotland at the election, and that the Representatives whom they returned had no mandate to express their views on this subject. We desire to make it known that the question is one which cannot be allowed to drop, but one over which we shall fight till victory is achieved. As to the answer that will be given to us to-night that is not a matter of doubt; but earnestly believing in the justice and righteousness of our cause, and believing that in it are bound up the truest interests of religion as well as of religious equality in Scotland, we shall confidently appeal against the adverse verdict of to-night to the supreme decision of the consituencies at the approaching Election. I beg to move the Resolution.
      MR. ALEXANDER L. BROWN (, &c.): I beg to second the Resolution, and as I seldom interpose in the Debates, I feel I may say a few words on a Resolution of this importance. I should like to call the attention of English Members to the fact that those who are supporting Disestablishment and Disendowment in Scotland occupy a much stronger position than those of our friends who are advocating the same thing in England and Wales. In England those who belong to the Established Church have no doubt that the Episcopal is the purest form of Christianity, and is, therefore, deservedly the Established Church of the country. They would look with scorn and contempt on any proposal to assimilate their religion with that of the Baptists, the Independents, or the Wesleyans. In Scotland that is not so. No Established Churchman has ever ventured to say that his form of religion is better than the Free Church or United Presbyterian form. The most that he can say is that it is at least as good, but by his political action he has shown that he does not consider it as good. What has been the tendency of legislation in connection with the Established Church of Scotland in recent years? It has all been in the direction of making the Established Church a little more like the Dissenting Churches. In 1874 a Bill was presented

      1745
      to enable the Established Church, like the Dissenting Churches, to appoint their own ministers. I suppose that was with a view to make the Established Church more popular, and to give to its members the same rights and privileges that the Dissenting Churches possess. That I suppose is the explanation of the Church Patronage Act. In 1886 there was another attempt in the same direction, when the hon. Member who at present sits for Inverness brought forward a Bill to declare, what there appears to be some little doubt about, namely, that the Established Church was a spiritually independent Church. The Bill was intended to convince the Highlander that the Established Church held in all its entirety what is known in Scottish Covenanting history as the doctrine of the headship of Christ. The Bill was voted down, but I am very much surprised that in a House where the Liberal Unionist Party is supposed to be supreme it should not have been re-introduced, But has the hon. Member succeeded in detaching one single member from the Free Church, and inducing him to join the Established Church? The Highlander may be simple, but he sees very clearly that the State which declares this Church independent to-day can just as easily take away that independence to-morrow. And so we have in Scotland the extraordinary spectacle of two Churches side by side, and the Dissenting Churches making themselves so much more popular than the State Church, that the State Church is every now and then coming to this House with Bills to make itself a little more like the Dissenting Churches. We do not look up to the Established Church in Scotland, but I will not say that we look down upon it. It has been charged against us that we want to "pu" doon the kirk," but that is not so. We merely want to raise the Established Church to our own high level. I know there will be every effort on the part of our opponents to raise side issues, and so to prevent the public seeing the great principle for which we are contending, and which is becoming so popular in Scotland — absolute equality of all men and all sects in
      1746
      the eye of the law. However the question may be settled in Church Committees, as politicians we fight under the voluntary flag and no other. There will also be an attempt on the part of our opponents to avoid stating the principle in which they say they believe, that it is the duty of the State to provide for the spiritual needs of the people. Those whose motives are very high will say that plunder and not piety is the mainspring of our action. We shall be asked what practical proposal we have to make; we shall be asked what we propose to do with the money that will be freed. I am not particularly anxious to get our opponents off that line of argument, as it is the line always taken by people who find it impossible to defend the principle for which they are contending. The principal side issues raised in these Debates are that the Established Church of Scotland is the Church of the nation, that it is free to all, that it is the Church of the poor, and that those who defend it are guarding the heritage of the poor. How can a Church be free to a man who utterly disapproves of the principle on which it raises its funds, who considers it dishonourable to put his hand in the State Treasury, which is simply his neighbour's pocket, to build his church and pay his minister? The other Churches are free to all Scotch Presbyterians; the Established Church is the only one which by its civil action shuts its doors in the face of half the people of Scotland. Then, what is meant by the Church of the poor? Does it mean the Church for the poor? for it certainly is not the Church of the poor. You will find in both town and country that it is the rich who go to the Established Church, while the free Churches are crowded by Highlanders and the labouring population. I think you mean the Church for the poor—the Church where they are provided with the inspiration the Christian religion gives for nothing. If that is meant I say there never was, and never will be, a Christian Church which is in that sense the Church of the poor. Our opponents are making a great deal just now of the point that if this controversy is forced on it will form the principal

      1747
      bar to the union of the Churches. That I cannot understand at all. How can it be a bar to union to take away the favours one particular sect received from the State? If you say those from whom the favour is taken will sulk all the rest of their lives, then on their own heads be the sin and shame. In 1888 the then Solicitor General for Scotland stated the case as it ought to be stated. He said that he and his friends were bound to do their best for the spiritual interests of the people committed to their care. That is the Church and State argument. I would ask what the State is doing at present for the spiritual interests of the people. It is administering some £300,000; is that the measure of the spiritual interests of Scotland? And how is it that the spiritual interests do not increase? The bills for the Army and Navy increase year by year, but the boldest statesman dare not come forward with a proposal to provide for the increasing spiritual wants of Scotland. If that is so, does it not mean that you are pretending to defend a principle which you dare not put into practice? You dare not put your law into practice. In one of the burghs I represent, near Hawick, when a new minister was recently appointed the Kirk Session wanted to put the manse in repair, but the heritors refused to give one farthing towards it, and said they should be ashamed to come and ask the State to do for them what the other sects did for themselves. But the law is that the heritors are bound to keep the manse in repair. There are many Established Churchmen in Hawick who are glad the heritors did not put upon the community what the Church is well able to do for itself. As to the spiritual interests of the people being committed to the Government, I would ask the House to look upon the front Bench—I mean it without any offence—its occupants consist of men belonging to the Established Church of England, to the Roman Catholic Church—I will not go any further, but how is it possible that the spiritual needs of the Presbyterians of Scotland could be committed to such hands? We have only to look at the front Bench to see how utterly indefensible is the position
      1748
      of our opponents, that the State is bound to provide for the spiritual interests of the people.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That, in the opinion of this House, the Church of Scotland ought to be Disestablished and Disendowed."—(Dr. Cameron.)
      MR. FINLAY (, &c.): I rise to move the Amendment which stands in my name. I have listened to the speeches of my two hon. Friends, and have nothing to complain of in regard to the tone in which they have brought the question before the House; but I was a little surprised at one or two of the things said by the hon. Member for the College Division (Dr. Cameron). He asked the House how it was, if the people of Scotland were opposed to Disestablishment, that there was not a larger contingent of Members from Scotland to support that view. My hon. Friend knows the answer perfectly well. He knows that before the General Election of 1885—one of the two which he said manifested the opinion of the people of Scotland—the right hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) appealed in the most impassioned way to the electors of Scotland to give their votes for Liberal candidates irrespective of their opinions on the Church question. Does my hon. Friend think it right after that election to appeal to its results as evidencing the mind of Scotland on the Church question? His second deduction is equally wide of the mark. It is well known to those who took part in any contest in the election of 1886, that the Church question was not brought up in any constituency; the election took place on an entirely different issue, and, therefore, he cannot suggest that the votes given for Home Rule candidates in 1886 can be construed into support of a proposal for the Disestablishment of the Church of Scotland. I was a little more surprised to hear him have the courage to touch upon the grievance of ecclesiastical assessment for the repair of churches and manses. Whose fault is it that that grievance has not been remedied? The grievance would have ceased to exist if it had not been considered a profitable one.
      DR. CAMERON: As a matter of fact a Bill was brought in for the special purpose, and it was thrown out again and again by the action of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
      MR. FINLAY: I admire my hon. Friend's discretion in referring to a matter of ancient history, but the Bill was dropped by the hon. Member to whom my hon. Friend referred, and for years, instead of bringing in Bills to remedy the grievance, that Party has devoted itself to steadily opposing them. My hon. Friend said it is vain to hope that the Churches of Scotland will be united by Parliamentary interference. I have never advocated Parliamentary interference for that purpose. All that Parliament can do is to remove any obstacles in the way of reunion, and when the Churches, as I hope they may, have been able to agree on some basis of re-union, the State might lend its aid. The hon. Member for the Hawick Burghs (Mr. Alexander Brown) made one remark which surprised me. He said that the object of the Established Church of Scotland had been to endeavour to raise itself to the high level already reached by the Dissenting Churches in Scotland. Is not my hon. Friend a reader of the history of Dissent in Scotland? Is he not aware that every secession from the Established Church has been, not on the ground that those who seceded differed from the principles of the Church, but because they held that the majority of the day were not carrying out those principles in their entirety? When the grievance of patronage was removed, the Church of Scotland was returning to its best traditions, and reverting to that freedom which the Church claims as its birthright. My hon. Friend also said that in this matter he was fighting under the flag of voluntaryism. Then, all I can say is that if he is fighting under that flag he is not fighting under the flag of the FreeChurch, for nothing is more certain than that anyone adopting voluntaryism is at issue with the Free Church on a vital point. It is impossible, in discussing the Disestablishment of the Scotch Church, not to carry one's mind back to the arguments for the Disestablishment
      1750
      of the Irish Church; and, looking at the arguments in favour of that measure, one will find that in every part there is the most striking contradiction between the circumstances existing in the case of the Irish Church and those in the case of the Scotch Church. The Irish Church was disestablished because it was the Church of a small minority of the people of Ireland, and was not growing in the attachment of the people of Ireland. In the case of Scotland, beyond all question, the Established Church embraces within its fold one-half of the Protestants of Scotland. Then why is it we hear so much of these proposals to disestablish the Church of Scotland? It is not pretended that it is because the Church is weak. This agitation has been started because the Church is strong, and is getting stronger every day. They feel that the Church is growing, and unless it can be pulled down in no very long time it will be too strong for any attack. The Church of Ireland, again, represented a faith which was not the faith of the people of Ireland; it represented beliefs alien to those of the vast majority of the people of Ireland. Is that the case with the Church of Scotland? Is that the case with the Church of Scotland? The doctrines and government of the Established Church of Scotland are identical with the doctrines and government of the other Presbyterian Churches of Scotland. How is that, from any point of view which appears to have been stated to the House, an argument for pulling down the Church of Scotland? Is this a matter which ought to be looked at from a national point of view, or should it be looked at from the point of view of the rival bodies? I cannot help feeling that, in the great part of the arguments to which we have listened in this House and elsewhere in favour of Disestablishment, there is an under-current to this effect: that this question ought to be treated as if it were a question between rival corporations. After all, Churches and Ecclesiastical Organisations are merely a means to an end. We ought not in our zeal for the means to lose sight of the end. The Free Church, the United Presbyterian

