Sitting of 18 August 1893

MR. SPEAKER'S ABSENCE.
The House being met, the Clerk at the Table informed the House of the unavoidable absence of Mr. Speaker:—
Whereupon Mr. Mellor, the Chairman of Ways and Means, proceeded to the Table, and after Prayers, took the Chair as Deputy Speaker, pursuant to the Standing Order.

QUESTIONS.

  THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the duties of the Director of the National Gallery have of recent years been practically limited to the selection and purchase of pictures; whether he is aware that only two pictures wore bought last year, and that until the Gallery is enlarged (which cannot be done for four or five years hence), there is no space in which more pictures can be conveniently hung; whether, in view of the approaching vacancy in the office, he will consider whether it is desirable to appoint a new Director at a salary of —1,000 per annum, in addition to the Keeper and Secretary of the Gallery; and whether the sum economised might be added to the sum allotted annually for the purchase of pictures?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The duties of the Director have in no way changed since the establishment of the office in 1855, and are by no means limited to the selection and purchase of pictures. The Director is the sole responsible officer for everything connected with the establishment. The number of pictures purchased varies, of course, very widely with the opportunities afforded. The acquisitions made in any given year form no criterion. Besides, the Director is equally responsible for the acceptance or rejection of the large number of pictures from time to time offered to the Gallery by gift or bequest. Although many of the rooms are at present much crowded under the indis-
  510
  pensable arrangement according to schools, temporary accommodation can always be found for pictures acquired, pending an addition to the building. There is no vacancy in the office of Director at present. When there is, no doubt the First Lord of the Treasury will consider with the Trustees whether any changes in the organisation of the Gallery are required.

  THE ARMY ACT.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Army Act embodying the whole of the alterations since 1881 has yet been printed in such a form as to be read as one complete Act, and to be more intelligible to those who serve under it than an Act requiring reference to some 20 subsequent Statutes?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): The Army Act as amended by later Acts, including the legislation of the present Session, is now being reprinted by the Stationery Office, and will be issued shortly.

  PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION FOR THE ARMY.
  MR. JEFFREYS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that, in consequence of his decision to abolish the preliminary examination for the Army, the majority of the candidates who have already passed that examination have been put to great and unnecessary trouble and expense in preparing for, and in coming to London to pass, that examination; whether he is still determined that these candidates shall not derive any benefit from having passed that examination; and whether he will consider the advisability of not making the new Regulations retrospective, but will allow those candidates who have passed the preliminary examination to compete in the further examination for the Army on the same terms and conditions as formerly?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, in view of the fact that the subjects in which candidates for the preliminary examination for the Army are examined are the following:—Euclid Book I., Algebra to Simple Equations,

  511
  Arithmetic to Simple Interest, French, Latin, Geography, Writing, and Dictation, he was correct in stating, in the month of July last, that the above examination was only equivalent to the Fourth Standard in elementary schools; when the new Regulations for Sandhurst will be issued; and whether candidates who have passed in the above subjects will have again to pass, or whether they will be treated as being already qualified in those subjects?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: As I explained on a former occasion, any candidate who has passed the preliminary examination will, when examined in the competitive examination, be relieved from the necessity of obtaining a minimum qualifying number of marks in the subjects which were embraced in the preliminary examination. So far he will have an advantage, but to exclude him from examination in those subjects would be a distinct loss to him, inasmuch as all the marks he would gain in any of them would count towards his total number of marks. The hon. Gentleman rather exaggerates the trouble and expense which the preliminary examination entailed, inasmuch as it was frequently undergone locally, without a journey to London. And it is intended that in future there shall be arrangements for localising the competitive examination. My hon. and learned Friend takes me to task for speaking disrespectfully of the preliminary examination. I used the comparison of it to the Fourth Standard, not as my own opinion, but as a quotation from a competent authority. It was a jocular comparison not meant to be strictly accurate; but I think if my hon. Friend considers that apart from an elementary examination in subjects which were embraced in the further examination, the special subjects of the preliminary examination were arithmetic, English, and geography—all of a simple character—he will agree that it could not reckon as a very formidable test of higher education. The new Regulations for entrance to Sandhurst are in the printers' hands.

  THE CASE OF THOMAS FEENY.
  MR. TULLY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what reply was given to the Memorial on behalf of Thomas Feeny, who was
  512
  private (No. 388) for four years in the Second North Lincoln Regiment, Tenth Foot, from 1858 to 1862; whether he is aware that this man was invalided from the effects of sunstroke in South Africa, and sent home to his relatives in Ballina-more, County Leitrim, utterly destitute, and left a burden on them since; and whether, under the circumstances, some pension or compensation can be granted to him?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No Memorial can be traced as having been received at the War Office on behalf of Thomas Feeny. The soldier was discharged in 1862 after less than four years' service on account of congenital mental imbecility. His papers do not refer to sunstroke in South Africa.

  H.M.S. "APOLLO."
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has received solemn declarations made before a Magistrate by Thomas Goggin and John Regan, who allege that they have saved H.M.S. Apollo from being wrecked off Crook-haven Harbour; and whether, in view of the conflict of testimony between these men and the Captain of the Apollo, he will cause a sworn inquiry to be held into the circumstances connected with this matter?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH,): The hon. Member was so good as to hand to me the declarations to which he refers. The Admiralty have inquired into this case, and are of opinion that the fishermen were under an entire misapprehension in imagining that the Apollo was in any danger. No further inquiry regarding the occurrence can be opened by the Admiralty.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I will draw attention to this matter on the Navy Estimates.

  CORK, BANDON, AND SOUTH COAST RAILWAY COMPANY.
  MR. GILHOOLY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he will be prepared to give a subsidy to the Cork, Bandon, and South Coast Railway Company in the event of their running an additional daily train for the accommodation of the inhabitants of West Cork?
  MR. E. BARRY: At I the same time, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has received copies of resolutions from all the Public Bodies in West Cork requesting that a better train and postal service be granted to that district; and whether he is able to comply with their wishes?
  *THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): I have received copies of certain resolutions on the subject referred to. As before explained, I am precluded from offering any subsidy to the Railway Company concerned by the fact the mail service in West Cork already entails a heavy loss to the revenue. I regret that it is not practicable to meet the wishes which have been expressed for an improvement of the service unless the railway service is improved by the Company.
  MR. GILHOOLY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his predecessor in Office offered a subsidy to the Railway Company if they would run additional trains?
  MR. A. MORLEY: No, Sir.
  MR. GILHOOLY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire?
  MR. A. MORLEY: Yes, Sir.

  ORANGE CELEBRATION AT PORTA DOWN.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the house of a Catholic named John Furfy, of Portadown, was attacked on the night of the 12th instant by the members of an Orange Lodge returning from celebrating the "Closing of the gates of Deny," and the windows and furniture smashed, and the son of Mr. Furfy badly wounded in the head; what steps, if any, will be taken by the Police Authorities to bring the assailants to justice; and whether, in view of the frequent attacks upon the houses of Catholics by Orange drumming parties, steps will be taken by the police, whose barrack is within one mile of the scene of this occurrence, to afford full protection to the Catholic inhabitants of the neighbourhood?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): With regard to the first and second paragraphs, I understand that the alleged occurrence is about to form the subject of investigation by the
  514
  Magistrates at Petty Sessions before whom the facts will no doubt be fully elucidated. In reference to the last paragraph of the question, I understand it is not true that there have been frequent attacks on houses in the neighbourhood of Portadown, which is perfectly quiet and free from crime.

  THE NEWFOUNDLAND (FRENCH SHORE) FISHERY QUESTION.
  MR. J. W.LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies when the Papers, promised by Lord Ripon on the 29th June, relating to the Newfoundland (French Shore) Fishery question, will be laid upon the Table and circulated?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): The Papers were laid on the Table yesterday, and I have every reason to expect that they will be in the hands of Members by the 23rd instant.

  NEW FOUNDLAND LOBSTER FISHERIES.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has now received information as to the recent incident on the coast of Newfoundland, when the Commander of H.M.S. Pelican interfered with certain lobster-catching engines?
  MR. S. BUXTON: The information on the subject is now to hand. The incident was purely British, and the French were not concerned. The late Commodore, to prevent disputes, defined the fishing grounds assigned to the different British lobster factories, which under the modus vivendi were allowed to continue in operation. This year the manager of one British factory encroached upon his neighbour's water, and, on his refusing to remove the lobster traps, obedience was enforced by the Commander of the Pelican, and the owner was informed that he must confine his operations to his own water.

  THE CREWE EXHUMATION.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Local Government Board whether the Registrar General has taken any steps in reference to the case of Dr. Atkinson, of Crewe, whose conduct in

  515
  giving a certificate of death for a child whom he had not attended when ill led to the exhumation of the body and an inquest; whether he will read to the House any communication which the Registrar General has sent to Dr. Atkinson; and what opinion the Registrar General has expressed in reference to the action of the Coroner, Mr. Churton?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir W. FOSTER,): The Registrar General on the 15th instant addressed a letter to Mr. Atkinson stating that by giving the certificate as to the cause of death of Edith Prestwich he contravened the provisions of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 1874, and that the Registrar General had had seriously to consider whether he ought not to direct that he should be prosecuted for wilfully making a false certificate for the purposes of that Act. After a very careful consideration of all the facts, however, he had decided that it was necessary to take the extreme course of directing a prosecution, but he felt it to be his duty, seriously, to warn him to be very careful in future not to give a certificate of the cause of death in a case in which he had not attended the deceased, as he would be compelled to take proceedings against him if it were again brought under his notice that he had committed an offence under the Act referred to. As Mr. Churton, the Coroner, is not in any way subject to the jurisdiction of the Registrar General, I cannot make any statement as to any opinion entertained by the Registrar General with respect to Mr. Churton's action.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS IN SCOTLAND.
  MR.KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether Government contracts are given to the Clyde Bridge Steel Works and to Mossend Steel Works; whether he is aware that these firms are non-Union and pay their workmen less than Trades Union rates of wages; and what action he proposes to take in the matter?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): There are no Government contracts given by any of the Scottish Departments to the firms referred to in the
  516
  question of the hon. Member. I may add that in issuing contracts the Scottish Office has taken full precautions for acting in accordance with the Resolution of the House of the 13th February, 1891.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Can the Secretary of State for War say whether these firms have any Government contracts?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: If the hon. Member will put the question down I will inquire.

  THE GOVERNMENT AND THE NATIONAL TELEPHONE COMPANY.
  MR. HOZIER: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether, in the interest of municipal telephone licences such as that applied for by Glasgow, he will, before signing it, submit the agreement between the Government and the National Telephone Company for the approval of the House?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on the 31st ultimo to a question on this subject, which was put to me by the hon. Member for the Lowestoft Division of Suffolk (Mr. H. S. Foster).

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES REGULATIONS AT MALTA.
  MR. W. M'LAREN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he has yet received an answer from Malta to his inquiry regarding the way in which the Contagious Diseases Regulations are carried out, more especially as to the soldiers being obliged to point out the woman from whom they say they have contracted disease?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This Report has been received, but I have not yet had time to read it. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to repeat his question.

  PUBLIC ROADS THROUGH THE CURRAGH.
  MR. MINCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that an application was made to the Grand Jury at Kildare, at their last meeting at Naas, on behalf of the Military Authorities, for leave to close the public road passing through the

  517
  Curragh, and leading from Ballysax to Altigarvan and Newbridge; and whether, considering the widespread dissatisfaction which this action on the part of the Military Authorities has caused in the localities likely to be affected, and in view of the serious depreciation in the value of property, and the great inconvenience to the public which the closing of this road would involve, he will have inquiry made into the matter, and have the rights of the public protected?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It has become necessary to close the road running through the camp at certain hours to allow of rifle practice. Application has been made to the Grand Jury who approve the closing of the road on certain conditions which are now under consideration, and which include the opening to the public of certain military roads and the maintenance at the War Department expense of other roads belonging to the county.