      1751
      Church, and the other Dissenting Churches of Scotland are great and useful bodies, but it is possible that we should be so engrossed in the welfare of the body to which we may happen to become attached as to lose sight of the fact that, after all, these bodies, the Dissenting Bodies of Scotland as well as the Established Church of Scotland, exist for the promotion of one great end, and that is the promotion of the religious and moral welfare of the people of Scotland; and what I ask this House to do is to treat this question from a national point of view. We ought not to look at these Churches as if they were so many competitors for the custom of the people of Scotland. There seemed to be a disposition in the speeches of my hon. Friends who moved and seconded this Motion to personify these Churches, and to endeavour to treat it as a sort of grievance to the Free Church and the other Dissenting Churches of Scotland that the Established Church should be under the protection of the State. What is the grievance? Is it a grievance to the people of Scotland? Surely not. The Established Church exists for the purpose of teaching those doctrines which have been professed and taught by the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church, as well as by the Established Church of Scotland. Is it a grievance of the same kind as that which might be set up by any private teachers who consider that their business is interfered with if the State sets up national schools for furthering the education of the people? Surely it ought not to be considered as a grievance by those religious bodies that endowments, which in ancient times were devoted to sacred purposes, should be continued to be applied to the teaching of those doctrines which are dear to almost the whole Protestant population of Scotland. If the object of the agitation for Disestablishment be to give a triumph to rival religious organisations I can understand it; but if what they ought to look at is the welfare of the people of Scotland, I confess I do not see how the withdrawal of these endowments from objects which are dear to almost the whole people of
      1752
      Scotland can be regarded as either desirable in itself or as likely to meet with the approval of the people of Scotland. Now, what is the feeling of the people of Scotland with regard to this matter? The second portion of the Amendment, which I now submit to the House, is this:—
      "That it is not consonant with the wishes of the people of Scotland that the Church established should be disestablished, and its endowments diverted to secular uses."
      We are told in some quarters that the Dissenting Churches of Scotland desire that there should be Disestablishment and Disendowment. I think the hon. Gentlemen who lay down that proposition have been either misled by the deliverances that proceed from the General Assemblies of these bodies, and that they have mistaken the voice of the majority in the General Assembly of the Free Church for the voice of the lay body of the Free Church. I do not deny at the present time that a very considerable majority of the clergy of the Free Church of Scotland have year after year voted in favour of the Disestablishment of the Church of Scotland. There is a very respectable minority indeed among the clergy of the Free Church of Scotland who have declined to be a party to any such resolution. But I do most absolutely deny that in this resolution which has been carried in the General Assembly of the Free Church of Scotland they represent the feeling of the laity of that Church. Some reference has been made to the provision of the Treaty of Union, by which the Establishment of the Scottish Church was supposed to be guaranteed. I never have put that provision so high as some of my hon. and learned Friends have desired to put it. Everything, of course, is in the power of Parliament. Our ancestors no doubt imagined that they had guaranteed most effectually the continued existence of the Established Church of Scotland; but I do say this, without any hesitation, that after a treaty of that kind it would be a breach of faith on the part of the united Parliament to disestablish the Church of Scotland without a clear manifestation of opinion from the people of Scotland in favour of that step.

      1753
      Since the object of such a provision in the Treaty of Union, in which a weaker country joins with a stronger, was to stipulate for certain powers which it desires to remain unbroken, if that weaker country afterwards changes its mind, and is willing that the Treaty of Union should be modified in this particular, so be it; and the change can be effected without any breach of faith. That condition was fulfilled in the case of the Irish Church, for there is no doubt whatever that the vast majority of the people of Ireland were in favour of the Disestablishment of the Church of Ireland. Has that condition been fulfilled in the case of the Church of Scotland? Can anyone say that the opinion of the people of Scotland has been taken upon this point, and that it has been pronounced in favour of Disestablishment? I do not think the proposition can be more clearly stated than it was by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian in a speech made in the course of the Midlothian campaign in 1879. He then said—
      "I should be a party objecting strongly to any attempt to filch or to gain an advantage against the Church of Scotland, or against anything that is Scottish, without a fair consideration of the circumstances by the people of Scotland, to whom it should be referred. The reference must be a real reference. There must be a real consideration in order to have a real decision. Nay, the decision must not only be really manifested and pointed, but an undeniable decision, in order to bring about any fresh issue or any great change."
      Has there been any such reference or decision? Prepositions have been made over and over again by the friends of the Church, who are confident that they have got the support of the people of Scotland in this matter behind them, in order that the opinion of the people of Scotland might be taken on this point apart from other issues. How have these overtures been met by the advocates of Disestablishment? They have been scouted as unconstitutional. ("Hear, hear!") No doubt the constitutional mode of taking the opinion of the people of Scotland is by Parliamentary election. But what objection is there to putting in force some machinery which would elicit what the views
      1754
      of the people of Scotland are on this point, uncomplicated by other issues? Why is it that such propositions have always been scoffed at and jeered at? I will tell right hon. Gentlemen why. Because the advocates of Disestablishment are afraid of the result. As no such proposal will be accepted by the advocates of Disestablishment, we are thrown back upon the constitutional means of making known the wishes of the people of Scotland upon this matter. And what is that? Surely it is a General Election turning upon this question. I know that that view is derided, and I know that it is considered absurd that there should be a General Election upon this question. I refer the gentlemen who regard that proposal as preposterous to what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, whom, I take it, they will hardly repudiate upon that point. When addressing the electors of Midlothian on this very subject in the course of the Midlothian campaign, he referred, speaking at Gilmerton, to the case of the Irish Church. He pointed out that resolutions were introduced and carried; and not only that those resolutions were carried, but that they did not bring about the destruction of the Irish Church, though they had raised the question in the face of the country, and that Parliament was dissolved upon the question. And he went on to say—
      "Even in the case of the Irish Church, which was far weaker than that of the Scottish Church, even in that case there was, after the subject had been raised in Parliament, a Dissolution expressly upon the case. The verdict of the country was given only after a full trial and consideration, and this is what the Established Church of Scotland fairly and justly asks."
      Will the right hon. Gentleman below me (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) get up and repudiate that, and say that that is an absurd proposal? Does he now propose to take the opinion of Scotland upon this question, or does he now deride the idea of a General Election upon this question?—because, forsooth, it is so very small. I do not admit that the question is a very small one. Scotland, it is true, is not so large as England; but, still, the question of the existence of the Established Church of

      1755
      Scotland is a very serious matter for the people of Scotland to decide, and a matter on which they are entitled to have a deciding voice, without other considerations, which would complicate the verdict and confuse the voice of the country, being mixed up with that great issue. But surely the question of Disestablishment in Scotland loses none of its importance when you look at what the effect of such a proposal in Scotland would be upon the Church of England. Is it such a ridiculous proposal that the question of Disestablishment in Scotland should form the subject of a General Election before it is taken up by a responsible Government? Why is it that so much interest is taken in the subject of Disestablishment in Scotland by the Liberation Society in England? They do not care so much about the Church of Scotland—whether it exists, or whether it does not—but they know perfectly well that they are approaching the Church of England, and that the first operation of Disestablishment in England is that the Church of Scotland should be brought to the ground. That feature of the question was brought out with almost irresistible force by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, whose speeches upon this question in former years afford a perfect magazine of materials for the defence of the Church. In 1885, when he was appealing in the most earnest way to the electors of Midlothian and the people of Scotland not to be misled into the absurdity of not voting for the Liberal candidate because he was a Disestablishment man—when he was appealing to them to vote for the Liberal candidate who represented his opinion upon the Church, he pointed out that the question of the Church in England could not be raised without the greatest damage to the Liberal cause; and he pointed out that if the question of Disestablishment was raised in Scotland it would at once be taken up by the electors of England, and he used these very remarkable words on the 16th November, 1885, speaking at Edinburgh:—
      "The first consequence of urging that Disestablishment should be made a test question in Scotland would be that the friends of the
      1756
      Church of England would in one great phalanx rush to the poll and support the interests of the Church of Scotland and throw their weight into the scale adverse to Disestablishment."
      Is it possible—looking at the question of the Church of Scotland either as it affects the people of Scotland in itself or in its bearings, most keenly appreciated by the advocates of Disestablishment in England, on the question of the Sister Church in England—is it possible to say that a question so trumpery as that could not be taken in hand before there has been a Dissolution upon the question? The advocates of Disestablishment, while they sedulously avoid any machinery for taking the opinion of the people on this one question, and while they profess to flout the notion of Dissolution upon that issue, say, "Look at the voice of the Scotch Members in Parliament." What is the good of looking at the way Scotch Members vote when they were returned irrespective of this question? We have got a very good authority for saying that the Scotch Members on this point may not represent the opinions of their constituents. Does the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian represent the opinions of the electors of Midlothian on this question? Why, when he was invited to express his opinion upon this question of the Scottish Church in 1885, the opinion of the electors of Midlothian was taken upon the question, with the result that sixty-nine per cent. of the electors of Midlothian, with the exception of three parishes—in which there was no reason to suppose any different result — actually signed a declaration against Disestablishment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian does not represent the opinion of his constituents on this question; and what security have we that the other Members from Scotland represent the opinion of their constituents? There is a constituency adjoining Midlothian with which in former days I had occasion to make myself acquainted, that is the constituency of East Lothian, represented by my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Wallace), whom I do not see in the House; but although my connection with that constituency was not so long as my hon. and learned

      1757
      Friend—and I never had the honour of representing it in Parliament at all—I certainly got to know enough of that constituency to be aware that my hon. and learned Friend in his advocacy of Disestablishment most certainly does not represent the opinion of that constituency. If he is returned again, as for personal reasons I should be glad he would be, he will be returned not because of his Disestablishment opinions, but in spite of them. The advocates of Disestablishment in Scotland preferred to trust to what they call the play of Political Parties; and the modus operandi is extremely simple. They have, as a rule, captured the Liberal organisation. The Liberal organisation selects a candidate. The first stipulation that the Liberal committee makes is that the candidate should be prepared to swallow Disestablishment. Until he adopts that shiboleth he is not qualified to stand as a Liberal candidate. But when that is achieved, then he comes forward as a candidate representing the Liberal cause, and the electors are appealed to to support the Liberal candidate as against the Tory candidate. Then they are told they should vote on general grounds of politics and that their vote will not tell against the Church Establishment, but when the election is over then that gentleman, if he be returned, is paraded in the House as evidence of the opinion of the people of Scotland. When you have an election turning upon this question in Scotland, then I think the result will astonish a good many of my hon. Friends who sit for Scotch constituencies with a very scanty acquaintance with the groundwork of Scottish opinion on this subject. There are two portions of the Amendment I have to put before the House, and the second portion is as follows:—
      "It is highly desirable that the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland should be reunited upon a National basis, and that the endowments should continue to be appropriated to religious purposes."
      Now I apprehend that hardly any doubt can be entertained by anyone that it is desirable that there should be re-union among the Presbyterian
      1758
      Churches of Scotland. Why are they separated? Their doctrine and government are absolutely identical, and the question that every man must ask is, "Why do they remain apart?" We are sometimes told, "You have only to disestablish and you will have re-union," but I venture to think that instead of Disestablishment bringing about union it would put the greatest possible obstacle in the way. I do not think that Members acquainted with the feeling in Scotland will say that the Established Church has been the obstacle to re-union. On the contrary, I venture to think that it is only on the basis of a National Church that a union of the Presbyterian bodies in Scotland is likely to take place. Surely some light may be derived from history in this matter. The Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church entered into negotiations for re-union, and why was it these negotiations came to no result? Neither of them was established; the difficulty had nothing to do with an Established Church, as my hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron) seemed to suggest. The difficulty was simply this, that the Free Church discovered that it was as my hon. Friend has pointed out in the opinion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. J. B. Balfour) and a very distinguished Member of the Scotch Bar, who is now on the Bench—that it was a fundamental tenet of the Free Church that the Establishment principle should be recognised. The hon. Member for Glasgow quoted the sentence which, as many Members are now here who did not hear it, I may repeat—
      "Anyone who does not hold the Establishment principle rejects in our opinion an essential point in the government of the Free Church."
      There is no power to alter that essential principle. That is why the negotiations between the Free Church and the United Presbyterians miscarried; it had nothing to do with the existence of the Established Church. If you carried a measure for Disestablishment to-day, you would not bring the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church any nearer, for there would still remain the unsurmountable barrier I have mentioned. The Free

      1759
      Church and the United Presbyterian Church would not be one whit nearer if the Established Church were disestablished to-morrow. It is an essential tenet of the Free Church that the Establishment principle should be recognised whatever may be the opinion of the majority of the hour in the General Assembly of the Free Church, and I do not believe that the clergy of the Free Church represent their congregations in this matter. We have cogent evidence to the contrary, and my impression is that if this matter of re-union of the Scottish churches were left to the laity of Scotland it would be settled in the course of twelve months. There is a strong feeling to that effect in Scotland, and the outcome of that feeling has been the formation of that body known as the "Laymen's League," of which I hope my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Campbell Bannerman) may become a distinguished member. That body represents the feeling of laymen that there is a great and lamentable waste of ecclesiastical machinery in Scotland under the present ecclesiastical arrangements in that country. One united Church would suffice for the religious ordinances of the people, and why should the present state of things continue? Would any man of business tolerate such a state of things in matters under his control? Certainly not, he would look at it in this way, "Here we have these endowments long appropriated to sacred purposes; let us take them as the basis for a National Church as our starting point, and see whether we can get all this ecclesiastical machinery so fitted that it will work in promoting the religious and moral welfare of the people, so that we may go on without these unseemly and meaningless controversies." I must notice the statement my hon. Friend (Dr. Cameron) made in reference to the Highlands. He said it was notorious that the Church of Scotland did not provide for the poorer districts of the country, and he instanced the Highlands. I quite agree with my hon. Friend that in a large portion of the Highlands the people to a great extent—to a very great extent—do not belong to the
      1760
      Established Church; but was it quite fair not to add what everyone who knows anything of the position must know—that these very members of the Free Church in the Highlands are the most devoted opponents to Disestablishment in the country? Is this the way to convey a correct impression of the Church situation in Scotland? Surely it is fair to remember and to mention that in the Free Church in the Highlands are the most resolute opponents of Disestablishment; that they regard these endowments as appropriated to sacred purposes? My hon. Friend has cited the people of the Highlands as witnesses in favour of, instead of opponents to, Disestablishment.
      DR. CAMERON: I cited the case of the Highlands for the purpose of showing the absolute uselessness of State Establishment and State Endowment in the poorer districts of Scotland.
      MR. FINLAY: I do not complain of what he said, but of what he did not say. Surely the scandal of competing Churches in the Lowlands, and the state of things in the Highlands to which I have just been adverting, is enough to justify one in saying that it is desirable that the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland should be reunited on a national basis, and that the endowments should continue to be appropriated to religious purposes. There is very little in the way of re-union; and the obstacle, such as it is, was very nearly removed in 1886. My hon. Friend the Member for the Border Burghs said the Bill for that purpose in 1886 was thrown out of this House. He forgot to add that it was thrown out by a very small majority. I do not know why my hon. Friend should refer to that occasion. I should have been disposed if I had referred to it at all to refer to it rather as an occasion of encouragement to those who think that the very small obstacle in the way of principle might be taken out of the way of the Churches, so that there might be no further impediment to their re-union. All that is really needed is a very little mutual accommodation on the part of members of the different Churches. And what the laity of Scotland are

      1761
      disposed to bear in mind is, that all these ecclesiastical organisations exist but as a means to an end. They think that those who are concerned in the direction of ecclesiastical affairs in Scotland in the great Dissenting bodies are sometimes given to mistake the means for the end. The spirit of patriotism is developed in connection with the association to which a man happens to belong, which leads him to mistake the organisation for the great object for which the organisation itself exists. If there is anything distinctive in the history of Scotland it is the history of the Scottish National Church. It is not necessary that a man should be even a Presbyterian to appreciate the great features of the religious history of Scotland. Of course every country must shape its own institutions and its own views, but a great deal of what is best in the life of Scotland has taken shape in the National Church of Scotland. I would appeal to every Scotchman who has some sense of what is due to his country—who has some sense of what is due to the past of his country, who has some care for the future of his country—not to lend a hand to destroy that which it cost his forefathers so hard a struggle to build up.
      MR. PARKER SMITH: I rise to second the Amendment that my hon. Friend has so ably moved. The hon. Member or the College Division quoted the great work that the Free Church has done since the disruption in building up a structure for itself. It is a great and splendid work that it has done, but in what spirit did that Church start? It started with a movement of splendid religious enthusiasm, a movement which all of us, whether we belong to that Church or whether we do not, admire for its strength, its earnestness, and its unselfishness. But is that the kind of spirit, the kind of impetus, with which we are trying to set the Established Church adrift? You are not telling it to start off on a mission of religion. Instead you are saying, "Erring sister go in peace;" you are seeking to send it away in disgrace, and with the reputation of having done evil in the
      1762
      past. In the Free Church they are now finding difficulty from the loss of force and impetus which the dying out of the disruption feeling has given them. Two days ago the Moderator of the Free Church in his introductory address said this—
      "For many years the special circumstances under which the Free Church came into being as a separate body formed a powerful factor in her history. A Church that had made such sacrifices …. commanded the respect of all and the adherence of many. For a whole generation the disruption was a circumstance in their favour which no man could misunderstand, but to-day this strong force was almost wholly spent.…. The loss of this initial force was really a very great one."
      That was the answer to those who say that in proposing to disestablish and disendow the Church they are not hurting the Established Church, but that they are simply giving it the chance which the Free Church had before. And then they profess that this Disendowment is to lead to re-union. Reunion? We are only just now coming to the end of the bitter feeling that the disruption caused fifty years ago, and the disruption was not so much a contest between different sections of the Church as between the leading persons in the Church and the Court of Session and the Houses of Parliament. This present movement is a movement which is considered a clerical and ministerial one, and, therefore, the success of it would mean a permanent bitterness in the relations of the different Presbyterian bodies in Scotland which would last not fifty years, but which would not have expired at the end of a century. It has recently been sought by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian and others to throw the onus upon those who are defending the Church instead of on those who are attacking it. That is entirely unjustifiable. It is for those who attack an institution which exists, and is doing a great work, who seek to change the historic policy of a country, to act not only against the ideas of the Established Church but directly against the whole tenets of the Free Church, and to do what not even the tenets and creeds of the Presbyterian Church insist

      1763
      on—to do all that for the sake of a phrase, a phrase which in Scotland has no meaning, "religious equality"—to prove their case. It is not suggested that the Church is asleep or stagnant; it is not suggested that she is simply resting on her endowments, and not doing work outside those endowments; that she is not doing a great work and spending what funds she has to the best advantage of nine-tenths of the country. There are none of those great inequalities of payments and of value of livings between one place and another as in the English Church; none of those inequalities which make a certain invidious distinction between the Established Church and Dissent in this country. The hon. Member for the Border Burghs tried to state that the Church of Scotland was the Church of the rich, and not of the poor. He tried it very feebly, and I should like to see him put forward that argument in an assembly of Scotchmen, and debate the question. There is one argument which I am glad to say has not been put forward, and which cannot be relied on for the Disestablishment of the Scotch Church. The Disestablishment of the Scotch Church is not a question of money. The question that is to be fought out there is the question of principle, because the whole amount that would be gained by the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Scotch Church is something wholly and completely insignificant. The value put by the Disestablishment Committee in their circular on the National Funds that would be obtained in connection with the Disendowment would be something like £380,000 a year. A good deal of that, I think, could not in any way be realised. For instance, the assessments of churches and manses could certainly not be realised in case of Disendowment; and then it was admitted a year or two ago by the hon. Member for the College Division of Glasgow, and also by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian, that when you are dealing with this question you must deal with life interests in a generous spirit—that you must give up all the endowments that have been given to the Church by individuals, and that you must compensate
      1764
      all life interests in a large and generous style. And after you have done that in the same style as you did in Ireland, you would find nearly half the capital value of the Church used up; that was the proportion that they used up in Ireland. If you do that you would have a balance at the outside of £150,000 a year, though many are of opinion that it would be a great deal less. That is the whole amount of money you would have to distribute by destroying the establishment and endowments of this Church. It would not be more than half the amount of money which in this present Session has come as a windfall to Scotland, and over which we were nightly squabbling a few days ago. Is it worth while destroying an institution for money of that sort? Is the Establishment question a burning question now? There is no general feeling and no general activity in Scotland in its favour. Where are the public meetings, the petitions, the discussions and the newspaper articles that show that the question is in the people's mind as a burning and active question? It was brought forward strongly by the hon. Gentlemen, among others, in 1885, and it was pressed forward desperately on the ground that it was "now or never" then. But when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian came down and was expected to curse the Church, to the surprise and bitter disappointment of keen disestablishers, instead of doing that he gave the word that the question of the Church at that election was not in any way to be a test question. Liberal Churchmen accepted that all over Scotland, and immediately after that speech a manifesto was issued by the Liberal Churchmen who had taken part in meetings held in defence of the Establishment. That manifesto was as follows:
      "We loyally accept the declaration of Mr. Gladstone, as the Leader of the Liberal Party, that he will not support the Motion of Dr. Cameron, and that the vote upon that Motion is not to be taken as affording such an expression of the opinion of the people of Scotland as he has declared to be the indispensable condition of practical legislation on the subject. We shall accordingly give our votes at the ensuing election on the understanding, sanctioned

      1765
      by our Leader, that the question of Establishments is not one of the test questions at that election."
      The result came out in the number of Liberal Members who were elected throughout Scotland in 1885, but who certainly would not have been elected except for the action of the Churchmen. There is only one point that was quoted by the hon. Member for the College Division that I should like to refer to, and that was in regard to the Highlands, and in regard to measuring the effect of the Established Church in certain Highland parishes by the number of communicants. If he wanted to compare the hold of the Established Church with the hold of the Free Church upon those parishes, he should also have mentioned the number of communicants in the Free Churches in those parishes. All of us who know the Highlands know that in these places there is a very strong feeling, a superstitious fear, against becoming a communicant, and consequently, while you will have a very large number of adherents of a Church, you may count on your fingers the number of communicants, whether they belong to the Established Church or to the Free Church. But I do not want to base my case in any way upon percentages. The case would be gone if it was merely a question of the easting vote of some small section of the community. What we base our case on is that we say that thousands and hundreds of thousands outside the Established Church of Scotland do not desire Disestablishment. You complain of petitions being unreliable. Of course no one ever supposed that petitions were absolutely and strictly reliable, for when you have petitions of 650,000 on the one side and petitions of 3,000 on the other, there remains a good deal of margin for striking off accidental discrepancies, names put on that were not entitled to be on the petitions, and so on. I do not wish to enter on the question of the voluntary principles. I respect the principles but I do not agree with them, and I do not wish now to argue them. All we can say is that they are not the principles of the Free Church; they may be the principles of the
      1766
      leaders of the Free Church, of large sections in the Free Church, but they are not the principles of the standards of the Free Church. Those principles are stated in the very strongest and clearest terms in the document which the Free Church chose for itself as its standard and test of membership. Dr. Chalmers, the first Moderator in the first Free Church Assembly, said this:—
      "Though we quit the Establishment, we go out on the Establishment principle. We quit a vitiated Establishment, but we rejoice in returning to a pure one. To express it other-wise, we are the advocates for a national recognition and national support of religion, and we are not voluntaries."
      Patronage was not the cause of the disruption. The Church has got on with patronage for 130 years. It was not a matter of conscience. It was simply the encroachments of the Court of Session that brought about the disruption. It was in search of spiritual independence that the Free Church went out in 1843—it was with the mistaken idea that they would get more spiritual independence outside the Establishment than they had inside that they went. In truth, the Established Church is at the present time the freest and most independent of any. The Church has a status of its own recognised by the Constitution which no other Church in Scotland has. Members of the Church are not content to have no views of their own; they are not content to merely watch the current of public opinions without taking part in it themselves. What is the way out of the difficulty? Presbyterians are in agreement all over the world; why should they not also be in harmony at home? Some ministers of the Free Church and of the Established Church hold services in one another's parishes, and the Established Church is willing to hold forth the chance of coming back on the principles which are the principles of the Free Church. To carry out a scheme of that sort—to bring the Churches together in one strong and solid Church, holding the old Scotch Presbyterian views—would be a task worthy of any statesman who has the confidence of the nation. It is in order to assist in this task of