  RECRUITING IN IRELAND.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the statement, in the Recruiting Report of General Fielding, that in Ireland even those enlisted have been obtained with great difficulty from districts which 10 years ago provided the Army with an abundant supply of men of fine physique, and the chief causes are (1) great increase in number of emigrants, (2) the opposition of the Nationalist Party to the enlistment of any young Irishman in Her Majesty's Forces; and how the recruiting from Ireland for the first six mouths of this year compares with the corresponding six months of 1891 (the year referred to by General Fielding) and 1881 respectively?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The enlistments in Ireland during the first six mouths of 1893 were 1,616, against 1,679 during the same period in 1891 and 1,472 in 1881; but these numbers are rather misleading, unless compared with the total number of recruits of the respective years. This cannot yet be done for 1893; but the Irish recruits raised in the first half of 1881 were 5·6 per cent, of the whole number of recruits of the year, while those of 1891 were only 5·1 per cent. At the same time, the proportion of men in the Army of Irish
  518
  nationality has fallen from 209 to 135 per 1,000.

  DISTURBANCES AT PETERHEAD.
  MR. RENSHAW: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he can now give more definite information as to the disturbances which took place at Peterhead; whether he proposes to institute a searching inquiry into the whole matter, on behalf of the Government; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent a recurrence of such a deplorable interference with the freedom of trade?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I have ordered a full inquiry to be made by the Sheriff of the county, which, I understand, commences to-day at Peterhead. It would be premature to say more until his Report is laid before me and considered.

  PROPOSED FRENCH CANAL THROUGH THE MALAY PENINSULA.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in reference to the statement in The Times of Thursday, 17th August, that a French diplomatist of high standing has been sent to Bangkok to ask for a grant of land in connection with a French scheme for making a canal through the Malay Peninsula, whether there exist any Papers which can be laid before Parliament on the difficulties in the way of the continuation of such a canal?
  SIR E. GREY: Her Majesty's Government were informed on the 18th of July that M. Myre de Vilers was being sent to Bangkok; but it is not known that his mission is in any way connected with such a scheme as that mentioned in the question. I must ask the right hon. Baronet to postpone the last part of his question till there has been time to examine the Papers.

  THE BEHRING SEA AWARD.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Behring Sea Award imposes upon Great Britain the obligation to forbid pelagic sealing by British subjects at any time whatever on the high seas within a zone of 60 sea miles round the American sealing grounds on the Priby-

  519
  loff Islands, and also to forbid the use by British subjects of nets, firearms, or explosives, or the employment of any vessels other than sailing vessels in pelagic sealing, at all times and in all waters whatever of the Behring Sea, and further to forbid all pelagic sealing of any kind in the Behring Sea during the months of May, June, and July; whether it is the fact that, while the Award imposes these obligations on Great Britain as regards sealing on the high seas, it imposes no obligation whatever on the United States to forbid, restrict, or regulate sealing on land at any time; and whether the effect of the Award is to give a practical monopoly of sealing to the subjects of the United States, while depriving British subjects of any share therein?
  SIR E. GREY: The prohibited zone round the Islands, and the nature of the prohibition as to the use of nets, firearms, or explosives, or of other than sailing vessels seem to be correctly stated, as also the close season during which sealing is prohibited; but Article 2 of the Award applies only to that part of Behring Sea which lies to the east of the line laid down in the Treaty between Russia and the United States of 1867. The Award imposes the obligations in question both on Great Britain and the United States as regards sealing on the high seas. It imposes no obligations either on Great Britain or the United States as regards scaling on laud or in territorial waters. But the Arbitrators have in a separate Paper recommended that regulations should be made for this purpose. It is not considered that the effect of the Award is such as is described in the last paragraph of the question.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it not a fact that British subjects are deprived of any share in the sealing? What share, if any, have they left?
  SIR E. GREY: I expressly stated that the statement in the last part of the question that they are deprived of any share in the sealing does not accord with our opinion of the Award.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Precisely; but what share have they left?
  SIR E. GREY: Certain restrictions, but not total prohibition, are laid down.

  POOR LAW GUARDIANS AND THE UNEMPLOYED.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he can now state the extent of the powers possessed by Boards of Guardians for acquiring land and setting the unemployed to work thereon at reasonable wages; whether such employment necessarily implies the disfranchisement of the persons so employed; and whether he will issue a Circular to Boards of Guardians calling attention to their powers in this respect, and stating how far the Local Government Board is prepared to co-operate with them in putting such powers into operation?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. FOWLER,): I am not yet in a position to answer the question.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: When may we expect an answer?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: As soon as I receive the opinion of the Law Officers.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEsubsequently asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he was aware that the question was of urgent importance, and that a number of Boards of Guardians in the East of London were awaiting the decision of the Government, and whether he could bring pressure to bear on the Law Officers of the Crown to give their opinion as soon as possible?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: There is no occasion to bring pressure to bear upon the Law Officers of the Crown. The question they have to consider is one of the greatest difficulty, but I am sure they will give it every attention in their power.
  MR. KEIR HARDIEasked whether the Law Officers were devising any amendment of the law, or whether they were simply going to advise on the existing law?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: They will simply advise on the existing law.

  PIGEON HOUSE FORT.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the few soldiers stationed at the Pigeon House could be temporarily

  521
  accommodated elsewhere, as their location in the fort is said to delay the progress of the main drainage scheme; and whether his Department and the Irish Government will co-operate in facilitating the commencement of this urgently needed improvement?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This is not a question of a few troops who could be moved out at will, but of the Ordnance Store establishment for all Ireland. The men cannot be moved until the stores can be accommodated elsewhere. I would call upon the hon. Member to use all his influence, and I will certainly exert all mine, to bring about such an arrangement as I pointed to yesterday.
  MR. FIELD: This delay is a very serious matter for the inhabitants of Dublin.
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is equally serious so far as the War Office is concerned. At this place is situated the store establishment for the whole of Ireland. We are anxious, however, to meet the Corporation of Dublin as far as possible.
  MR. CLANCY: What is the exact difficulty in the way?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is that the scheme has been pronounced by the Army Sanitary Commission to be injurious to the health of the occupants of Pigeon House Fort, and what we are now endeavouring to do is to got the Corporation to acquire the Pigeon House site on condition of giving us a site elsewhere.
  MR. FIELD: Will the right hon. Gentleman come and live on the banks of the Liffey?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I know the Liffey.
  MR. FIELD: You know it so well that you avoid it.

  VISITS TO IRISH CONVICTS.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether an application made on behalf of representatives of the Limerick Amnesty Association for permission to visit John Daly and other prisoners confined in Portland Convict Prison has been recently refused; and, if so, why?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): Yes, Sir. The reason for the refusal was that given to the secretary—namely, that the privilege of visiting those convicts accorded by me on the express undertaking by the visitors that it would not be used, for ulterior purposes, has been abused by the circulation in the Press and elsewhere of false statements as to the condition of the prisoners' health and as to their prison treatment.
  *MR. CLANCY: Is it not the fact that before the last visit paid to Daly by Mr. Frederick Allen, of Dublin, an intimation was given to the authorities that Mr. Allen intended to publish an account of the visit in the Press?
  MR. ASQUITH: I know nothing about that. Mr. Allen was allowed to visit Daly on the express understanding that he would not publish a report of the proceedings, and not make any use of the visit except to receive news from and communicate news to Daly.
  *MR. CLANCY: The right hon. Gentleman has not taken any notice of the statement I made, that Mr. Allen announced that he intended to publish an account of the visit, and that he was allowed, notwithstanding, to visit the prison afterwards.
  MR. ASQUITH: No such statement was made to me, otherwise Mr. Allen would never have been allowed to visit Daly.
  MR. CLANCY: Seeing that some of the prisoners have no relatives in Great Britain or Ireland, and that the only visits they are likely to have are from members of the Amnesty Association, will the right hon. Gentleman re-consider his decision with regard to those against whom no fault is to be found?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am extremely sorry that the prisoners should be deprived of such alleviation and comfort from the visits of outside persons, but the responsibility of the deprivation lies entirely with the persons who have violated the undertaking.
  MR. CLANCY: Will the right hon. Gentleman re-consider his decision with reference to those persons against whom he has no fault whatever to find?
  MR. ASQUITH: No, Sir; as at present advised, I cannot.

  COMPULSORY INSTRUCTION IN SWIMMING.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in conjunction with the Vice President of the Council, they would consider the expediency of introducing into the Education Code a compulsory course of swimming lessons between the ages of 10 and 14, and thus prevent in a short time the loss of many lives from bathing and other causes?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: I am prepared, when the Code is next under revision, to make such change as will permit of instruction in swimming being recognised as an alternative to military drill, and to count as a school attendance.

  TELEGRAPHIC TRANSFERS IN INDIA.
  MR. VICARY GIBBS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, as the India Council yesterday accepted the best price offered for telegraphic transfers in India, it is to be understood that they will continue to pursue this policy; and whether he is aware that the acceptance of tenders yesterday at 15¼d. has had the effect of sending Indian exchange down to 147/8d.?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. G. RUSSELL,): No undertaking can be given as to the action that will be taken in the sale of bills on India, as it must depend on the amount and rates at which tenders are made. The Council of India does not fix any minimum rate below which no bills will be accepted. Usually tenders up to the advertised amount are taken, if the rate offered is not below the market rate of the day; but in a falling market tenders of very small amount are generally refused. On the last seven Wednesdays bills for 80,000 rupees above the market rate and transfers for 12 lakhs tendered at the market rate have been accepted; bills for 33,477 rupees and transfers for 4½ lakhs tendered at about the market rate have been refused owing to the smallness of the offers; and bills for 10 lakhs and transfers for 10 lakhs tendered below the market rate have been refused. Indian exchange has fallen to 14 13–16d. per rupee; but I cannot
  524
  undertake to specify the cause or causes by which this effect has been produced.

  THE CASE OF GENERAL NOBLE, R.A.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that General Noble, R.A., who died lately from a sickness contracted on active service in India while Superintendent of the Powder Factories, leaves a widow and a large family in not too affluent circumstances; if he is aware that General Noble was the inventor of two brown powders, S.B.C. and E.X.E., and also the patentee of E.X.E., the patent of which now belongs to his widow; if, in consideration of the large amount of powder, 12,000,000 lbs., made on General Noble's plan, the War Office strongly recommended that his widow should receive an increased pension of —200 a year, and if the Treasury has refused this increase; and if the War Office will again recommend that either this pension should be awarded or else that a royalty of 1d. a pound should be paid on E.X.E. powder, patent 16,575, 1886, to General Noble's family?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Ordnance Council recommended that Mrs. Noble's pension should be increased by —200 a year. This recommendation was based, not upon the value of any patents, nor on the amount of powder produced, but on the excellent service Major General Noble had rendered in introducing improvements in gunpowder and its manufacture, and generally on his work as Superintendent of the Royal Gunpowder Factory. The granting of such pensions rests entirely with the Treasury, and that Department was not satisfied that any special pension was justified in this case.

  MILITARY DRILL IN THE EXTREME HEAT.
  MR. PIERPOINT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Major General Utterson's brigade was marched on the 16th nearly 14 miles up to 10.30 a.m.; that the men were allowed to march without their tunics; that the ambulance was full, and that several men were hanging on behind; that the thermometer stood at 83 degrees or thereabouts; that there were several cases of sunstroke at Lydd Camp; whether he

  525
  will inquire who is responsible for marching the men during the extreme heat; whether he will give instructions that no marching shall take place during the present weather except in the early morning and in the evening; and what number of men of the Regular Army are now or have been in hospital or on the sick list from sunstroke or other illness caused by the extreme heat since Sunday, 6th August?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: This question only appeared on the Paper this morning. I have called for a Report as to the alleged occurrences at Aldershot and Lydd, which I shall probably have on Monday. The last question refers apparently to the whole United Kingdom; and if the hon. Gentleman wishes to have the information, a considerable time must be allowed for obtaining it. As to the suggestion that I should issue general instructions, I must repeat what I said yesterday. I have perfect confidence that General Officers commanding will adapt their orders to the local circumstances, including in those circumstances the important element of temperature.
  MR. MAC NEILL: In this Indian heat should not the troops be supplied with tropical helmets when drilling?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: These are matters for the Military Authorities to deal with, and should be left to the General in immediate command.