      1767
      bringing the Presbyterian bodies together in this way that I desire to support the Amendment.
      Amendment proposed,
      To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words, "it is not desirable in itself, nor consonant with the wishes of the people of Scotland, that the Church of Scotland should be disestablished and its endowments diverted to secular uses; and that, in the opinion of this House, it is highly desirable that the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland should be reunited upon a national basis, and that the endowments should continue to be appropriated to religious purposes."—(Mr. Finlay.)
      Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN (, &c.): If I ask to be allowed to occupy some small part of the time devoted by the House to-night to the discussion of this subject—time all too scanty for the importance of the question—I do not think it will be grudged to me when I state that, having been a Scotch Representative for twenty-four years, I have not yet opened my mouth in this House on the subject of the Scotch Church. My intention is not to invite the House to consider the broad and general question raised by the Resolution of my hon. Friend the Member for the College Division of Glasgow (Dr. Cameron), but rather the position in which that question is now placed in consequence of the attitude of those who oppose Disestablishment. The Resolution moved has this advantage, I think, over the rival propositions before the House—that it is, at least, perfectly plain, unambiguous, and unequivocal. There cannot be the slightest doubt as to what my hon. Friend and those who support him mean. The Resolution means that the one branch of the Presbyterian Church in Scotland which is at present favoured with State patronage should no longer be distinguished in that respect from the two sister Churches. It means that these three Churches and all other religious bodies in Scotland should be put upon a footing of absolute political equality. It means that the public funds which
      1768
      are at present applied towards the maintenance of the work and ordinances of the Established Church should in future be devoted to some public beneficent purpose or purposes, in the benefits of which all our countrymen in the several localities of the country may share without distinction of creed, or Church, or opinion. That is what my hon. Friend and those who support him mean. Those of us who join in commending this policy to the House do not found ourselves merely upon the general theory of religious equality; we found ourselves upon the events of Scotch ecclesiastical history, upon the glaring inequality and injustice presented by the present relative position of the three Churches; and we found ourselves further upon the fact that, if there is one country under the sun in which the interests of religion can with perfect safety be left to the free action of the people, that country is Scotland. I would myself go further, and say that if there is a Church in any country under the sun which is fit and qualified in all respects to discharge in overflowing measure all the sacred functions which can be fulfilled by a religious society it is the present Established Church of Scotland, with the vitality and energy she has shown in recent years. That is our case. It has been put before Parliament so amply on many occasions that it is unnecessary to dwell upon it now. But how is our proposal met? We have been accustomed hitherto to be told that if our policy were adopted, the interests of religion would be sacrificed, that the moral and social progress of Scotland would be endangered, and that the State support of some Church or other was essential to what is called the national recognition of religion, and that without this national recognition of religion no prosperity can be expected for a country. That is a theory which I entirely reject, but I feel that it at least occupies lofty and even sacred ground. But have we heard it to-night? It has not been mentioned; it has disappeared. But we shall hear it again. We shall hear it constantly—on village platforms, in leaflets, in the conversation of canvassers seeking to win votes; but it is not

      1769
      brought forward into the broad light of discussion in the House of Commons. Let me say that if that argument has anything in it, it, of course, supersedes all others; and if there is any force in it, then I must say that to be told the elements which are to determine a great cause like this are the wishes of the people of Scotland and the opportunities of debate in the House of Commons is not only idle, but I think I would go so far as to say that it is also insincere. If hon. Members who wish to oppose the Motion do so on the larger doctrine, why do they take refuge in these smaller questions which we find raised to-night? What are these Motions against the proposal of my hon. Friend, which we may take as representing the strongest and most effective argument that can be brought in opposition. There are two coming from different parts of the House—one from my hon. relative opposite, the hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Mr. J. A. Campbell), and the other from the hon. Member who has just sat down. These two Members are practically identical in political opinion, and, accordingly, the Amendments are identical in terms. And what do these Amendments say? They say there is no reason, either as regards the present position of the Church or the wishes of the people, why proposals for the Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church should be entertained. If I were to be critical, I should express my surprise at the phrasing of the Amendments. It is not that the proposal should not be accepted or adopted—but "entertained." To entertain a proposal is a suggestion of a compromise. I do not know whether that is intended. But let me point out that both these Amendments give up any rigid principle on the matter whatsoever—they are founded upon the present position of the Church and upon the wishes of the people. The present position of the Church is what it has been for the last fifty years, with the exception that the Church is stronger, and, therefore, better able to support itself by voluntary action than ever before. So that, as far as the argument from the
      1770
      present position of the Church goes, it is an argument in favour of the Resolution. Then it is said we are to be guided by the wishes of the people, and I have every respect for the wishes of the people when they are expressed in the usual constitutional fashion through their Representatives. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. Arthur Elliot) has an Amendment—and let me express my no small surprise at finding him among the ardent champions of Church Disestablishment—in which he wishes the whole matter to be postponed until we have first of all had adequate Parliamentary discussion, and until we have had a definite expression of opinion. By "definite expression of opinion" I suppose he means, as did the hon. Member who moved the Amendment, that there should be some step taken to ascertain in a special manner the views of the people of Scotland on this subject. I do not know whether my hon. Friend refers to a referendum or a plébiscite, or to something which requires some other outlandish name. If he means that a special vote should be taken, I must remind my hon. Friend that it would be almost an impossibility to obtain absolute demonstration by any such process. There is, I believe, a process in physics of resolving forces so that you may isolate some one force, and consider its individual effect on the hypothesis that no other forces are acting, but can you apply such a process to a moral or practical question? Suppose there was a plèbiscite taken, and my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburghshire gave his vote on this question. Would he guarantee that at the same time he would not have one of his eyes, if not both, looking at the question of the Union with Ireland? It is obvious that in a country like this, where there are so many interests affecting men's opinions, you cannot completely remove one opinion from another. A party man will take a party view. This process of separation has never been attempted in this country, and I hope it never will be.
      MR. ARTHUR ELLIOT: I said nothing about a plèbiscite.
      *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: But how is the hon. Member to get this "definite expression of opinion" of the people of Scotland? Could a General Election perform the process of the abstraction of which I have spoken? Even supposing it were possible for a General Election to turn mainly upon the question of Scotch Disestablishment, how are we to know that that would even represent in Scotland an opinion purely and solely confined to the one question and the merits of this case? No, Sir, I confess I am constitutional enough and simple-minded enough to prefer the recognised mode of taking the judgment of the country. Then there remains the most important Amendment on the Paper, in the name of the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay). My hon. Friend has at least this advantage over the others of whom I have spoken. He, at least, has the courage to say what he means, and he boldly traverses the thesis of the hon. Member for the College Division, and says that it is not desirable in itself that the Church of Scotland should be disestablished—more than either of the chosen champions of the Church of Scotland ventures to say in his Motion. But my hon. Friend also said much in his speech of this necessity for a special expression of the opinion of the people of Scotland. His arguments seem to me to come perilously near the fatal doctrine of Home Rule, because he was most anxious that the question should be determined solely by the Scotch people; and yet when he came to recommend his views further to the Committee he reminded them of the fact that the fate of the English Church would be largely in people's minds in England when voting upon this question. Therefore, the Home Rule which he wished to encourage would surely be over-ridden. My hon. Friend alluded to his intimate knowledge of the feeling of a part of Scotland far away from that district where he now so appropriately finds his seat. He talked of East Lothian, and until we elicited the fact it would have
      1772
      been difficult to discover that his connection with that district consisted in the circumstance that he was the unsuccessful candidate in an election there. Having followed that election pretty closely, I venture to say that two things were against him. The first was, that he was not outspoken in favour of Disestablishment, and, therefore, did not commend himself to the Liberal electors; and the other reason, which was absolutely fatal, was that he had the misfortune to be supported by the Scotsman newspaper, which every day covered the noble Lord the Member for Ipswich (Lord Elcho), who was his rival, with such constant denunciation and vilification as would have turned anybody willing to vote for my hon. Friend into a supporter of his abused opponent. I now come to what is the real gist of the question before us to-night. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverness talks in a somewhat vague way of re-union on a national basis. What does he mean by a national basis? Let us deal for the moment with the Presbyterian Church alone, without reference to other religious bodies, although these after all have also something to say on this question. Let us look the facts in the face, and I would here ask the House to bear with a Scotchman while he endeavours to explain facts, not familiar to those who have not the advantage of being Scotchmen. What does my hon. Friend mean by re-union on a national basis? Does he merely mean that the three Scotch Presbyterian Churches should make one great National Presbyterian Church? If so, we all agree. There is no reason under heaven why that most desirable consummation should not be effected. But my hon. Friend has used the term "national basis," not in the sense of a national Scotch basis, but in the sense of a State Church basis. Let the House realise what this means when I have stated a few facts. I wish to treat this question from a practical point of view, and of course, as I think, from a common-sense point of view too. And by that I mean I will put aside all ecclesiastical or political theories, and

      1773
      the arguments drawn from Scotch ecclesiastical history, for, however interesting these may be to the student, and however useful to garnish and adorn our position, it is not by them that the feeling of the Scotch people will be practically influenced in this matter. The Presbyterian Church has three branches. The first in order is the Established Church itself, of which I need say nothing. The next is a body called the United Presbyterian Church, an agglomeration of Churches which from time to time have seceded mainly on the ground of spiritual independence; and the fundamental, essential doctrine of this United Presbyterian Church is that the interference of the State in religious affairs is unscriptural and injurious, and that the interests of religion are best served when they are entrusted to the voluntary effort of the people. The third body is the Free Church, the inheritors of those who left the Church in 1843, under circumstances so dramatic and so full of heroism, in protest against the interference of the civil power in spiritual matters. This Church includes a considerable number of men who are—to use the word of my hon. and learned Friend behind me—passionately devoted to that extreme doctrine of the State Church, which is now apparently abandoned by the champions of the Established Church. ("No, no!") Well, the fact that the hon. Member says "No" will not prevent me holding that opinion. But it is a comparatively small section now which holds these extreme views. The great majority of the members of the Free Church of Scotland, lay and clerical, have by declarations year after year shown that they do not recognise the idea of re-incorporation except on the basis of perfect liberty and equality—in other words, Disestablishment. Now, does my hon. Friend propose a formal, honest, and open incorporation of these two seceding Churches in the Established Church? Not at all. Anyone can see that, in the circumstances I have stated, such an incorporation is practically impossible, and, in fact, to propose it is an insult to the consciences of those to whom it is offered. But the
      1774
      object is to create some such modification in the position of the Established Church as shall tempt deserters to come back to it from the rival folds. Therefore, while professing peace, it is war that the hon. Member brings. By some specious modification in the constitution, or standards, or canons of the Established Church he hopes to be able to filch and pilfer here a member and there a member from the Seceding Churches in order to strengthen the Established Church. My hon. Friend who lends himself to that process knows but little of his countrymen. The honest men in the Established Church are just as much opposed to such a process as anyone else. Those honest members of the Established Church wish to see their Church strong; but sooner than that object should be accomplished by a process so unfair and insulting to their neighbours—their rivals, if you like—in the other Presbyterian Churches, whose conscientious convictions have driven them into secession, they would say, "Perish our endowments and perish our State privileges!" Is the House of Commons going to assist such a process as that proposed by the hon. Member? How can a United Presbyterian, if his connection with his Church be anything more than a name, abandon his principles, although he may benefit his pocket by joining the State Church? How can a Free Churchman, glorying in the traditions of his Church, and treasuring as his most precious heritage the history of his Church's birth, consent to go back to the Establishment unless on the condition not only that he secures all for which his forefathers fought, but also the fullest recognition and atonement for their great sacrifices? The House of Commons has a peculiar responsibility in this matter, because it was Parliament that I will not say caused, but precipitated, the disruption of 1843. Is Parliament now to countenance an attempt to weaken and beggar this Church which for fifty years has nobly done its work? Let, indeed, the differences between the Churches in Scotland cease, and let the old sores be healed by union. On that we are all agreed. But the only path to union

      1775
      is by admitting to the non-Established Churches the full justification of their present position; by withholding from all Churches—whether for the purpose of support or of direction and control—the hand of the State; and the Scotch Presbyterian people will do the rest, without the aid of Parliament and especially without the aid of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Inverness (Mr. Finlay). My position is that the union he talks of can only be accomplished by Disestablishment, and I will quote in support of that position authorities that should have some weight with my hon. and learned Friend. The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen)—who I am sorry to see is not present—was for a brief and uncertain period a Representative of a Scotch constituency, and in addressing his constituents on one occasion he used these words: "I would wish to recall the fact that I was an ardent supporter of the Disestablishment of the Church in Ireland." It is difficult nowadays for us to conceive the right hon. Gentleman an ardent supporter of any reform—
      "I can see," he says, "in the Disestablishment of the Church of Scotland one great result, which would be entirely absent in the case of the Disestablishment of the Church of England, and that is the union of all the Presbyterian bodies. I am treading upon delicate ground, but I think that the fact that the Established Church is tied to the State was the one great obstacle to the union of the Presbyterians in Scotland."
      But I have a still higher authority, whom one naturally approaches with awe. The Duke of Argyll made a statement on this subject in 1874.
      MR. MARK J. STEWART: Quote what he said in 1891 or 1892.
      *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I will quote what he said in 1892 presently, which is better than 1891. In 1874 the Duke of Argyll held a certain opinion which I will now quote. It may be said that that is a long time ago. Well, that is a consideration which might have some effect in the case of anybody else than the Duke of Argyll; but he never changes his opinions, because he is never wrong. What he said in 1874 was this:—
      1776
      "There is no hope whatever of the reunion of the Free and Established Churches, except on the ground of Disestablishment."
      That is a plain statement from the mouth of a man who knows as much of the ins and outs of this question as anyone living. Well, now I come to what he said in 1892. In January of this year there was a meeting in Edinburgh of a strange body, called the Laymen's League, which exists with the object of uniting all the scattered flocks under the banner of the Establishment. The Duke of Argyll was brought to Edinburgh as the great orator on that occasion; and, since the days of Balaam, nothing more remarkable has happened, because he devoted the whole of his address to proving that all the outside seceding bodies were in a very poor way, and that the best of all possible Churches was the Church of Scotland—of course, because it was the Church of the Duke of Argyll. Not a very diplomatic way to bring about a solution of this question. He said, giving them small comfort—
      "My advice is against going to Parliament at all. What can we get better than that on which we have stood for nearly 200 years.'
      The Scotsman newspaper, which advocates generally the policy of the hon. Member for Inverness, was greatly disappointed with what the Duke said. It hoped the public would not be so ungrateful as to wish that he had buried his views in the quiet crypt of some Church magazine. It summed up the Duke of Argyll's speech as maintaining that the Church of Scotland is the one Church in Christendom which is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, and that its General Assembly is the one legitimate descendant and representative of the Council of Jerusalem. And it argued that, if it were an error to suppose that equal virtue was to be found in other Churches, the Laymen's League was nothing better than a Church Defence Association. Well, Sir, I pass from this point, because what I have quoted shows that eminent men among those who have no sympathy with the policy of my hon. Friend and Member for the College Division and myself share our opinion that the only way to effect a union is by Disestablishment.

      1777
      It is my hon. Friend for the College Division, and not the Laymen's League, that is the true peacemaker in Scotland. My firm belief is that my countrymen are not so concerned, as they are sometimes thought to be, in nice theological distinctions and in the contests of Church Courts. They are tired and contemptuous of the dark intrigues of political ecclesiastics, such as those which the obscure Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend represents. The proposal of my hon. Friend for the College Division (Dr. Cameron) is perfectly straightforward and unmistakable in its design, and I believe, Sir, that the quiet and steady-minded men of all the Churches, Established or otherwise, have realised more and more every year that while Disestablishment is the only path that leads to union, it will bring no injustice to those concerned, and that it will vastly increase the power for good of that general Presbyterian Church, in which are involved indissolubly the sympathies and traditions of the great mass of the Scotch people.
      THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. A. J. BALFOUR,): Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has not left me—I do not complain of it—any lengthened period of time in which to discuss the important questions now before us; but he has, at all events, left me sufficient opportunity to declare in explicit and clear language what is the opinion of the Government upon the Motion and Amendment before the House. One or two of the statements of the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down I have listened to with extreme surprise. He occupied no inconsiderable part of his interesting speech with an elaborate attempt to prove not only that the opinion of the Scotch people has not yet been definitely taken on this question of Disestablishment, but also, under no conceivable circumstances, could that opinion be taken under our existing Parliamentary institutions.
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: In the sense referred to by my hon. Friend.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman attempted to establish the proposition that it was impossible to have a Dissolution, the result of which would clearly show whether or not the people of Scotland definitely desire the Disestablishment of their Church.
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: On the contrary, I am ready to accept the result of a Dissolution—quite ready as soon as the Government will give it us—as a verdict on the point; but what I said was the question could not be segregated from all other questions.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: In other words, the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly ready to accept the result of a General Election as conclusive on this point, while holding the opinion that it would show nothing of the general opinion of the country. He says he will accept the verdict, though it would not be given upon the question of the Disestablishment of the Church alone, but associated with the question of Home Rule, with the Temperance question, and with each and all of the items in the Newcastle programme. Upon that I have two observations to make, and the first is that it is not consistent with the view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian in 1879. His object at that time was to persuade the people of Scotland to vote for him upon the Eastern question and other important questions then before the country, and he would not allow the red herring of Disestablishment to be drawn across the track. The right hon. Gentleman said—
      "Even in the case of the Irish Church, which was far weaker than the Scotch Church, even in that case the question was raised in Parliament and there was a dissolution expressly upon the question. The verdict of the country was given after full consideration, and that is what the Established Church of Scotland fairly and justly asks."
      So that whatever may be the view of the right hon. Gentleman at the present time, he in 1879 did not share the view

      1779
      of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Stirling Burghs (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman), but on the contrary thought it was not only possible to get the verdict of the people of Scotland on the question of Disestablishment, but it was right to have that verdict definitely taken. That is the first observation I have to make, and the second is not less applicable to Scotchmen, who, over and over again, have had it thrown in their teeth when they have stood by the Established Church of Scotland, that the majority of the Scottish Representatives in the House have voted in favour of Disestablishment. Well, but in the view of the right hon. Gentleman what is the value of that verdict? Does it show that the people are in favour of Disestablishment? Not at all. On the right hon. Gentleman's own principle, what security have we that the hon. Member for Glasgow who moved this Resolution to-night, the hon. Member for the Border Burghs who seconded him, or others who supported him, were not elected by the constituents who sent them to this House to Vote for Home Rule, or on the Temperance question, or any of the various points in the Newcastle programme? What possible grounds are there for believing that these hon. Gentlemen represent the opinion of the Scotch people, or even of their own constituents, on the great question which is now before us? I think the right hon. Gentleman in his few observations on this point has shown himself opposed to the contention of his Leader in 1879, and also at a later date, that the verdict of the Scotch people could not be derived solely from the voices of the Scotch Representatives. I do not propose to go at any length, nor would time allow me to do so, into the elaborate and important questions raised by the right hon. Gentleman. He has dilated on the advantage of re-uniting the various Presbyterian Churches in Scotland, and upon that everybody agrees with him, and it is the subject matter of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Finlay). But the right hon. Gentleman has told us that it would be degrading and insulting, or, at all events, contrary to the
      1780
      conscientious convictions of members of the non-Established Churches of Scotland, to enter into any arrangement of the kind contemplated in the Amendment. But upon what historic basis does the right hon. Gentleman found that assertion? He appears to be of opinion that it is a cardinal point with the United Presbyterian Church and the Free Church, and that it is an insult to ask them to deviate from it, not to unite with an Established Church. He assumes that it is the specific and peculiar creed of these Churches, that the ecclesiastical organisation which they follow should not be connected with the State. On what historic basis does he found the assertion? It is in absolute contradiction to the most notorious facts of history. It is perfectly true, I believe, that the great majority—not all—of the United Presbyterians do not approve of any relations—of any specific relations—between the Church and State; but it is no part of their original creed, no part of their existing organisation, no pledge to that effect is given by the minister or required from a United Presbyterian layman. I believe I am not going beyond historic fact and am warranted in saying that the original founders of the United Presbyterian Church did not express the view entertained by the right hon. Gentleman; but held precisely opposite convictions. If that be true of the United Presbyterians, it is certainly and emphatically true of the Free Church. The men who seceded from the Establishment and founded the Free Church were as convinced as we who intend to vote against the Resolution to-night are, that the ancient historic connection between Church and State in Scotland should be maintained, and to this day I believe the majority of the men who call themselves the Free Church are as firmly convinced in favour of the principle as their forefathers were when they seceded. I heard one argument of the right hon. Gentleman with astonishment. He told us that we, the Parliament of this country, were at all events partly responsible for the secession from the Established Church in 1843.
      MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I said precipitated it.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Responsible for precipitating the secession of 1843, that is the allegation. I believe the right hon. Gentleman said this Parliament, thus responsible, ought to be most careful before it weakens, or attempts to weaken, the Free Church of which Parliament is in part the author. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by that argument? I boldly assert, and I do not think that anybody will contradict me who knows the ecclesiastical history of Scotland, that if the spirit of the Established Church, and the laws governing that Church in 1843, had been then what they are at this moment, not a minister or a layman would then have seceded from that Church. In seeking to unite the Free Church with the Established Church on the basis proposed, we are asking that from the members of the Free Church which their forefathers would readily have done. I utterly fail to understand, therefore, what this particular argument of the right hon. Gentleman means. When he went on to say that the consciences of Scotchmen required equality of treatment, and what is called by the Liberation Society religious equality as between different ecclesiastical bodies, he used a terminology which, however appropriate it may be to English controversies on the subject, is wholly alien to a discussion upon Scotch matters, for the Scottish people have never desired what the right hon. Gentleman calls religious equality; they have never wished to see the funds devoted from ancient times to the maintenance of the Presbyterian form of religion diverted to other purposes. Whether they belong to the Established Church or not, they have never wished for that kind of religous equality which figures so largely in Liberation Society speeches and pamphlets. I ask the House to reject this Motion on a very plain and simple issue. Here we have funds devoted from time immemorial to this purpose—not public contributions in the sense of contributions from taxation; but funds derived from private
      1782
      beneficence principally, devoted from time immemorial to this public purpose under sanction of Statutes. I ask the House to reject the Motion because there is no purpose suggested to which these funds could be more usefully devoted or more in consonance with the wishes of the people of Scotland. It is true the right hon. Gentleman vaguely adumbrated some public purposes to which the money might be devoted—baths and wash-houses, I think he mentioned, but he did not tell us plainly what it was he had in mind—some obscure and remote purpose in which he thought these funds might be more usefully employed than in supporting the religion in which the people of Scotland as a whole believe and the form of worship they desire to follow. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think the purpose to which these funds have been appropriated is the highest purpose for which any funds can be used. They are used for purposes certainly in consonance with the religious convictions of the people of Scotland, and this House would be ill-advised under any circumstances in diverting these funds to other uses, and would be guilty of a crime if it attempted any such diversion without a special mandate from the people of Scotland. I hope the House will assent to the Amendment, which certainly we on this Bench shall not hesitate to support.
      Question put.
      (11.59.) The House divided:—Ayes 209; Noes 265.—(Div. List, No. 140.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
      DR. CAMERONrose—
      It being after midnight, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded to interrupt the business,
      Whereupon Mr. FINLAY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
      Question put, "That the Question be now put."
      (12.10.) The House divided:—Ayes 294; Noes 142.—(Div. List, No. 141.)
      Question, "That those words be there added," put accordingly, and agreed to.
      Main Question, as amended, put.
      (12.30.) The House divided:—Ayes 247; Noes 175.—(Div. List, No. 142.)
      Resolved—
      "That it is not desirable in itself, nor consonant with the wishes of the people of Scotland, that the Church of Scotland should be disestablished and its endowments diverted to secular uses; and that, in the opinion of this House, it is highly desirable that the Presbyterian Churches of Scotland should be reunited upon a National basis, and that the endowments should continue to be appropriated to religious purposes."