  THE LOSS OF THE "VICTORIA."
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty if it is intended to hold a special inquiry to find out why the Victoria capsized after being rammed?
  SIR U. KAY-SHTJTTLEWORTH: As I stated on the 10th instant, the Minutes of the Court Martial on the loss of the Victoria are being printed with a view to their full consideration by the Board of Admiralty. Meanwhile, answers to questions of this character must necessarily be deferred.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: My question had nothing whatever to do with the Court Martial. I only asked whether a scientific inquiry could be insti-
  526
  tuted to find out why the Victoria capsized after being rammed?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I think it has a great deal to with do it. Very full questions were asked by direction of the Admiralty at the Court Martial, and very full evidence was obtained as to the parts of the Victoria which were flooded. Until that evidence has been thoroughly investigated by the Admiralty, it is impossible, on behalf of the Admiralty, to answer whether a special inquiry is or is not necessary.
  DR. MACGREGOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the second officer in command may exercise discretionary power to prevent such accidents?
  *SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I am afraid I can only repeat the answer I gave to my hon. Friend on a previous occasion.

  THE TERRACE.
  COLONEL NOLAN: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if a bench on the Terrace is labelled House of Lords; and, if this is an innovation, why other benches are not labelled House of Commons?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,)was understood to reply that this was a very small matter. The bench in question was obtained from the House of Lords, and the label on it had not been removed. It had no signification.

  HEREFORD ELECTION.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General on what ground a private telegram was despatched at the public cost by the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department during the recent election at Hereford, to the hon. Member for Hereford, instead of at the cost of the person by whom it was sent; and what is the Rule governing the despatch by Ministers and others of official telegrams on private business?
  *MR. A. MORLEY: The practice is for a responsible official to afterwards examine all telegrams sent us on the service of the Government; and if it appears that any of them are of a private nature, the senders are called upon to pay for them. I know nothing officially of

  527
  the telegram to which the hon. Member refers, but it will come under review at the proper time, and be dealt with in the manner I have described.
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. GLADSTONE,): Perhaps I may be allowed to say that I sent the telegram in question on the evening of Saturday last. I sent it with the full knowledge of the strict review under which all messages sent on Government forms have to pass at the Post Office. The hon. Member seems to me somewhat ungrateful, because distinctly one of the reasons which operated in my mind in sending that message on a Government form was to insure that he should get it that night. The hour was late, and if I had sent it on an ordinary form the hon. Member would probably have received it only on Sunday; and, as everybody knows, he was very anxious to get my reply. Perhaps, as a balm to his lacerated feelings, I may inform him that, in consequence of not having been in the House of Commons on the day his telegram was sent, I had to pay to my right hon. Friend the Postmaster General on it the sum of about 2s.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKE: Arising out of that answer I may say I am very sorry the hon. Member was put to any expense. I shall be happy to repay him.

  PLEURO-PNEUMONIA IN SCOTLAND.
  MR. W. WHITELAW: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether, in view of the fact that pleuro-pneumonia has been introduced into Scotland by an Irish cow, he intends to put any restrictions on the movement of cattle from Ireland into Great Britain?
  MR. W. FIELD: Has there been an outbreak in Ireland since September, 1892, as to which I sent a copy of an official letter to the hon. Member who puts the question. It is very unfair to the cattle.
  MR. H. GARDNER: As to the question on the Paper, there is no evidence that the animal in question contracted pleuro-pneumonia before leaving Ireland, and the morbid appearances of the lungs were, in fact, quite compatible with infection after her arrival in Scotland. With regard to the prohibition of movement from one part of the United King-
  528
  dom to another, I can only say that I should resort to such a step with the greatest reluctance and in the presence only of the most serious danger; but I may observe that if the policy suggested by the hon. Member were adopted at the present time, it would be movement from Scotland to England, and vice versa, rather than movement from Ireland to Great Britain, which would have to be prohibited.

  IRISH PRESBYTERIANS AND HOME RULE.
  SIR T. LEA: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Address recently sent to him by Irish Presbyterians recorded their convictions that an urgent necessity exists for an immediate revision of judicial rents; and whether the Government will at once introduce a Bill to carry this into effect?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): It is quite correct to hold that this, along with other very important demands on the part of that portion of the Irish Presbyterian community who did me the honour of addressing me in respect to the Land Laws, was made known to me, but I cannot separate these demands one from the other. It is not possible for the Government to introduce such a Bill, certainly not at the present time.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether ho is aware that a Bill dealing with the revision of judicial rents has been brought in and moved constantly from the Conservative side by the hon. Member for North Fermanagh, and has been blocked with equal regularity by the Conservative Member for South Antrim?
  MR. PINKERTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to repeat the other points of interest in the letter?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It is unjust of the hon. Member to ask me to repeat by heart a portion of the Presbyterian letter, especially as no notice has been given to me that I should at least commit it to memory. The hon. Member is most welcome to see the letter.
  MR. PINKERTON: Am I right in saying that the letter expressed sympathy with the general policy of the Government with regard to Home Rule?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Unquestionably; that was his main object.
  MR. ROSS: Will the right hon. Gentleman afford an opportunity of investigating the names of the alleged Presbyterians, inasmuch as we believe—[Cries of" Order!"]
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: When I have received letters from professional persons and others expressing their friendliness to Home Rule, they have contained an express reservation that their names shall not be divulged on account of the injury to their professional prospects they would have to undergo from even the suspicion of their being associated with friendliness to Home Rule. I do not recollect whether there is any such limitation in the present instance. If I find that there is not such a limitation, the hon. Member is perfectly at liberty, so far as I am concerned, to see the names.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order! Any further questions in regard to this matter ought not to be asked without notice.

  THE HOME RULE BILL AND THE ADJOURNMENT FOR THE RECESS.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether ho can state, for the general convenience of Members, when the Government calculate that the House will be able to adjourn for the Recess; and what steps, if any, are proposed to be taken in order to secure that a reasonable time shall be allowed to elapse between the period of adjournment and the reassembling in the Autumn?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am very sensible that it would be very much for the convenience of the House, and the Government are as anxious as anybody can be for the arrival of that happy period when the House can adjourn; but my hon. Friend will see that, the Government are under certain specific obligations with regard to Home Rule and Supply, and, therefore, our contribution to the Business of the House is known and fixed. The thing that is not yet accurately known and fixed is the amount of impediment which we shall have to encounter in the shape of Amendments and collateral discussions. With regard to that impediment and that contribution to the length of the Sitting
  530
  of the House, it is obvious that gentlemen on the Opposition Benches and the gentlemen on the Benches behind my hon. Friend would be able to give a good deal more information than I can.
  MR. HANBURY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman by what right he describes as an impediment to the Business of the House the ordinary discussion of the Estimates which has been so much curtailed this Session?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member has entirely misapprehended the language I used. I never spoke of the discussion on the Estimates as an impediment to the Business of the House. I spoke of it as an impediment to the Adjournment of the House.
  MR. DALZIEL: I beg to direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the latter portion of my question?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am very much afraid I must return to him also what will be regarded as an unsatisfactory reply in regard to this portion of the question, which I thought was really involved in the former portion. My hon. Friend asks me
  "What steps are proposed to be taken in order to secure that a reasonable time shall be allowed to elapse between the period of adjournment and the re-assembling in the Autumn?"
  I do not see what answer that admits of beyond the fact that we are very desirous, first of all, that the Adjournment should arrive within reasonable time; and, secondly, that it should be found in our power to allow a reasonable vacation before asking the House to resume those labours which have in the present year reached such an extraordinary extension.
  MR. HANBURY: If the discussion of Supply is to be an impediment to the Adjournment of the House, I wish to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman will consent to put Supply down for Autumn Session?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No.
  MR. DALZIEL: Arising out of answer to my question, I desire to the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed to an important article upon Parliamentary procedure, with special reference to the possibility of what is termed obstruction in Supply, in which the following proposal is put forwar:—

  531
  "If the House insists on its ancient Constitutional right to deal with Supply in Committee as a whole, then the only remedy (for the possible obstruction) appears to be for the House to fix beforehand, on entering on the consideration of Supply, the number of days which shall be given to each Class of the Estimates, and to order the Committee to report each Class at the expiry of the time named. The same action must be taken on the Report stage, if necessary—"
  MR. TOMLLNSON: I rise to a point of Order. I wish to ask whether this question arises out of the question which the hon. Member put on the Paper?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member can put his question. I see nothing out of Order in it. The Prime Minister can answer it, or ask for notice, just as he pleases.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: On a point of Order, Sir, is the hon. Member justified, under the guise of asking a question, in reading a long newspaper article?
  MR. DALZIEL: I may be allowed to say, in explanation, that it is only fair to the writer that I should read the whole passage. It is a very short one—
  "The same action must be taken on the Report stage, if necessary, and the Opposition would have to arrange among themselves those questions of policy and detail which they might desire to raise in each section, in order to concentrate their energies on those, instead of frittering time away."
  MR. HANBURY: I rise to Order. I wish to ask you whether it has not been constantly ruled by the Chair that quotations of this kind shall not be put down in questions, and whether that Rule does not apply in the present case?
  MR. DALZIEL: The quotation is finished.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I was going to call the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that I think he is now decidedly exceeding the limits.
  MR. DALZIEL: I will simply put my question, whether, in view of the fact that the writer of the article is the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, the Government will be prepared, in the event of the necessity arising, to give the suggestion that consideration which its importance seems to deserve?
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: It seems to me that this is a question of which notice ought to be given.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the question of the hon. Member shows the inconvenience of not putting questions of this kind on the Paper.
  MR. DALZIEL: I rise to Order, Sir.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I claim, as a matter of personal explanation, to say that the article from which the hon. Gentleman has just quoted did not suggest that the House should deal with this matter, hut that a Committee—a nonparty Committee—should be appointed, which might consider this and kindred subjects.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I do not think any advantage would arise from my making any comment on the subject.

  THE CLOSURE RESOLUTION.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will take any measures within the power of the Government to bring to an end the Report stage of the Government of Ireland Bill, and so reduce the interval when the House might adjourn for a much required holiday?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am glad to answer this question, because it gives me an opportunity of answering it in the form of a notice to this effect—that on Monday I propose to submit to the House a Resolution which, if adopted, will have the effect of securing the close of the proceedings upon the Report stage of the Irish Government Bill on Friday next, August 25. The terms of the Resolution will, I hope, be deposited on the Table within an hour or two.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to give notice that when my right hon. Friend proposes that Resolution I shall move the following Amendment:—"That the proposal of the Government to curtail—"
  MR. MANFIELD: I rise to a point of Order. [The rest of the hon. Member's remarks were drowned in cries of "Order!"]
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My Amendment will be—
  "That the proposal of the Government to curtail Debate on the Irish Government Bill is calculated to degrade the House of Commons to the position of a voting machine, and to deprive the British majority in this House of

  533
  its Constitutional right to discuss a policy by which British interests will be seriously and injuriously affected; that this House, recognising no necessity for the course proposed by the Government, and believing that it is dictated by motives of Party expediency, calls upon the Government to withdraw their Resolution and to advise Her Majesty—"
  MR. MACNEILL: To send for you.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN—
  "To dissolve Parliament at the earliest opportunity in order that the opinion of the electors of the United Kingdom may be taken on the merits of the Bill for the Better Government of Ireland, all the details of which were studiously concealed from them at the last General Election."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in the notice which he has just given, has, no doubt, informed us of the vital and essential particulars of the Resolution he intends to bring before us—namely, that we are not to be allowed to discuss the remaining 36 clauses of the Bill; but it would be a great convenience to the House if he would toll us the mode in which that Resolution is to be drawn. I do not mean the exact words, but 1 presume the Government hive decided on the general principle on which they intend to act.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he could tell the House who is the Leader of the Opposition?
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: When some evenings ago the Prime Minister promised to insert some Amendments in the 29th clause, it was pointed out that it would be necessary to re-commit the Bill for the purpose. I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether any arrangement will be made for carrying out the pledge of the Government in this matter? While the right hon. Gentleman is about it, will he also tell us who is the Leader of the House?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am sure I shall not be expected to answer that question in view of the terms with which it concluded. As to the question of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour), he has had a good deal of experience himself in drawing Resolutions of this nature. The Resolution will provide that at a certain hour on Friday
  534
  the matter shall be brought to an issue. It will be the same measure as has been adopted on former occasions.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No compartments?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: There are no compartments. The House sees that the right hon. Gentleman is well up in the matter of procedure.
  MR. BARTLEYasked whether the Third Reading of the Bill was to be taken on Friday night?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I suppose the hon. Member means to ask whether the Resolution includes a specification of the day for the closing of the Debate on the Third Reading of the Bill. It does not include that.