  MOTIONS.

    PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
    Ordered—
    That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire and report as to the cost and method of the publication of the Debates and Proceedings in Parliament.—(Mr. Akers-Douglas.)
    MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: Before the right hon. Gentleman proceeds to the nomination of the Members to serve on this Committee will he say upon what basis the selection has been made?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AKERS-DOUGLAS,): The usual course has been followed after due consultation with Members on either side to secure a Committee of a representative character.
    DR. TANNER: I object.
    MR. JOHNSTON: Perhaps the hon. Member would be satisfied if two directors of the Freeman's Journal were added to the Committee.
    MR. SPEAKER: Objection being taken, the nomination stands over.

  POST OFFICE ACT (1891) EXTENSION BILL.

    MOTION FOR LEAVE.
    *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Sir J. FERGUSSON,): I beg to move for leave to bring in a Bill—
    1784
    "To amend the Post Office Act, 1891, in relation to its application to Scotland, and to apply that Act to the Isle of Man and to the Channel Islands."
    I may explain that this is precisely the same Bill as that brought in yesterday; there is simply an alteration in the long title.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Post Office Act, 1891, in relation to its application to Scotland, and to apply that Act to the Isle of Man and to the Channel Islands."—(Sir James Fergusson.)
    MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: It is a somewhat remarkable thing that yesterday a Bill was introduced to correct a mistake in last year's Bill, and now there is a Bill to repair a mistake in yesterday's Bill. When shall we have an end of these corrections?
    *SIR J. FERGUSSON: The present Motion is rendered necessary on technical grounds. The long title omitted to mention the application of the Bill to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. It was an oversight, but it is not worth a controversy. According to the forms of the House the title of the Bill must correspond with the provisions of the Bill.
    MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: As a point of order, should not the Bill brought in yesterday be withdrawn before this Bill is introduced?
    MR. SPEAKER: No, that is not necessary. In due course the substitution will be made.
    MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I must say it is somewhat remarkable that we should have these two Bills introduced on successive days, and I think we should have some information as to what the Bill contains.
    DR. TANNER: I object.
    Motion deferred.

    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 4) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir M. Hicks Beach, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861," relating to Carloway and Kinsale, ordered to be brought in by Sir M. Hicks Beach and Sir J. Gorst.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 368.]

    PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 5) BILL.
    On Motion of Sir M. Hicks Beach, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under "The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861," relating to Bournemouth, ordered to be brought in by Sir M. Hicks Beach and Sir J. Gorst.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 369.]

    PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. Ritchie, Bill to provide for the valuation of Public Elementary Schools for the purposes of rates and for the use of such schools for meetings, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ritchie, Sir William Hart Dyke and Mr. Long.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 371.]

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
    GALWAY INFIRMARY BILL.—(No. 350.)

      COMMITTEE.
      Order for Committee read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order be discharged."—(Mr. Jackson.)
      MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I do not object to the Motion that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee, but I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the propriety of an Instruction to the Committee, empowering the Committee to give the Bill a general application to all the Infirmaries in Ireland.
      THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JACKSON,): That is hardly a practicable course. The clauses of the Bill are drafted to meet the particular case of Galway; and even if it were desirable, I do not see how the Bill could be made applicable to all the Infirmaries in Ireland.
      COLONEL NOLAN: The great advantage of the Bill will be to the Borough of Galway, though the county will to some extent share in the benefit.
      DR. TANNER: Speaking from some experience of Infirmaries, I must say I should like to see the reform generally extended, yet on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread, I do not think we ought to stand in the way of Galway getting the benefit, which may hereafter be extended to other Infirmaries.
      MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: When will the Committee be struck?
      MR. JACKSON: At once.
      MR. TIMOTHY HEALY: I hope in the appointment reasonable care will be taken to secure the representation of all sections of Irish Representatives.
      Motion agreed to.
      Order discharged.
      Bill committed to a Select Committee of Five Members, Three to be nominated by the House and Two by the Committee of Selection.
      Ordered, That all petitions against the Bill presented three clear days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee; that the Petitioners praying to be heard by themselves, their Counsel, or Agents, be heard against the Bill, and Counsel heard in support of the Bill.
      Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
      Ordered, That Three be the quorum.—(Mr. Jackson.)

      MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
      That they have agreed to,—Amendments to Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Acts Amendment Bill [Lords] without Amendment.
      That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act for Codifying the Law relating to the sale of goods." (Sale of Goods Bill) [Lords].

  RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (ABBOTSBURY, &c.) BILL.—(No. 4.)
  Lords Amendment agreed to.
  RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (MIDLAND AND SOUTH WESTERN JUNCTION, &c.) BILL.—(No. 7.)
  Lords Amendment agreed to.
  RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (TAFF VALE, &C.) BILL.—(No. 8.)
  Lords Amendment agreed to.
  RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (ATHENRY AND ENNIS JUNCTION, &C.) BILL.—(No. 25.)
  Lords Amendments agreed to.
  RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (EAST LONDON, &C.) BILL.—(No. 196.)
  Lords Amendments agreed to.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 298.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.—(No. 343.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (POOR LAW) BILL.—(No. 342.)
  Read a second time, and committed.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES LAW CONSOLIDATION BILL.—(No. 143.)
  Reported from the Select Committee.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 221.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 221.]
  Bill re-committed to a Committee of the whole House for Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 370.]

  RECREATION GROUNDS BILL. (No.201.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE.
  Third Report, with Minutes of Evidence and Appendix, brought up, and read.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 222.]

  CLERGY DISCIPLINE (IMMORALITY) BILL.—(No. 239.)
  Reported from the Standing Committee on Law, &c.
  Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 223.]
  Minutes of Proceedings to be printed. [No. 223.]
  Bill, as amended, to be taken into consideration upon Thursday, and to be printed. [Bill 372.]

  ANCIENT MONUMENTS.
  Copy presented,—of Order in Council, dated 9th May 1892, declaring that certain Monuments in the county of Glamorgan shall be deemed to be Ancient Monuments to which "The Ancient Monuments Protection Act, 1882," applies [by Act]; to lie upon the Table.

  EDUCATION (SCOTLAND).
  Copy presented,—of Return showing the Expenditure from the Grant for Public Education in Scotland in the year 1891 upon Annual Grants to Elementary Schools, the number of Schools, and the Results of Inspection and Examination during the year ended 30th September 1891 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  It being One of the clock, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put till To-morrow.
  House adjourned at One o'clock.

UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) ORDINANCES.
THE LORD STEWARD OF THE HOUSEHOLD (The Earl of MOUNT-EDGCUMBE): My Lords, with regard to the Ordinance under the Universities (Scotland) Act I have duly presented the Address of your Lordships to Her Majesty, and Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to return the following answer:—
"I have received your Lordships' Address praying that I will withhold my Assent to the words 'or in Mathematics' occurring in Clause IV, (2) of the Ordinance Number XI. framed by the Commissioners under the Universities (Scotland) Act, 1889.
I will withhold my Assent to those words in conformity with your Lordships' advice."

SHERIFF COURTS (SCOTLAND) EXTRACTS BILL.
Bill read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.
YEOMANRY CAVALRY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  *VISCOUNT GALWAY: My Lords, I need scarcely say that it is very gratifying to the Yeomanry to find that at last their complaints have been brought before the War Office and the public in a proper manner. For many years we have been doing our best to get certain questions brought before the War Office, and at last I hope we shall succeed in getting a satisfactory reply and shall be put in a satisfactory position. For a great many years past it has been the fashion with several military and civilian critics to think that the Yeomanry have not improved; but, my Lords, the old yeoman of portly form, who was a very good fellow in every way except as a light Cavalry soldier, no longer exists in the ranks; we have now a great many young men capable of doing their work well. His Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, when he visited
  1642
  them lately, was kind enough to express his approval of them, and all the Inspecting Officers after the various inspections have reported every year that great improvements have taken place. Your Lordships will be glad indeed, I am sure, that at last the Yeomanry are to be put upon the mobilisation scheme, and to have their share in the defence of the country. But, to come more to the details of this Report, I think myself that the question of the reduction of sergeants may be met in a fairly satisfactory manner. Whether the reduction of adjutants will be equally successfully worked without friction there is some doubt, because I think it will be found very difficult for any man to be in two places at once and to serve two masters, as the adjutant must if he is to serve two large regiments at different quarters. But there are three points to which I should like to ask the noble Earl the Under Secretary of State for War particularly to direct his attention. The first is that in this Report of the Committee on the Yeomanry Cavalry it is proposed to make the whole of the contingent allowance depend upon a standard of musketry. When a man is recruited the Yeomanry have to equip him with his full uniform, and he may be a very good horseman and swordsman and a good Cavalry soldier in every respect; but perhaps, because he lives a long distance from butts, and is unable, therefore, to have practice, or perhaps has not naturally great talent for shooting, he is not a very fair marksman. It seems very hard, therefore, that the whole of the contingent allowance should depend upon the accident of his being a good shot. I hope, therefore, the noble Earl will be able to say that some modification will be made in that portion of the Report. Another point is this. At the present moment the Yeomanry are about the cheapest force that the country can have: they cost little more than £7 per man, for which you have a man ready equipped with his uniform, saddle and horse, and ready to turn out at any moment. As this Report seems to me a little like robbing Peter to pay Paul, I hope sincerely that we shall clearly understand that there is no