  THE CASE OF JAMES THOMPSON.
  MR. BOSS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if his attention has been called to the case of James Thompson, who retired on 22nd May, 1893, from the Royal Irish Constabulary on a pension of —33 13s. 11d.; is he aware that Thompson entered the old Londonderry Police Force on 7th February, 1863, and, on its discontinuance, entered the Royal Irish Constabulary on 1st November, 1870, and, having regard to the 5th section of the 46 & 47 Vic, c. 14, whether the period of approved service in the old Londonderry Police Force ought to be taken into account for the purpose of reckoning the amount of pension payable on retirement; and why this has not been done in the case of James Thompson?
  MR. J.MORLEY: The facts relating to the case of ex-Constable Thompson are correctly stated in the question, except that it was in the year 1864, and not in 1863, that he joined the old Londonderry Police Force. His case was carefully considered, both by the Government and by the Law Officers, previous to his discharge, and it was decided that there was no legal basis for allowing service in the Londonderry Force to count towards his pension.

  SUMMER ATTIRE FOR THE POLICE.
  MR. E. H. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will consider the propriety of supplying

  535
  the police with lighter uniforms during the summer months?
  MR. ASQUTTH: This question has frequently been under consideration, and, in the opinion of the Commissioners, after consultation with the chief surgeon of the police, having regard to the variable nature of the Metropolitan climate and to all the conditions of the case, it would not be advisable to provide the Metropolitan Police with lighter attire during the summer months.

  ORDERS OF THE DAY.
    GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL. (No. 428.)

      CONSIDERATION. [TENTH NIGHT.]
      Bill, as amended, further considered.
      *MR. H. HOBHOUSEmoved in Clause 4, page 2, line 37, after "law," to insert the following subsection:—
      "(1) Giving any undue preference to any trade or industry (including agriculture), in Ireland so as prejudicially to affect any such trade or industry in Great Britain, or."
      He said he should not have moved this Amendment had he been satisfied with the terms of the Amendment which the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Morley) had placed on the Paper. The intention of his (Mr. Hobhouse's) Amendment was to protect British trade and British agriculture against the somewhat probable danger that would be incurred under the altered relations of the two countries in the event of the Bill passing into law. He believed that one of the first acts of the Irish Parliament would be to foster the native industries of Ireland, and to erect other industries which had not hitherto been able to take root in their country. He should be very sorry indeed to say that such an object was not most laudable in itself; but he thought that those on the British side of the Channel had a right to see that the methods adopted in forwarding that legitimate object were legitimate themselves, and were not likely to prejudicially affect their own trade and agriculture. It had often been said from the Treasury Bench during these Debates that the Government saw great advantage in securing uniformity in all trade matters; but, so
      536
      far, he did not think they had quite carried out their own expressed intentions. By the Bill of 1886 the whole field of trade was excluded from the purview of the Irish Legislature; but the same could not be said of the present Bill. The First Lord of the Treasury had stated his opinion that all bounties would be illegal; but he had had to admit that there were other means besides bounties by which industries might be fostered with Government money. It had been pointed out that under the Purchase of Land Bill there were certain provisions of the most beneficial character for fostering and forwarding Irish industries by means of premiums. The fact that such an Act was passed by the Imperial Parliament, which contained plenty of British Members who were ready, as a rule, to protect the interests of British trade and agriculture, was surely no argument against placing some limitations upon the future Irish Parliament in such matters, with the object of protecting the interests of Great Britain. The benefit of the provisions he spoke of was strictly confined to those parts of Ireland which had suffered in the past, and were likely to suffer in the future, from the evils of famine and distress. Parliament had readily agreed to them in these exceptional cases; but whether it would have been prepared to devote large sums of money to the fostering of interests in other parts of the United Kingdom not so situated was a very different matter. Turning to the danger apprehended, it might easily happen that the Irish Legislature, wishing to encourage the production of butter of the first quality, which found a ready sale in the English markets, might consider themselves prohibited by the terms of the Bill from giving actual bounties, but might offer premiums of a very substantial kind for every hundred-weight of first-class butter produced in Irish dairies. He could not conceive that such a course would be contrary to any provision of this Bill as it stood. Such premiums would not be directly given with a view to promoting exportation, and yet the result to British producers of butter would be exactly the same as if they were actual bounties given for exportation. When any part of the United Kingdom exceeded certain limits in fostering a particular industry, and thereby inflicted an injury

      537
      on another part of the Kingdom, Parliament ought certainly to prohibit such action. The Irish Parliament might also erect new artificial industries which might be fostered for a time on such a scale as to seriously diminish the profits of British manufacturers, who at present had in many cases a hard struggle to make both ends meet, and who would certainly think themselves seriously injured if, in addition to bearing the competition of foreign markets, they had to meet a competition produced by artificial industries in Ireland. The clause proposed by the Chief Secretary did not appear to him to really deal with the matters he had mentioned. It was intended to protect individuals only, not trades or industries collectively. He had spoken hitherto only of direct means by which industries might be fostered, but he should like to give one example of a very obvious indirect way of helping them. The Irish Legislature might come to terms with the Irish Railway Companies by giving them subsidies, and imposing certain conditions as to special rates which might place industries in particular districts at a certain advantage. It had been alleged in Committee that the Irish Exchequer would have no money to spend on fostering industries. But under the new financial scheme that Exchequer was to have a clear surplus of —500,000 to start with, and therefore the Irish Executive would certainly have the means of carrying out any object of this kind which their Party might have at heart. The least the Government could do when it provided the Irish Legislature with a surplus of this description at the expense of the British taxpayer was to see that no class of the British taxpayer was directly or indirectly prejudiced or damaged by the application of that surplus. No doubt the Attorney General (Sir C. Russell), if he spoke, would ask who was to determine what "undue preference" was? His answer would be the same great tribunal as had been set up by the Government to determine such questions as "due process of law," and the nature of "just compensation." Those were expressions new to the English law, whereas the phrase "undue preference" had been undergoing interpretation by important tribunals in England for the last 40 years. If any Member would take the
      538
      trouble to look at the decisions of the Railway Commissioners, he would see that many of them, particularly those which dealt with special classes of merchandise and special trades in particular districts, had a very direct and clear bearing on such questions as ho now proposed for the determination of a still more august tribunal. He was sorry that he had detained the House so long, and he would conclude by asking the Government to consider whether some modification in this direction was not required? They did not fear legitimate competition; but experiments might be tried which would not be legitimate, and, therefore, in the interest of uniformity, and to prevent any trade or industry in any particular locality being prejudiced, ho begged to move the Amendment.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 2, line 37, after the word 'law," to insert, as a new sub-section, the words—"(1) Giving any undue preference to any trade or industry (including agriculture), in Ireland so as prejudicially to affect any such trade or industry in Great Britain, &c."—(Mr. H. Hob-house.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): I am not sure that the hon. Member has noticed the provision made in the Amendment to the clause which stands in my name. The Government believe that this Amendment covers the whole of the ground so far as the argument as to "undue preference" is concerned. We submit that the word "undue" is not capable, in this connection, of anything like an accurate interpretation. The hon. and learned Member has referred to decisions under the Railway and Canal Acts; but he has evidently forgotten that the cases decided under those Acts were eases in which the words were capable of a definite interpretation—cases in which it was possible to discriminate between individuals and great firms or companies. Those cases did not deal with these large questions of International preference, and I believe, and I am advised, that they could not be relied on in such cases as this. How are we to deal with such large questions—how are we to show, in the case of a particular Irish

      539
      industry, what is undue preference as regards British trade? We cannot deal with such a question of International discrimination.
      MR. H. HOBHOUSE: I have endeavoured to cover that.
      MR. J. MORLEY: We cannot proceed to discriminate, because we cannot define the limit between the individual and a particular trade in a particular locality and a similar trade elsewhere. The Acts on railways and canals were passed to meet special cases. I would remind my hon. and learned Friend that grants have already been made in various districts in Ireland. The Congested Districts Board, for instance, has made a grant in favour of a shawl-spinning industry in the County of Galway. I cannot conceive that any premium which the Irish Legislature is likely to give from the same motives as those which animated this House in 1891 is at all likely to make any appreciable effect on British industries. There is no difference between the hon. Member and the Government, I think, as to the necessity of protecting British trade. But he referred to the butter industry. He spoke of the probability of the Irish Legislature putting a premium upon the production of certain superior qualities of butter. Yes; but how would that affect the corresponding trade in England? The Irish Legislature is assumed to do this on the possible ground that there would be a margin for exportation. If the hon. Member had mastered the details of the butter trade he would not have spoken as he did. I do not think it necessary to say much more. I have referred to the Act of 1891. There is another Act, that of 1888, under the provisions of which —5,000 a year was given to the Dublin Society to improve the breed of horses in Ireland. Is the House going to say to the Irish Legislature that they are not to do that which this House has sanctioned?
      MR. H. HOBHOUSE: It is a question of degree.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I submit with confidence that the Amendment which I have put upon the Paper covers practically all the ground of the present Amendment, and is more comprehensive in its terms. I, therefore, trust that my hon. and learned Friend will be content
      540
      to leave the subject he has now raised to be dealt with by my Amendment.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I fully recognise the evident intention of the Government to do all they have promised in this matter, and I admit the great difficulty of that which they have undertaken. I would remind the House how the question really stands. We were dealing with a question of this character on one of the sub-sections of this clause. When that discussion was going on—a discussion on the subject of religious preference—I ventured to say that it was not a question of dealing with this question alone, but that there might be preference from political feeling—a class of preference much more common than religious preference. Thereupon the Prime Minister made a speech in which I may say that generally he agreed with me, and stated the propriety of dealing with preference as a whole, and not by separate attempts. He stated that indirect preference was a subject as worthy of consideration as direct preference, and we were promised that the matter should be considered before Report. I do not think my right hon. Friend used the word "undue." I did use it in my speech, and I think he accepted it. The Amendment of my hon. Friend proposes to provide against undue preference. That was the question we were discussing when we got my right hon. Friend's promise on behalf of the Government. I want now to show that there are two points in which the Amendment of my right hon. Friend does not go far enough. I would suggest that he should alter it by adding at the beginning "directly or indirectly." That would carry out the Prime Minister's promise on the subject. My right hon. Friend has now limited the prohibited preferences by the words "parentage, birth, or place in which the business is carried on." Therefore an aggrieved person will always have to show to the Court that the preference of which he complains is a preference which has been given on account of his birth, parentage, or the place in which he carries on his business. I think it is probable those limiting words would exclude almost every case which is likely to arise. In the first place, it will be very difficult to prove the complaint. Take the case of butter or the woollen trade,

      541
      which the Irish Government might desire to foster. The Prime Minister has made a sound economic argument which commends itself to Free Traders, and which goes to show that such bounties injure the people who give them. But is he certain the Leaders of the Irish Legislature would be sound economists after the school of Cobden? It must be recollected in regard to this that leading Members of the Irish Party have expressed their own convictions that, at any rate, Free Trade is not good where you desire to create an industry. The question whether the action of the Irish Legislature would be economically sound or not does not concern us in the least— we are not bound to protect the Irish people against these economic heresies; but if those heresies injure the English people we are bound to protect our own people, and provide that they do not injure them. My right hon. Friend will admit that, although Protection may injure, for example, the French people really more than it injures us, still it does not injure us by preventing trade which otherwise we might be able to do with France. In the same way, premiums or bounties on butter or woollen goods would, if they were sufficient in extent and continued over a sufficient length of time, enable those industries to compete successfully with similar industries in this country. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary spoke as if he were really cognisant of everything connected with the butter trade. Well, if a premium were put on to enable the Irish to compete with other countries in butter-making, it would be impossible to say that such a premium would be given on account of the parentage of the butter-maker, and it would not be given on account of the place in which the manufacture was carried on, because it would be given to Cork and Belfast and Waterford, and any other place in which butter was made. There are a great number of other cases, but I will only suggest one or two of them. There is the case of Poor Law relief. Suppose exceptional Poor Law relief were granted to particular classes of persons—that would not be on account of the parentage or the place in which they lived, yet undoubtedly it would be held to be a case of undue preference unless the regulations were applicable to all persons in a position to demand Poor
      542
      Law relief. Yet it is perfectly certain a proposition of that kind will not be touched. Then we come to the case of preferences affecting railways. That would not be on account of the parentage of the directors, nor on account of the place in which the rail way is carried on; but, at the same time, regulations affecting rates upon a particular line of railway might have a most injurious effect on one port as against another port which it was desired to favour. Again, there is the case of the fisheries. I do not think the proposal of the Government would cover that. There is competition between the trawlers and the linesmen. Hon. Members opposite (the Irish Members) are all in favour of the linesmen as against the trawlers, and the probability is they would carry out legislation which would have the effect of destroying the trawling trade for the advantage of the men who practise line fishing. That is a fair case for the Court to say whether it is an undue preference, but it could not be raised under the Amendment of the Chief Secretary. Why would it not be possible to levy dues on ships of a certain burden? The effect of that would be to keep out of port all boats above a certain size, thereby affecting particular industries to the disadvantage of others. That, again, would have nothing to do with the place, of business or the place of birth. Preferences might be given between Corporations or Institutions. I can understand that it would be perfectly easy to lay down conditions for the receipt of contributions in aid of hospitals, which I would enable certain hospitals to receive and prevent other hospitals from obtaining any advantage; and although there might be a hidden motive for such a preference which would bring them within the scope of the prohibitions, that hidden motive would not be declared. I have said enough to show that the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, although I fully believe it is intended to go as far as the pledge of the Prime Minister, will not actually cover all the cases which the Prime Minister himself must have had in view. We are not dealing with the preference which arises, as the Chief Secretary suggests, under the Congested Districts Board, or with any other case of that kind. Nor do I think any Court in the world would hold that such consideration as has been shown for

      543
      small and struggling industries, such as the shawl industry, to which my right hon. Friend has referred, was undue preference. My right hon. Friend says it is a difficult point to decide. But will it not be difficult to decide within the scope of his own Amendment? I understood him to say that, while it is perfectly possible for the Courts to decide upon what is undue preference in regard to rates, it would be difficult for it to deal with the matter generally. He will admit, I think, that some of these cases of rates that have been before the Court have been very difficult to decide. Every case has had to be decided on its merits. I confess that, if those questions could be decided, I do not think there should be any greater difficulty in deciding in these other cases. The difference, for instance, between North Wales and South Wales would not be difficult to decide in a matter of the kind. I admit that the Government have a difficult task before them; but, seeing that the clause clearly does not go as far as the promise which we understood was made by the Prime Minister, I hope the Government will consider whether they cannot accept the Amendment, or, at all events, whether they cannot carry their own clause further.
      MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham is certainly very exact; and having now, I suppose, come to the conclusion that oven his ingenuity will be unable to prevent the granting of Home Rule to Ireland, he is naturally very anxious to secure the adoption of provisions by which the Irish Parliament will be paralysed in the attempt to render any effective service to the material interests of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to an Amendment by which the Chief Secretary for Ireland proposes to satisfy the demand in the present Amendment, and nothing will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman except that it shall be forbidden that the Irish Parliament shall directly or indirectly impose such disabilities and confer such advantages as are referred to in the Amendment. If such words were inserted as "directly or indirectly," I imagine that the Irish Legislature, in approaching the consideration of any Bill which proposed to deal with the material con-
      544
      cerus of the Irish people and with the improvement of their condition, would be in extreme doubt whether it was competent for them to consider any such Bill; and, in fact, the effect of the insertion of the words would be to paralyse the Irish Legislature by inducing a doubt as to any Bill concerning the material interests of the country—a doubt as to whether they could proceed with it or not. If you will apply yourselves to a provision of this kind, the least which we may expect is that you will say plainly what you mean. Instruct the Irish Legislature what they are not to do, and they will, no doubt, obey you; but do not deliberately use words which would leave the Irish Legislature in doubt as to the powers which you intend them to exercise. The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that the words "on account of" are not apt. It is proposed to be forbidden to the Irish Legislature to impose disabilities or confer advantages on any subject, "on account of parentage or place of birth." I should imagine that that would be an effectual provision, as between Englishmen or Irishmen, with regard to any action of the Irish Legislature which could be alleged to be due to prejudice and nationality, or preference for the people of their own country. These words are objectionable to the right hon. Gentleman, because they afford a judicial basis—because they refer to facts which, if they were proved, would fairly entitle the tribunal to condemn or annul the action of the Irish Legislature. What words would the right hon. Gentleman substitute? He has not stated what words he would substitute. I presume he would prefer some terms which would leave the matter in doubt, and which would render, it possible, for the Judicial Tribunal to attack the Irish Legislature upon grounds of prejudice and presumption. If the reason for voiding the Act is not to be plainly referred to, the Irish Legislature would have no certainty in regard to its duties. We require plain words, which would leave your meaning beyond all doubt, in order to let the Irish Legislature act with confidence in any material concern whatever. There is a phrase in this Amendment of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to which I would wish to direct the attention of the Attorney General, and I hope for some statement

      545
      at the proper time on the subject. There is to be no disability nor any advantage conferred upon any individual "by reason of the place where any part of his business is carried on." I had supposed that the words referring to parentage had disposed of the matter as between Irishmen and those who are not Irishmen. Do these words, "or place where any part of his business is carried on," moan the part of Ireland whore his business is carried on? There was some suggestion that the Irish Legislature, by reason of the probable predominance of the Nationalist and Celtic element, might legislate or act in a manner prejudicial to the interests of Ulster. I at once admit that the most efficient safeguard against any such result would have my consent. I am desirous that the people of Ulster and the people of the other parts of Ireland, both as to disability and advantage, should be treated with the utmost impartiality by the Irish Legislature. Do these words as to the place mean to differentiate between the people of Ireland and the people of Great Britain? I feel great difficulty in interpreting the phrase "undue preference" when used in this connection. I know what "undue preference" means in the Court of Railway Commissioners. It is plain enough, both in itself and by a long series of judicial decisions, when applied to a Railway Company or a Steamboat Company in regard to their dealings with different traders in different localities. What do you mean by the phrase in the ease of the Irish Legislature which legislates for Ireland, and not for Great Britain? If the Legislature legislated both for Ireland and Great Britain, then I could understand the application of the phrase "undue preference;" but the Legislature of Ireland legislates only for Ireland; and when you prohibit the Legislature of Ireland giving any undue preference to the people of Ireland as against the people of Great Britain, I desire to ask what you mean? Why do we want Home Rule for Ireland? In the first place, it is almost a purely agricultural country, and the agricultural industry needs to be developed. The system of agriculture in Ireland is crude in the extreme degree. The fisheries about the coast are decaying, because there are no proper boats or gear for the fishermen. The
      546
      want of a domestic and sympathetic Government has brought Ireland to the brink of ruin. Why do we want a domestic Government apart from political rights? We want it in order to bring about the material development of the country; and the main function of the Irish Legislature undoubtedly would be to instruct the people, if they had the money, to spend it in a better system of agriculture, in aiding the development of the fisheries, and in generally encouraging the development of Irish industry, so far as their resources may allow. If the Irish Legislature proceeds to improve the condition of the Irish people to enable them to raise better crops, to raise more valuable cattle, to secure a readier market and a better price for their products, is that "undue preference"? If the Irish Legislature helps Irishmen to do what is the main object of Home Rule—that is, to get out of their misery and poverty, to enable them to bring more products into the market, and to command a better price—is that "undue preference" because it may interfere with similar industries in England? If that is your object you had better deny us a Legislature altogether, because it would be worse than useless. It would create a state of feeling the last stage of which would be worse than the first. You would give us an Irish Legislature, and would take away from that Parliament the power to do what is the main function of every Parliament in the world, and that is to improve the material condition of the people of the country. I think the matter of this Amendment is the subject of a great deal of exaggerated solicitude on the part of hon. Gentlemen; and I cannot help commenting upon the mean, jealous, and, I would say, tyrannical and unfair spirit, displayed in Amendments of this kind coming from gentlemen representing the wealthiest country in Europe, with an annual income of —1,300,000,000 sterling, endeavouring to apply these paltry and wretched proposals to the case of the poorest people in Europe—a people stooped in misery—a misery in a great degree the effect of your rule, of your agricultural laws, and of the restrictions by which you jealously prevented us from progressing. There only can be any question of efficient competition between Ireland and you in respect of industries which you have not made your own.