  1643
  proposal to reduce the sum total of the Yeomanry Vote, but that whatever is saved from one portion of it will be given back to the Yeomanry in some way to promote their efficiency. The third point is that, if the brigading system is thoroughly carried out, heavy expense will be thrown upon the regiments during the year in which they have to brigade; and I hope that that expense will not fall on the Contingent Fund, but that some other fund will be forthcoming. Then there is another point which, perhaps, the noble Earl will not care to answer at once. It seems to me that the maximum number is very much too near what we have been actually turning out in the last two years, and that it will act as a damper in recruiting. Moreover, it seems to me that with the new Cavalry drill the numbers fixed will not be found, to work well, and I hope that some modification may be made with respect to that number. I should like, therefore, to ask the noble Earl what are the intentions of Her Majesty's Government in regard to carrying out the Report, and I hope he will kindly take notice of the three points which I have brought to his notice.
  *LORD BELPER: Before the noble Earl answers the remarks which have just been made, having had the honour of commanding a Yeomanry regiment for some years I should like to refer to one or two points in the Report of the Yeomanry Committee. In the first place I should wish entirely to concur in the remarks made by the noble Viscount with regard to the fact that for the first time the Yeomanry are given a position in the mobilisation scheme of the country, and that they have now a definite place as part of the defensive forces of the country; and in connection with that I am very glad to see the proposal for occasionally, once in three years, brigading two or three Yeomanry regiments together, not only on paper, but also in the field. I would, only venture to ask whether in those cases it would not be desirable that the Yeomanry regiments when they are going out to work in brigade should be allowed to be called out for a rather longer period than at present; because it will clearly be most important that they should have an
  1644
  opportunity of learning their ordinary work before two or three regiments are called upon to work together in brigade—most of them for the first time. With regard to the increase in the Contingent Fund, that is a point which the Yeomanry Commanding Officers will accept with the greatest pleasure. It has been clearly proved that the amount now paid is not sufficient to cover the expenses of the force; and, although that money comes out of the Yeomanry themselves, I think they will be pleased at the change. With regard to the diminution of staff sergeants I think there probably will be some difference of opinion amongst officers commanding different Yeomanry regiments; but I should like to say, speaking solely for, my own regiment, that, although there will be some inconvenience at first in altering the headquarters of different troops, yet I believe it can be carried out without diminishing in any way the efficiency of the regiment. My Lords, there are two points which have not been referred to to which I should like to call the attention of the noble Earl. The first is that in paragraph 9 with regard to the working of the squadron. It is pointed out that the strength of one hundred is a good working strength for the field, and though inferior to a squadron of regular Cavalry it is perhaps as large as is desirable for the Yeomanry. I should like to point out that included in that hundred will be a considerable number of the band, and I rather think this point must have been overlooked by the Committee. The band of the Yeomanry is sworn in and attached to the different troops, and therefore, if every man in the field was efficient, the maximum of the squadron would be about 92 or 93 instead of one hundred. Besides this, I think if the Report is accepted as it stands that would necessitate the band going through a course of musketry; and I am sure that any gentleman who knows what Yeomanry bands are will not think probably that that would be a very desirable thing to do. I do not think you could get men to join the band and also to shoot; and I think, if you were to insist upon it probably the result would be very much more dangerous to themselves

  1645
  than to any enemy they might have to meet. The question of musketry has already been referred to by the noble Viscount who introduced the question. As my regiment has a great difficulty in getting ranges, particularly up to a sufficient distance, I hope that the qualification in musketry will not be made a sine quâ non for the contingent allowance. I think if it is to depend upon anything it would be far better to make some of the pay of the yeoman depend upon his shooting his course, thereby proving to him that his shooting is an essential part of a Cavalry soldier's duties at the present time. The only other point to which I should like to call the noble Earl's attention is the question of the numbers. In the schedule the strength of the Yeomanry regiments for the last three years has been taken as an average. Any one who knows the great difficulties that Yeomanry regiments have had to meet, owing to the agricultural depression, will understand that even in the last year and the year before, those difficulties have not been finally overcome, and the losses we suffered four or five years before have not been completely filled up. To take the case of my own regiment, which happens to be a somewhat peculiar one, I find that in the last years mentioned in the Report it has increased by nearly sixty: from 208 in 1889 to 263 in 1891; and I have every reason to suppose that it will be something like 290 when it is called out this year. Therefore, under the scale which has been given by this Report, it would be impossible for me after this year to try to increase the strength of the regiment at all. The old strength of the regiment was four hundred maximum including officers. For a regiment of four squadrons under the new scheme the four hundred would be a stronger regiment, because that is exclusive of officers and staff; at the same time I think it would be rather hard upon a regiment, while pulling up their numbers considerably, and now for the first time getting over the difficulties of the agricultural depression, that they should be stopped from recruiting if they find they can get an efficient number of men which would bring them over the
  1646
  number which has been laid down in the schedule of this Report. I hope the noble Earl will at all events consider, if he cannot answer now, the two or three points which I have brought forward. I am sure that, although there is a considerable difference of opinion with regard to various details amongst officers commanding the force, they will all accept the general regulations laid down in this Report, and will strive in future, as they have in the past, to make the Yeomanry an efficient part of the Reserve Forces of the country.
  *EARL COWPER: My Lords, though I have nothing to do with any Yeomanry regiment myself, yet, in common with all your Lordships, I take a great interest in the whole subject of our national defences, particularly those which may be classed under the general head of Volunteers. I am sure it is not at all too soon that the Government have turned their attention to the subject of the Yeomanry, and I think that anybody who has glanced over the Report must feel that the Yeomanry force are not in a satisfactory condition. On the very first page we have it that out of a maximum of thirteen thousand there are only about eight thousand efficients. That I think is not nearly so many as there ought to be. I also think they are rather backward compared with the other forces. Some thirty years ago no doubt the Yeomanry were considered a very fine body of men, even though I am quite willing to admit, as the noble Viscount who brought forward the subject says, they were really not so good actually then as they are now. But in these days when the Volunteers during the last ten years have come so tremendously forward, and have become so very efficient, I think the Yeomanry require to be brought up to the standard. Now of course the Yeomanry were originally intended very much for the sake of assisting the civil power in preserving law and order and in acting against mobs and rioters. This was never a very popular or very satisfactory employment for them. I think always in case of a riot or a difficulty it is far better, when unfortunately you must have recourse to force, to employ police or regular soldiers whom

  1647
  you can keep in hand and who will stand a certain amount of insult or throwing stones without being provoked into what may end in indiscriminate slaughter. Therefore I do not think the Yeomanry are likely to be much employed in this way in the future. Certainly, in former days, both in England and Ireland, their employment in this way was not attended with good results. Besides, as has been pointed out in this Report, in these days of increased railway communication, when you can always concentrate a certain number of soldiers or police upon a given spot in a very short time, the Yeomanry are less likely than ever to be called upon to do this work. If they are to continue to exist they must simply and solely be considered as part of the national defence; and they must be in such a position that in case of invasion they would be reliable for employment there and then as part of the efficient forces of the country. Now there is no doubt that if they are to do this they must improve very much upon what they are; they must not only learn to shoot, which has been pointed out in the Report as a very necessary thing, and a thing which is very much neglected; but I think they must be able to make a better appearance in the field than they can now. In many regiments I think it is wonderful how much they do, considering that they only come out one week in the year; that one day is employed in arriving, and another in going away; another in a field day, and another is Sunday; so that they only have four days' drill in the year. But I think if they are to be an efficient force they must have more drills than they have now. I do not know that the Government can be called upon to give more towards them than they do now. As compared with the regular forces, they are very cheap, no doubt; but as compared with the Volunteers, I think they cost about twice as much per man. But I think they would be very glad to do something for themselves, I think they come from a class who would be glad to meet the Government and pay part of their own expenses if they were encouraged. All I think they want is encouragement, and more to be
  1648
  required of them before they can be passed as efficient. I think, considering what they have in their favour, considering the admirable men both in this House and in other positions who are willing to come forward and take command of these forces and officer them, considering the general spirit among the youth of the country, and the patriotism and love of military service, which is undoubted, it is quite true that they only want encouragement to be induced to do more than they do now. If they can once know that they belong, not to a merely ornamental force as in bygone days, but to a really efficient force, capable in case of invasion of forming an efficient part of the defences of the country, they will take a greater pride in the force than they do now; and, instead of there being only eight thousand out of a maximum of thirteen thousand, that maximum would constantly be kept to its full strength, and a demand would be made to increase it. My Lords, I am glad the Government have taken the matter up. I think every step they have taken has been in the right direction, in the interest of the Yeomanry themselves; and the more they are considered a permanent force in the country the more will they command men than they do now.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Earl BROWNLOW): My Lords, there are two points which have been from time to time urged upon the Secretary of State for War by commanding officers—one is a complaint that the Military Authorities have never yet seen their way to utilise them for the purposes of mobilisation; the other is that the contingent allowance which they now draw, £2 per man, is insufficient for the purposes for which it is intended. To remedy this state of things, if possible, is the problem that was placed before the Committee. When the Committee began to make inquiries they were immediately struck by the very small size of the units of the Yeomanry. This is an old story. As long ago as 1875 a Committee appointed to inquire into this very question reported in favour of disbanding all regiments that fell below two hundred in two consecutive years.

  1649
  This recommendation was embodied in the Yeomanry regulations, where it is laid down that any regiment which falls in two consecutive years below two hundred may be disbanded without further notice, and there the regulation has remained up to this time as a dead letter—it has never been acted upon. But when the Committee came to inquire into the number they were astonished to find that no less than sixteen out of the thirty-nine Yeomanry regiments had this sword of Damocles hanging over their heads which might fall and destroy them at any moment. The Committee, therefore, considered in what way they might get over the difficulty of not having to disband small regiments and yet being able to keep these small regiments and enable then to preserve their individuality. The method they hit upon was the system of brigading. By joining two or more small regiments into brigades this difficulty of very small units is immediately got rid of. It is hoped that these brigades will be somewhat similar in number to the Regular Cavalry regiments, and yet that each small unit may retain its own individuality. In forming these brigades it is considered that the present regimental adjutants, some of whom have very small numbers of men to look after, may be gradually, as they die out, abolished, and brigade adjutants substituted in their stead. And, as a matter of detail, it is proposed by the Committee that the brigade adjutant should have some extra allowance in the way of another horse, because he will be required to do more travelling. The next point to which the Committee devoted their attention was the size of the troops. The Committee found that in some regiments of average size the troops consisted of twenty-two men, some of these troops being of a less number than twenty-two, and to every one of these troops the Government supplies a staff sergeant. We have it in evidence that many of the staff sergeants are not fully employed, and eke out their time with the permission of the commanding officer by taking civil employment. There was nothing in the evidence to prove that a staff sergeant was not perfectly capable of taking care of a whole squadron; but it was pointed out by
  1650
  one or two commanding officers that if this reduction was made suddenly there would be a great deal of difficulty in maintaining the regiments in a proper state of efficiency. It is therefore proposed by the Committee that one staff sergeant should be allowed to each squadron, and that in addition one more sergeant should be allowed to be at the disposal of the commanding officer for what I may call general purposes. It was further pointed out that some further assistance might be wanted at times of the year when there is a good deal of pressure for exercising the men in carbine practice and sword exercise, and it was considered that that assistance might be found in the regiment in the non-commissioned officers of the Yeomanry; and of course it is always open to the commanding officer of the regiment, if he has nobody in the regiment who is competent to teach these things, to find somebody in the district who is competent, and he can enrol him in his regiment and employ him in that way; but it is proposed that he should be paid by arrangement between the commanding officer and this sergeant out of the increased contingent allowance, which I will come to presently. The next point to which the Committee turned their attention was the question of shooting. Now, my Lords, we have often been told that the Yeomanry shoot badly,—the only wonder is that they shoot at all. No encouragement has ever been offered to the Yeomanry to shoot, and the only possible incentive to them has come out of the pockets of the officers. It was pointed out to the Committee that the men lost time in going to and from the ranges, and therefore it has been recommended that every man who passes through his course should be given 3s. 6d. pay for the day that he spends upon the ranges. The numbers which the Committee recommend for brigades are either a maximum of 400 and a minimum of 280 for a four-squadron regiment, or a maximum of 300 enrolled and a minimum of 210 efficients for a three-squadron regiment, or for a two-squadron regiment a maximum of 200 and a minimum of 140. But my Lords, it is supposed that there may be some cases—I hope