      547
      The most that Ireland can do is to eke out the resources of agriculture by the establishment of small industries to which you do not apply yourselves. There can be no real competition there, and when any gentleman rises in this House and suggests that the powerful, wealthy people of England desire to cripple the Legislature of Ireland in the endeavour to advance its people in those by-paths of industry and thrift, in which your great industries are not concerned, he mistakes the sentiments of the people of this country, and is not a true exponent of their minds. I certainly, for my part, desire to be understood as objecting to the insertion of any words in the Bill as will prevent the Irish Legislature from bringing the people out of beggary by instructing them in agriculture and developing the fisheries. I think it against reason that the people of England and Scotland should desire to keep Ireland in beggary in order that there should be no "undue preference." The right hon. Gentleman has referred to my humble opinions upon the subject. He said that I was satisfied with the financial arrangement. I am not satisfied with the financial arrangement; and if the right hon. Gentleman would refer to my speech when the Bill was in Committee he would find that I stated there that not only did I not approve of the financial arrangement in this Bill, but that I stated that when the existing charges of Government have been paid, and the new charges laid upon Ireland by the Bill have been paid, we will have no substantial surplus—perhaps no surplus at all. Irishmen will not pay new taxes for the purpose of developing industries for the benefit of individuals, as there will be no surplus. We cannot raise new taxes, in consequence of the excessive taxes already levied in Ireland. I assure you that the fear of any system—either of bounties or premiums —in Ireland is entirely illusory. It tries our patience in a severe degree to find these Amendments put forward against evils and results of a purely visionary character. I trust that the Irish Secretary will take the first opportunity of informing us whether, in the event of the passage of a Bill by the Irish Legislature to confer some advantage in material concerns upon the people of Ireland, or upon any part of Ireland, to produce
      548
      better crops or more valuable cattle, or to develop the fisheries—whether the conferring of such an advantage upon the people of Ireland, or any part of them, would be the conferring of such an advantage as is contemplated in this Amendment, or would be held to impose disabilities? We may as well understand the matter now—whether the Irish Legislature will be tied hand and foot, or may apply itself to the material improvement of the people? I would prefer to know the truth now. If it is a welcome truth, so much the better. If it is an unwelcome truth, we had better know it now than hereafter. So far as concerns the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member opposite, I can understand it in no other sense than that anything done by the Irish Legislature which would improve the material condition of the people of Ireland would be held to prejudicially affect the people of Great Britain. Such an Amendment would paralyse the hands of the Irish Legislature in regard to what I consider one of the primary duties of a Legislature.
      MR. GOSCHEN: It is fortunate that this very interesting question has turned up rather early in this stage, and not towards the end, because, if this Amendment had stood later on the Paper, in all probability the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) would not have had the opportunity either of making the very interesting speech we have just listened to, or of extracting from the Government the information which he considers to be extremely important for his purpose. I am very glad the hon. Member for North Kerry has intervened in this Debate, and has put the matter on a footing which we, at all events, can understand. He informed us—and it was a very interesting piece of information—that the real origin of the demand for Home Rule in Ireland was in order to improve the material condition of the country.
      MR. SEXTON: I said apart from political light.
      MR. GOSCHEN: I did not hear that phrase, but I will not be certain.
      MR. SEXTON: If the right hon. Gentleman did not hear it, it was not because I did not say it, but because the right hon. Gentleman did not listen.
      MR. GOSCHEN: I apologise for not having heard it, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I was listening, I may say, with all my ears, because I considered it a very important speech. However, the question is, what part does the improvement of the material resources of Ireland play in this matter? I understand from the hon. Gentleman that it plays a very considerable part, and that a desire for the improvement of the material condition of Ireland is the origin of the demand for separation from the wealthier country.
      MR. SEXTON: Separation!
      MR. GOSCHEN: Well, separation of the Governments, so that Ireland may be free to do what it likes with its own resources, instead of receiving any aid from the great resources of the richer country. Now, we understand that the Irish people believe that, from a material point of view, it would be a great advantage to have Home Rule with a Government having a domestic and sympathetic consideration for their interests. I may say that, considering the efforts which this House has made to develop the fishing industries, and other industries, to found schools and other institutions for the teaching of those industries, it is very ungrateful for hon. Members below the Gangway to take up such an attitude. [Ironical laughter from Nationalist Members.] Hon. Members below the Gangway may laugh, but the benefits to Ireland have been immense. It is well to remember that there are two different questions now before us. One is the Amendment of my hon. Friend, and the other is the Amendment of the Chief Secretary. It would, however, be for the convenience of the House if the answer which the Government may have to give in interpretation of their own Amendment should be given when that Amendment is before the House rather than on the present occasion, because there are several matters we desire to be clear about with regard to the language of that Amendment. With regard to the language of the Amendment of my hon. Friend which is now before us, it is clear that the difficulty of interpreting the words "undue preference" has been exaggerated by the Government, and that it will be perfectly easy for the Courts to interpret them. The Chief Secretary asked us whether we would
      550
      wish to apply such an Amendment to the work of the Congested Districts Board, and to the grant of £5,000 for horses to the Royal Society of Ireland. I should say certainly not. Such a thing has never been contemplated by any person on this side of the House. It was perfectly unnecessary to make these insinuations. We grudge none of the grants given to assist in these directions the prosperity of Ireland. We have no wish, and it was monstrous for the hon. Member for North Kerry to attempt to put into the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham any desire to retard the prosperity of Ireland—
      MR. SEXTON: What I considered monstrous was the attempt, by Amendments to this Bill, to prevent the Irish Parliament from doing for Ireland what you have done for yourselves.
      MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Gentleman has no right to say that by Amendments we have attempted to prevent the Irish Legislature from doing that which we have done ourselves. It has not been suggested by the Mover of the Amendment or by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham; and I say distinctly that there is nothing in the Amendment which would prevent the Irish Legislature from taking such steps as we have taken in the past to develop Irish industries.
      MR. SEXTON: Read the Amendment.
      MR. GOSCHEN: I have read it. No Court would hold that "undue preference" would exclude grants to the Congested Districts Board, or for the production of a better breed of horses. The same thing is done in England. There is no undue preference in that. Hon. Members below the Gangway wish to force us on this Amendment, as they have tried in many other cases, to accept principles which we repudiate and to put language into our mouths that we have never used. I say again that we have no desire whatever to impede the Irish Legislature in taking any such measures as we have taken in the past. But what does the hon. Member for North Kerry want? It is very right and natural that he should want it. He wants the Irish Legislature to have a freer hand in the development of Irish industries. He considers that it might be the duty of the

      551
      Government, and would probably be their intention, to develop Irish industries, not only in the direction of establishing better schools for agriculture and fishing, and assisting the Congested Districts Board, but by putting the industries of Ireland on a more advantageous footing than the industries of England and Scotland with the aid of bounties.
      MR. SEXTON: The right hon. Gentleman has exactly re versed my argument. I spoke of instruction and practical training; and as regards bounties, I said it was useless to fear them, as we would not have the money, and the people would not submit to new taxes.
      MR. GOSCHEN: We all agree that the Irish people should have instruction. But the whole argument of the hon. Gentleman and his friends was that the development of Irish industries should be raised to a much larger system than now exists, and the Irish Parliament should be free to pass any measure that may be necessary to encourage the Irish people to compete more successfully with other people. That is all perfectly natural. It is one of those difficulties that arises from the subject itself. You give the Irish a separate Government, but you are afraid of your own constituencies, and you will not give them fiscal liberty, and that difficulty will turn up over and over again—will turn up in these Debates and afterwards in practice. Let the Government give the Irish Government power generally to deal with this matter, so that the industries of Ireland may be promoted without regard to the corresponding industries of England. Will they take the line taken by the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) and say—"England is a rich country; let us do as we like without fear of competition"?
      MR. SEXTON: I never said so.
      MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Gentleman has not said so; but his sole argument is that Irish industries should be stimulated, and he distinctly stated that Great Britain is not to be afraid of competition; that is his general argument, and I think it is not an unnatural one. The whole argument of the hon. Member and his friends is that they know much better how to arrange for the industries of Ireland than the Parliament of Great Britain is ever likely to know; that they
      552
      would be able to take those measures with regard to the industries of Ireland, which could not be taken by the Imperial Parliament. That is the creed of hon. Members below the Gangway. But, I say, let us be clear on this point—Willthe Government go further in that direction, and say they think they should give more latitude to the Irish Government with regard to finance? That seems to be the logical result of the steps they have taken, and it is useful to my hon. and learned Friend to extract from Irishmen some light on the question. I myself think, as has been said by the hon. Gentleman, that if the farmers of Great Britain knew that by fiscal means of one kind or another the whole of the butter industry or the whole of the cattle industry was to be favoured in Ireland, they would strongly object to it, and object to it on the same lines as the Prime Minister objects to the separation of the trade between Ireland and Great Britain. I ask the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) to let us know precisely where we are, and how far the Government are prepared to give a free hand, or at what point they are prepared to say the Irish Government shall not be allowed to assist and endow Irish industry in competition with a corresponding industry in this country?
      MR. JEFFEEYSdesired to say a few words in support of the Amendment of his right hon. Friend, which he thought was intended to prevent the proposed Irish Parliament giving premiums or bounties to the agricultural industry of Ireland. The hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) said he desired not to be left in doubt on this point. He (Mr. Jeffreys) thought the Amendment was a most intelligent one, as it put clearly before them the dangers to which they were exposed in all the agricultural counties in England. If the proposed Irish Parliament were to be allowed to give premiums, or rather to give bounties upon agricultural produce in Ireland in future, he was quite certain the agricultural counties of England would not return Members to support the present Government. It had been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland that already they had a precedent for this, because they gave the Queen's prizes for horses, but

      553
      so they did in England; they did it all round, and if they were to have these bounties let them have them all round; if it was to the interest of the country that bounties should be given on butter or other agricultural produce, then it should be done all round; but the taxpayers would be averse to paying anything to give bounties only to the farmers of Ireland. He did not say this in hostility to the Irish farmers, but he would call the attention of the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) to this fact—that many of the farmers in England and Scotland were in great poverty—that they were quite as poor as any farmer in Ireland. He would also like to remind the House that the Irish farmers already had many advantages over the English farmers: the Irish farmers paid less Income Tax than the English farmers did.
      An hon. MEMBER: So they do in Scotland.
      MR. JEFFREYSsaid, that was so; but the farmers paid less in Ireland than the farmers in England or Scotland. ["No, no!"] Yes, they did. This question was fought out on the Budget, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer was obliged to admit that he (Mr. Jeffreys) was right. But, without going into that, he desired to call attention to what the Chief Secretary said—that he did not think the Irish Parliament would be inclined to give bounties on butter; and if they did it would only be for the production of good butter, in order that the production of butter might be better and cheaper. But he (Mr. Jeffreys) thought that the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) and his friends would be likely to give these bounties. There was an analogous case in their Colonies. In the Colony of Victoria they gave something like 2d. a pound on every pound of butter that was exported to England. The same bounties might be given in Ireland, and though, possibly, the Irish farmers might benefit, yet at the same time they would be taking the bread out of the farmers' mouths in England, and it would be most unfair for this Parliament to pass any law that would give an undue preference to any portion of the United Kingdom. There was only one other matter to which he wished to draw attention, and it was this—the hon.
      554
      Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) said that he, and others with him, would like to improve the material prosperity of the people of Ireland. Of course, and they also would like to improve the position of the population of this country. But how could they if they were to be hampered in this way? Not only were they now undersold and hampered by foreign competition, but if they were to have this further bounty-fed competition at their very doors, it would be the last straw that would break their backs. He did not see how the English farmer would get on at all if the Bill passed with this clause in it as it stood. He thought the English, Scotch, and Welsh Members should support the Amendment not out of hostility to the Irish farmers, but out of friendship with their own agriculturists, and in order that every one might be placed on the same footing, and that if any bounties were given they should be given all round.
      *MR. CLANCYsaid, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) expressed surprise that, one of the objects of the Irish Legislature was to improve the material prosperity of Ireland. An affected surprise of that character was not wholly inconsistent with some of the right hon. Gentleman's previous declarations, for he remembered the speech of the right hon. Gentleman in 1886 in which he indulged in a variety of prophecies as to what Irish Members would do when they got Home Rule. The right hon. Gentleman excluded the idea of the Irish Members doing anything sensible at all, for he declared they would repeal the laws with regard to murder and theft, and that they would pass a law to change the whole of the Judicial procedure. He did not understand what a Home Rule Parliament would be for if not to improve the position of the Irish people. Political liberty was, in his opinion, the very highest thing they could aspire to, and he would not give it up even for material prosperity; he would rather be governed by Irishmen and governed badly than be governed by this House and governed well. [Laughter.] Those who laughed at that statement showed a very small and slight appreciation indeed of their position as free men. He would like to know what would be their attitude if the case were reversed. Suppose they were asked to link themselves with France on