  1651
  they will be exceedingly few—where it is found impossible in a county to keep up even this minimum number of 140. In those cases sooner than entirely disband the corps it is proposed that the Secretary of State shall have the power when he sees fit, to allow a single squadron to be maintained in the county but with no regimental staff. I may perhaps here deal with the question that was put by my noble Friend opposite (Lord Belper) on the subject of maximum and minimum numbers. The reason why these numbers were fixed by the Committee was because the maximum number of a squadron having been fixed by them at the convenient number of 100 it naturally follows that a two-squadron regiment would have two hundred, a three-squadron regiment three hundred, and so on; but the Committee also considered the present state of the number of Yeomanry regiments, and they thought four hundred would be a sufficiently large maximum, looking to the state of the Yeomanry regiments. But I would point out that there is a way of getting over the difficulty. If a regiment is full and desires to enlist more men, it is quite in the power of the Secretary of State to allow them to enlist a certain number of supernumeraries, and if they kept on increasing, the Secretary of State could give a larger easement, and, if he wished it, could create a regiment of five squadrons.
  LORD BELPER: Would the supernumeraries get pay?
  EARL BROWNLOW: Yes, they would be paid if they were allowed to be taken on. Then the question of the band comes in here. The Committee certainly did not go very deeply into the question of the band because they found that the regulations already laid down with regard to the band that two bandsmen per troop are allowed, and I find they are excused certain exercises; but if there are any more bandsmen in the troop they are not excused. The Committee considered that these regulations would probably go on, and that the two bandsmen would still be allowed per troop. But then comes another point—whether they are to be obliged to shoot in order to obtain the contingent allowance. That is a
  1652
  point that escaped the Committee no doubt; but there is no doubt that the two bandsmen who are allowed will have to be excused shooting; the others I think will have to go through their musketry course like any other yeoman. Then comes the financial question. The Committee find that when the whole reduction is made in the adjutants the saving would be £5,013, the saving in the reduction of sergeants if carried out completely would be £8,306, the total saving being about £13,300, and it is proposed to allot that saving in the following manner: In the first place it has been pointed out that the contingent allowance does not meet the purposes for which it was intended, and that therefore considerable expense is very often thrown upon the officers. To meet this difficulty it is proposed that the contingent allowance shall be raised from £2 as it is at present up to £3, giving £1 per man more than at present. But the Committee report in favour of making the whole of this contingent allowance depend upon the shooting of the yeoman—that is to say, that if he does not come up to a certain moderate standard of shooting, which shall be laid down hereafter, the whole of this £3 shall be forfeited. Now my noble Friend behind me (Viscount Galway) has called my attention to this point, and I may say that the Secretary of State for War has given this point his very best consideration. He considers that the Committee are a little hard upon the yeomen in this respect, and he would be prepared to make only the extra £1 which it is proposed to add, depend upon the shooting of the yeoman; but of course if the yeoman does not pass through that course, besides losing the £1, he would also lose the day's 3s. 6d. for attending the range. That increase of £1 would amount to £8,500; then the day's pay for target practice would amount to £1,467; and it is further proposed in order to encourage shooting, to give twenty rounds per man of extra ammunition which would amount to £630, and the allowance to brigade adjutants for the additional horse will amount to £760, making a total of £11,357. That £11,357 will go against the saving of £13,300. It will be easily

  1653
  seen that none of these recommendations can be carried out immediately. The adjutants will gradually have to die out, and the staff sergeants probably cannot be reduced with very great rapidity; and therefore the saving will only be gradual. But it is proposed, if the Treasury will agree, that the payment of the increased contingent allowance shall begin next year. In the first year the result will be a slight increase of expenditure; in the second year it would probably be almost balanced; in the third year there will be a slight saving; and after that there would continue to be a saving. But it is not proposed that that saving shall be a decrease on the Yeomanry Vote. On the contrary the Committee point out that there will be expenses connected with brigading, probably travelling expenses and other expenses; and this small balance will be available to meet those expenses, and that answers the question of my noble Friend behind me. My Lords, in taking evidence and making inquiries the Committee were very much struck by the anxiety of all connected with the Yeomanry to make the Yeomanry as efficient as possible, and to raise them to their proper place amongst the Forces of the country; and the Committee in their Report use these words—
  "There is we are satisfied plenty of patriotic sentiment and a good soldierly material in the Yeomanry both as regards officers and men, and if the process of evolution in our military system has kept the force somewhat behindhand it has been its misfortune rather than its fault."
  My Lords, I am convinced that there is plenty of energy, there is plenty of patriotism, there is plenty of soldier-like bearing in the Yeomanry, and if these recommendations of the Committee, which I may say have already as a whole been approved by the Secretary of State, and are now under the consideration of the Treasury, are carried out, I have no hesitation in saying that the Yeomanry will be able in the future to hold the same dignified position among the Forces of the country, and will be of the same value as they have proved themselves in the past.

NAVAL SURVEY.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: My Lords, I wish to ask my noble Friend who represents the Admiralty in this House whether it is the intention of the Board to permanently station a surveying vessel in the Mediterranean. I anticipate the answer that he will give me. He will most likely tell me that there is already a vessel, the Stork stationed there; but the Stork as I understand—my noble Friend will correct me if I am mistaken—is not hi the same position as the former surveying vessels used to be; and in former days, as my noble Friend remembers, there was a permanent staff of surveying vessels stationed in the Mediterranean; they never left the station, they were not under the orders of the Commander in Chief except in a general way, and they had a complete staff of scientific officers with all the usual appliances for survey, which I very much doubt are to be found in the same value on board the Stork and other surveying vessels. And the whole duty of these ships was to survey in all parts of the Mediterranean during the summer, and during the winter they did not go home, but they mostly went to Malta, where they were employed in correcting the charts and preparing for the next summer's cruise. My Lords, we shall be told I have no doubt that for the ports of the Mediterranean there existed excellent charts from foreign nations. Well, my Lords, I do not think it is quite becoming a great country like ours to be dependent for charts upon other Naval Powers, and in the event of war it would be quite within the power of any neutral country to withhold its charts from both the belligerents; and if an objection should be taken that we should be offending Foreign Powers by surveying on their shores, I can only say that during the long period when I knew the Mediterranean where the vessels to which I allude used to traverse the coast all along, and at some parts of the Mediterranean where there was most likely to be a sensitive feeling, they were not interfered with; and I have no doubt in the present instance the diplomatic ability of the noble Marquess would remove any difficulty of

  1655
  that sort that would be likely to arise. Another reason why I think the survey of the Mediterranean should be very exact is that the large vessels we employ there draw a great deal more water than flag ships and line of battle ships of former days; and I need hardly ask the House to remember that the two most recent and most disastrous accidents which have arisen in the Navy have been due—I will not say to the absence of proper surveying precautions, but certainly to the existence of rocks where they were least suspected. In addition to this your Lordships must remember—I do not venture to impugn the action of the Admiralty—but it is by direction of the Board of Admiralty that all torpedo experiments are to be carried on in shallow waters, and our ships now visit portions of the Mediterranean for that purpose which used not to be visited, and I think were excepted from the surveys of former days. I allude principally to the Adriatic and some portions of the coast of Spain, and the northern part of the coast of Africa, in the neighbourhood of Morocco. My noble Friend will correct me if I am wrong, but I think I am right in saying that there is no thorough elemental survey of any of those portions of the Mediterranean waters; and that we are certainly dependent upon the survey of foreign Powers for the knowledge we possess of those coasts. I venture to ask my noble Friend whether the Admiralty will consider the great importance of the question and will station, as was formerly done, permanent surveying vessels in the Mediterranean such as are I believe at present stationed in other parts of the globe, and such as formerly existed there; such also as were employed by the East India Company permanently in the East Indies and the Persian Gulf, of which we have a most complete survey. Let me just say before I sit down that from personal knowledge I am aware that charts do require frequent correction. Some years ago I was supplied with a series of charts by one of the most distinguished officers in the Service—they were old charts, and, sailing by them I was enabled to observe—I am speaking of a yacht—the great difference that
  1656
  there is between those charts and some of more recent compilation. My Lords, I wish to say no more upon the subject; but I hope my noble Friend will give a satisfactory answer upon the point.
  LORD ELPHINSTONE: I cannot help thinking, my Lords, that my noble Friend is under some misapprehension in this matter. The question he asks is whether it is the intention of the Admiralty to restore the Surveying Department of the Navy formerly stationed in the Mediterranean. Now we never have had a Surveying Department of the Navy formerly stationed in the Mediterranean or in any other station. The only Surveying Department is the Hydrographer's Department of the Admiralty. We have surveying ships—we have seven at present belonging to the Government and three others that are hired; but we send our surveying ships wherever the circumstances of the moment require them to be sent. It is perfectly true that we have had no surveying ships in the Mediterranean for some years. The general surveys of the Mediterranean extend over a period of about fifty-six or fifty-eight years, and during the last four years we have had no surveying ships there at all. The Stork, to which the noble Viscount refers, has been surveying on the East India Station—she is expected now in the Mediterranean in the course of a few days, and her first duty will be to re-survey the Maltese Islands; after that it is possible she may be sent to the Greek Archipelago; but we have to obtain the sanction of the Greek Government to make any survey there. We have already asked permission, but have not yet received their authority. Then the noble Viscount refers to foreign coasts. He is perhaps not aware that we cannot send our surveying ships either to the coast of France, the coast of Italy, or the coast of Spain; they all make their own surveys. The Turkish Government do not allow us to go anywhere near their coast for the purposes of survey. The consequence is that a very large portion of the Mediterranean is unsurveyed at the present time. The coast of Asia Minor is unsurveyed, but we are not allowed to go there, and cannot send our ships there. With regard to the torpedo arrangements, the Admiralty never

  1657
  interfere with that matter. The whole of the local arrangements with regard to where torpedoes are to be run is left entirely in the hands of the commanding officers at the different stations. The general instructions are not to run torpedoes in deeper water than twenty fathoms—that is in the event of a torpedo being lost, to enable a diver if possible to recover it, twenty fathoms being the extreme limit in which diving operations can be carried on. Under some circumstances we do allow torpedo practice to be carried on in deep waters, but then again it is only under exceptional circumstances, where we are not able to carry it on in shallow water; but there again every precaution is ordered to be taken for the recovery of a stray torpedo. I do not know whether the noble Lord has seen the Hydrographer's Report which is presented to Parliament every year; it contains very interesting information. I have here the Report for 1890, if it is of any use to him. The Report for 1891 was laid on the Table of the two Houses of Parliament two or three days ago, giving all information as to what ships there are, what they are doing, and where they are.
  VISCOUNT SIDMOUTH: Do I rightly understand my noble Friend to say that there is a positive prohibition on the part of the Turkish Government against our surveying ships visiting the coast?
  LORD ELPHINSTONE: On the part of the Turkish Government, yes; on the part of the others they have all of them intimated that they do not expect us to go about surveying.
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Six o'clock.