      555
      condition that they were better governed; would they submit to that for a single moment? No, they would prefer their insular liberty, even though it might not be so beneficial to them commercially; therefore, he said that, for his part, he regarded personal liberty as the highest thing they could aspire to, and which they did aspire to, in looking for Home Rule. After that he did not know what a Home Rule Parliament would exist for except to improve the material prosperity of the people; a Parliament ought not to exist if it did not do all it could to improve the material prosperity of the people. The right hon. Gentleman said they were ungrateful for the doles and bounties extended to them by the late Administration. In the first place, it was rather extraordinary to ask them to be grateful for getting their own money; every 1d. the late Government gave to Ireland was given out of Irish money, and the right hon. Gentleman asked them to be grateful for it. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman there were Irish Members who, during the existence of the last Parliament, and when these grants wore under consideration, warned the Government that, although they would not reject these gifts, and would even ask for more, they would never be grateful for them; and, for his part, he said they would never be grateful for any gifts that were obviously and almost avowedly given them to shut their mouths about the question of political liberty. And if the Tory Government should ever come in again, and should propose further gifts—and he believed they would propose further gifts—he told them they need not expect any gratitude for them; on the contrary, they would receive these gifts; they would ask for more and more of them; they would ask for so many of them that there would not be 1d. left of the surplus they got from Ireland, and, after all, they would remain perfectly ungrateful. That, at all events, was a plain declaration, and he hoped it was satisfactory. When he saw Amendment after Amendment put on the Paper, and heard speech after speech in support of them, and found that every Amendment and every speech was calculated to deprive the Irish Parliament of every particle of power it ought to possess for advancing the material prosperity of
      556
      Ireland, he could only come to the conclusion that those who put them down meant to do exactly what their Amendments and speeches expressed. ["Hear, hear!"] Yes; and what they expressed was that the Irish Parliament should not have the power to do a single thing to improve the material prosperity of Ireland. Let him call attention to the change of front of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who said they did not wish to stop the work of the Congested Districts Board and the encouragement of horse-breeding by the Royal Dublin Society. That was exactly the reverse of what the right hon. Gentleman had said up to the present, because up to now the operations of the Congested Districts Board and the granting of prizes by the Royal Dublin Society had been defended on the ground that Ireland now was under the control of the Imperial Parliament, and that Home Rule was not the law of the land, the inference being that if Home Rule were granted these operations would be against the interests of England, and would not be allowed by England. He had never heard anything so mean as most of these propositions and discussions raised by these Amendments. Let them consider the history of Ireland and the way in which England had treated the industries of Ireland. Two hundred years ago the English people began it when they presented a Petition to King William asking him to suppress the woollen industry of Ireland; and ever since then, all through the last century by one means, and all through the present century by another means, they had extinguished the industries of Ireland; and now that lreland was going to have the management of her own affairs, Member after Member got up and appealed to the trade jealousies and the worst passions of the English people in order to deprive the Irish Parliament of every particle of power of improving the industry of the country. He never heard anything so mean, and he should despise himself, if an Englishman, to use such means to put down the struggling Sister Island. One would imagine that the condition of the two Islands were reversed; that England was the poor, neglected, penniless country; that Ireland was the great overwhelming and monied country; and that if they did not stretch out their hand in this, that, and the other direction, poor, shivering Eng-

      557
      land would be gobbled up by the great and powerful country that lay to the West of it? It seemed to him, he repeated, that all these speeches and Amendments were the meanest things to be found in political history, and he hoped, before the Debate closed, that for the credit of England some Englishman would get up and denounce them as an Irishman would. It seemed to him that all the fears that were expressed were absolutely without foundation. If they had any common sense at all in Ireland they would desire to stand well with the English people, and therefore would not be likely to adopt means to injure the English people; they would try to benefit their own country, but not to injure England. He repeated the demand that had been made by the Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton), and he wanted to know whether such operations as could be done now by the Congested Districts Board, by the Royal Dublin Society, or similar undertakings, would be forbidden by the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland? [Mr. J. MORLEY shook his head.] Although the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have replied they would not be forbidden, he (Mr. Clancy) did not feel quite certain in his own mind. The Amendment was in very general, very wide, and very far-reaching terms; and though he did not profess to be a lawyer competent to give an opinion on the subject, he could easily imagine that almost nine out of every ten projects which an Irish Parliament might undertake without the slightest intention of giving any undue preference to their own country, might fall within that Amendment and be forbidden. Therefore, before he could vote for it, he should like to have an explanation of its meaning, and he only regretted that the Debate was not upon the Amendment of the Chief Secretary for Ireland instead of upon this Amendment.
      MR. JESSE COLLINGSthought the speech they had just listened to had very little to do with the Amendment of his hon. Friend behind him. From the speeches of the Prime Minister and hon. Members opposite one would think there was no such place as Great Britain; but though the fact seemed to be ignored, there was such a place as
      558
      Great Britain, and such people as Englishmen; he gave every credit to the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) for the speeches he made in regard to the Bill, because when he spoke he made clear what the Government ignored, evaded, or concealed. One great advantage of the gag was that the moment it was applied they were favoured with these valuable speeches from the Irish Benches. He did not complain of them, because they learned more from the speeches of the Irish Members, and particularly from the speeches of the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton), as to the meaning and intentions of the Bill, than they learned from the speeches of Ministers. But there was one matter in which the hon. Member for North Kerry was a little hard upon the Opposition speakers; he said their opposition was couched in a mean and tyrannical spirit. The hon. Member must remember that, though they recognised his right to get every sixpence he possibly could out of the pockets of the British taxpayer, yet, as the Representatives of the British taxpayer composed the large majority of that House, they were altogether opposed to the process the hon. Gentleman would like to see carried out; therefore, while they did not complain of the hon. Member being ready to get every sixpence of advantage at the expense of Great Britain, they must be allowed to defend the interests and the pockets of the British taxpayer without being called mean and tyrannical. What was there in this Amendment—for he considered the hon. Member who had last spoken (Mr. Clancy) and the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) had conveniently or accidentally ignored the Amendment moved by his hon. Friend (Mr. H. Hobhouse). The Amendment did not interfere with any legitimate improvements of the industries of Ireland: and if hon. Members would read the end of it, which contained the governing words, the undue preference was not to take place except it prejudicially "affect any such industry in Great Britain." These last words would not interfere with any legitimate improvements in Irish industry. From the speech of the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) they found that though the Bill prohibited Protection,

      559
      the Irish Legislature intended to get as near to it, by hook or by crook, as they possibly could, and here, again, he did not complain of the speech of the hon. Member. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer spoke of their having full fiscal liberty. Did anyone in his senses believe that the Prime Minister could himself suppose that a Home Rule Bill of this character could be given to the Irish Parliament without full, definite fiscal power to the extent, even, of managing their Excise and Customs? Fancy a Canada without the management of their Excise and Customs! He did not think hon. Gentlemen could conceal from themselves, as was said by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, that this was only the first step towards full fiscal liberty. He only knew that if he were an Irishman he should ask for that liberty. The Chief Secretary said the Amendment which he had put down would meet every requirement. The right hon. Gentleman's argument was a twofold one—first, that his own Amendment met the point at issue, and next that they could not define what "undue preference" meant. The latter argument had been disposed of by previous speakers. Take a case where premiums or bounties should so lower the price of butter or cheese that it should be found in consequence of this the British producer was driven out of the market. Ho thought the Courts would say that was undue preference. On the other hand, if money were spent on improving the quality of the breed of horses or cows, the Courts would equally say that was not undue preference. The Chief Secretary asked if they supposed it likely that the Irish Government would give premiums in order that the British people might eat better butter at a lower price. The right hon. Gentleman had only to refer to Continental nations. They allowed us to eat cheap sugar, and the Danes allowed us to have cheap butter, so long as they wished to create that industry. The Irish Government were likely to share the opinion of Denmark, or any other nation, in giving bounties in order to create or increase a particular industry. The Amendment now before the House touched in no way the legitimate improvement of industries; it only aimed at preventing undue preference which would prejudicially affect a similar
      560
      trade or industry in Great Britain. The hon. Member for North Kerry spoke of the poor in Ireland. They had poor in England as well. The small cultivators and others connected with the agricultural industry were poor enough, and they were struggling hard to make both ends meet. And what was the proposition of Her Majesty's Government? It was to give power to the Irish Legislature—a power which, according to the speech of the hon. Member for North Kerry, they would use to the utmost extent they could—to interfere with the poor and small agricultural producers in this country in the two particular things—cheese and butter—in which they at present were struggling to make both ends meet. It was well to let the country understand what this meant; therefore, he was thankful that that which the Government had concealed from them the Irish Members, in their candour, had abundantly made plain. The small cultivators of this country were, first of all, to be competed with by undue competition—at any rate, an Amendment to prevent such a thing was refused by the Government—and, next to that, they were to furnish £500,000 a year to afford money for that competition. In other words, they were to pay for the rope to hang themselves. The Government, elected to do so much, particularly for the small agriculturists, had done it in this fashion—they had introduced into this Bill the possibility of unfair competition with these poor English cultivators, which might have a grave and oppressive effect on them. It was not an imaginary danger, because they had seen other nations on the Continent who were not bound by Imperial law doing that thing to the detriment of the English producer; and now they should have Ireland, who also would not be bound by the Imperial law, following suit, as they were candidly told by the Irish Members they intended to do as far as they could. He did not wonder at the Prime Minister wishing to shorten the discussions on this ill-timed and misshapen Bill. The more it was discussed the more became apparent the injustice which was being clone to the struggling poor producer of Great Britain, and particularly of England, who was to be sacrificed, economically and in every

      561
      other respect, to the mad proposals contained in this Bill.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The styles of the speeches of the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) and of the hon. Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) do not resemble each other; but, at all events, in the matter which they laid before the House, they have both made an appeal to English Members on account of the poverty of Ireland, and they both made a call on British sympathy for the poorer and humbler industrial partner in the partnership which at present exists in the United Kingdom. I think there is a great fallacy underlying this argument. Of course, it is true that in Ireland there is a district in the South and West in which poverty of a very serious kind exists, and has always existed—not poverty which is increasing, but poverty which, as far as I know, is diminishing—but a poverty which, in spite of this diminution, still undoubtedly does require, in my judgment, the fostering care of this House and assistance from the public funds. But, Sir, to quote the congested districts of Ireland as if the whole of Ireland was a congested district—to talk of the North and East of Ireland and of the South-East of Ireland as if they resemble in any economical particular at all those very congested districts, is to play upon the ignorance of the average English Member. It is a grotesque allegation, and this practice of Irish Members coming forward in formâ pauperis, and appealing to our generous emotions in regard to a large part, at all events, of Ireland can only be successful before a tribunal ignorant of the very elements of the problem.
      *MR. CLANCYwished to say at once that he repudiated making any ad misericordiam appeal to any part of that House. He had never done so, nor would he ever do so.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I will not dispute with the hon. Member whether the appeal was an appeal in formâ pauperis or not; but, at all events, it was an appeal the basis of which was the extreme relative poverty of Ireland as compared with England. The hon. Member was not content with discussing the existing poverty in Ireland; but he went back to the last century or two, and to the Whig legislation by which
      562
      Irish industries were dealt with in a deplorable manner, and crushed out of existence some 200 years ago. That, undoubtedly, represents a condition of policy and of commercial jealousy which everybody regrets, but which was universal at the time; and it is no special reproach to this country, of all countries in the world, that they carried out a policy which, of course, their descendants now regret. On the contrary, never has there been a country with large dependencies which, broadly speaking, taking the whole of its history together, has treated these dependencies through a long period of years with more justice and generosity than England.
      MR. MAC NEILL: What about the woollen trade?
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: If the hon. and learned Gentleman had condescended to listen to my speech, he would know that it was the woollen trade which I was referring to particularly. But, Sir, it is perfectly absurd for Irishmen to go back, with regard to the greater part of Ireland, to these ancient wrongs, and pretend they are special reasons for permitting legislation which would now be injurious, not merely to Ireland, but to England also.
      *MR. CLANCY: The right hon. Gentleman made them a special reason himself, when he introduced his Drainage Bill a few years ago.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly right, and had he done me the honour to follow me, he would know that I made a special exception. I said with regard to these prosperous parts of Ireland that it is absurd to revive these old controversies. But, coming to the present time, what is the contention of ray hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment? He says—and surely he says with justice—that there are industries, or may be industries, in Ireland which do compete, or may compete, in future with England, in which those who carry on the industries in Ireland may, in all natural circumstances, be as well-situated as their competitors in England, but where the balance may be altered in favour of the Irish traders by Irish legislation which we should not permit in this country. Now, who can deny that it is a possible state of things? At the present moment, with regard to the great Irish industry of agriculture,

      563
      I should say that the Irish agriculturist was and is as well-situated, if not better, in a large part of Ireland as compared with his British brother; and to say that because England is larger than Ireland therefore England owes specially generous treatment to Ireland is to be guilty of a great confusion of idea. This is not a question of the comparative area of the two countries, or of their comparative population. It is, or ought to be, simply a comparison as between the capacity of the two countries to carry on particular kinds of industries; and undoubtedly it is the fact that there are, or may be, in Ireland among agriculturists and others cases in which the Irish producer would be, from natural causes, at least as least as well-situated as his English brother; and, therefore, it would be a grave injustice on that English brother if we were to set up an Assembly in Ireland with a special endowment, from the point of view of a surplus, which, according to the view of the Government, would be used, as I understand the hon. Member for North Kerry, for the very purpose of promoting those industries which may or may not come into competition with similar industries here. There is only one further point I wish to dwell upon, and that relates to the Congested Districts Board. Hon. Gentlemen have argued as if the result of this Amendment, if carried, would be to prevent any further subventions by the Congested Districts Board of industries in the South and West of Ireland. I do not so read the Amendment. The Amendment reads "giving any undue preference to any trade or industry." I quite admit that the case mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman opposite of giving assistance to a struggling woollen manufacture in a poor district of Connemara is, undoubtedly, a case of preference. But that money being given on account of excessive poverty of a district and in connection with a general scheme for raising it up, I do not think any Court in the world would contend that that was a case of undue preference. An analogous case, I think, was mentioned. I understand if a Railway Company were to give tickets at a specially cheap rate for taking poor children to a pic-nic, that would, undoubtedly, be a case of preference; but I am also advised that no Court of Law in the world
      564
      would say it was undue preference. They would say there were special reasons for these special circumstances which, while it left preference, took it out of the category of undue preference; and the eleemosynary—I do not use the word in au offensive sense—the eleemosynary legislation of the Congested Districts Board would, it appears to me, under no circumstances, by even the most strict interpretation of a Court of Law, who knew its business, be described as a case of undue preference. The whole House is agreed on the policy of the Congested Districts Board. Neither the Government, nor we who are responsible for the creation of that Board, nor hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, however much they may differ as to particular proceedings, object to the general principles of that Board; and none of us desire to see that Board hampered in its operations. We think that, by the word "undue," all danger is entirely obviated; and, therefore, we are left face to face with this simple problem—whether we are, or are not, to prevent the Irish Parliament from dealing with that part of Ireland which is every whit as prosperous as many parts of the United Kingdom, and granting special terms by which the producers in these districts shall have advantages over their brethren on this side of the Channel?
      *MR. EVERETTsaid, that in this rather long Debate a great deal of eloquence and indignation and valuable time had been consumed to very little purpose and for this reason—the Amendment they were discussing, so far as he could see, was simply, in other words, asking for what was provided for by the Amendment which had been put on the Paper a little lower down by the Chief Secretary on behalf of the Government. The Amendment under discussion forbade the Irish Parliament giving any undue preference to any trade or industry in Ireland in competition with the industries of Great Britain, whilst the Amendment of the Government forbade the Irish Parliament doing anything by which subjects of the Crown resident in Great Britain might be placed at any disadvantage in comparison with subjects of the Crown resident in Ireland. It would take a very clever man to see any essential difference between these two points;

      565
      and all the endeavours of the right hon. Member for the Bordesley Division (Mr. Jesse Collings) to make capital for the Party which he adorned as against the Party of the Government, as being more desirous to benefit the small agriculturists of Great Britain, fell entirely to the ground. By the words which the Government desired to have incorporated in the Bill, every subject of the Crown residing on this side of the Channel was entitled to have precisely the same treatment meted out to him which was to be given to his fellow-subjects on the other side of the Channel. That being the case, he (Mr. Everett) was of opinion that they had wasted a great deal of time in discussing the Amendment, when the Government had one on the Paper almost precisely similar to it, and which they were ready and willing to accept.
      MR. RENTOULsaid, he considered the discussion on this Amendment had been extremely valuable, as enabling the agriculturists of England to see exactly where they stood. Speaking from the Irish point of view, he stood in this position. He was not able to support the Amendment which had been proposed, because, if a Legislature was to be established in Ireland, from the point of view of the Unionists it would be a Legislature that would probably tend very much to damage trade in Ireland. The only one thing left to the Irish people to live by would be agriculture; and if the Irish Legislature, in whatever wisdom they might possess, thought that by giving bounties, or by any other methods they might devise, they could improve the agriculture of Ireland, they were bound to do so, quite irrespective of whether the agriculture of England suffered or not. The Irish agriculturists in the Irish Parliament must, consequently, think of themselves. That Parliament would be returned almost entirely by the agricultural vote. There would also be 80 Irish Members in the Imperial Parliament, and he thought the proper policy for the Irish Parliament would be to grant bounties with regard to agriculture in Ireland, and then for her Representatives in the English House of Commons to vote against the English Parliament granting similar bounties in England, so that the agriculturists of Ireland would be in a more advantageous
      566
      position than their English brethren. In all human probability, bounties would be largely granted to agriculturists in Ireland; and, representing an Irish agricultural county, he should not object to it. He did not know, as at present advised, that he would not support such a scheme. But with the urban vote in England being so strong the English agriculturists could not, for one single minute, expect to have such bounties granted to them. They would be left out in the cold, the Irish agriculturists standing on a totally different footing. If English agriculturists were satisfied with that state of affairs, he, for one, could not have any possible objection, and he did not think that Irish Members representing agricultural constituencies could feel themselves justified in voting for the taking away of such a power entirely from the hands of the Legislature in Ireland. Of course, the Unionists did not desire any such Legislature to be set up in Ireland; but if it were, as it would have a free hand in so many other matters, it would not be to the advantage of anybody that it should be tied with regard to this particular matter.
      *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that as he intended to vote for the Amendment he was not inclined to give a silent vote. Had it not been for the speech of the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton), he should probably have abstained from voting; but the speech of the hon. Member had made his course perfectly plain and clear. The hon. Member had told the House that he could not conceive what an Irish Parliament should exist for if not to develop Irish resources and encourage Irish manufactures. He (Mr. Russell) had not much faith in this spoon-feeding process at all. He came from a part of the country where it had not been applied, where they had made their own manufactures, and got on without that spoonfeeding which seemed to be necessary in other parts of Ireland. The hon. Member for North Kerry said, that although this development of resources was to be undertaken, the Irish people would not stand further taxation? He wanted to know how it was to be done if there was not to be taxation? Were loans to be raised? If so, who were to pay the interest on these loans? He could see perfectly well what would happen. The Province of

      567
      Ulster would be made to pay for this spoon-feeding in the South and West of Ireland; and he had not the slightest notion of encouraging any such system. He quite agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Rentoul) in desiring to get as much as could be got for Ireland. He believed more could be got from the Imperial Parliament than from an Irish Parliament; and he, therefore, preferred that no Irish Parliament should be set up. He could plainly see what was meant when this Irish Parliament got to work. This development was to take place with money provided by the North of Ireland—a state of things he strenuously objected to.
      *SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he desired to protest against the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) that the English Members who intended to vote for this and other Amendments were really anxious to prevent a Home Rule Parliament in Dublin from doing anything to promote the material welfare of Ireland. That was absolutely incorrect. Only a few days ago they on that side of the House supported the hon. and learned Member for Harrow (Mr. Ambrose) in an Amendment to give the new Irish Parliament all the necessary powers for promoting the material improvement of Ireland. If ever an Irish Executive should be established, they were prepared to give it full power over the material improvement of that country under several specified heads, which together comprise every sort of public work and physical development. That far they should go and no further, but to say that they desired to handicap the Irish Parliament so as to prevent the material improvement of that country was a charge as ungenerous as it was incorrect. He was willing the Irish should have as much of local government as should give the ratepayers and electors every legitimate opportunity of improving or extending their industries. But he could never consent to the use of illegitimate methods pertaining to an unsound economic system which they did not wish to have carried out in any part of the British Islands.
      *MR. STRACHEYsaid, he felt bound to vote for this Amendment. He confessed he had some doubt
      568
      as to the course he should adopt; but he had been decided to take the course he indicated by the views set forth by the hon. Member for East Down (Mr. Rentoul). He would not do anything to prevent the people of Ireland developing their resources by means of technical education, dairy schools, and butter schools, as was done in England; but he could not for one moment assist hon. Members in making protectionist experiments in Ireland. They had heard the hon. Member for North Kerry, who said he attached great importance to the power which it was sought to give the Irish Parliament in this respect. In the part of the country which he (Mr. Strachey) represented, they were not very wealthy—they were suffering from most severe depression, both in trade and agriculture, which it would take them some time to get over, and it was not for them to have premiums put on Irish produce to facilitate competition with themselves. On that ground, and in no spirit of hostility to the Irish agricultural or other interest—on the ground that they should have free and open competition—he would have to record his vote as he had stated.
      *MR. BARTLEYsaid, the last speaker said that if he did not vote as he had decided to do he would injure his position in his constituency.
      MR. STRACHEY: No, no!
      *MR. BARTLEYsaid, the hon. Gentleman's attitude showed that the supporters of the Government were getting into a dangerous position. If the Amendment did not affect the hon. Member's own case and constituents, he would vote for the Government; but, as it was, he preferred voting the other way with the Opposition. This showed how liberal and generous some people could be in matters that did not concern their own interest. This was a question which he (Mr. Bartley) had raised in Committee, and, acting on the advice of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour), he had not intended saying anything upon it now; but, as they were to have the closuring of the Debate next Friday, he thought they had a right to be heard. They did not wish to prevent the Irish having any power that they considered they ought to have in the matter; but they wished to deal with the question, as they were entitled to

      569
      do, as one that concerned their own people in England and Scotland. The hon. and learned Member for North Dublin (Mr. Clancy) told them that the Irish Parliament would have nothing to do if it did not promote the material welfare of the people of Ireland. They agreed that it must be the duty of every Parliament to promote the well-being of the people who elected that Parliament. But the real point was whether they were going to allow Ireland, at their expense, to so promote industries in Ireland as to injure the people of this country? He candidly said that his first interest was in England—in Great Britain. He had an interest in the welfare of Ireland; but, if it was a question as between the two, he would vote for England. Ireland might look to her own interests; but were they going to allow Protection in Ireland to the injury of the manufactures of their own country? He really must protest against the idea. There was no question upon which the working classes of this country, with whom he (Mr. Bartley) was largely associated, were so keen as that of unfair competition. Yet now, at the end of the 19th century, the Government were going to allow one part of the United Kingdom to have the power of Protection. If the Government were attacked upon this, they would repudiate the idea; but he ventured to assert that, if the Irish Legislature ever had the means and the power to promote industry by bounties, there would soon be no Free Trade in the United Kingdom He (Mr. Bartley) was a strong Free Trader, and he was not ashamed to confess it, and there was a strong spirit in the country upon the subject; but if this great Liberal Party—and it was not that—was going to allow Ireland to have Protection of Irish industries, it would live in the memory of the British people as the Government that had done its best to destroy the Free Trade of the country. They could not get over it. They were going to allow Ireland to put bounties on her manufactures, especially on the agricultural industries. The Irish Members had said over and over again that they would have Protection. [Cries of "No!"] Yes; for Mr. Parnell distinctly stated it, and he was their greatest Leader, and his memory was still the greatest in Ireland. He said they
      570
      would have bounties; and it was because of that, and because the Irish said that, that the Government could not resist it. The Prime Minister would agree with the Amendment if he dared, but he was not his own master. As an English Representative, and one associated with the working classes, he (Mr. Bartley) said they would make this known in every part of the country. They would preach it from the house-tops. [Cries of "Oh!"] Yes, they would; they would make it known from one end of the land to the other that the Government were ready to give this power, which would seriously injure the trader, the farmer, and the labourer of this country. Had it been known at the last Election that they contemplated taking such action, not one in 1,000 or in 10,000 would have supported the Government.
      MR. P. J. POWERsaid, he would like to ask the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down whether he was aware that the late Lord Carnarvon distinctly made an offer of bounties—
      MR. BARTLEY: Were you there?
      MR. POWERsaid, that offer was made during Lord Carnarvon's famous interview with Mr. Parnell; and he recollected that after that a number of them (the Irish Members) were sent to the North of England to advocate the Tory cause—
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he would point out to the hon. Member that Lord Carnarvon was not now able to reply to those statements. He might point out that similar statements had long since been proved to be groundless.
      MR. POWERsaid, he had a distinct recollection of the circumstances. [Cries of "Vote!" and "Divide!"] That was all he wished to say.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 112; Noes 157.—(Division List, No. 274.)
      MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid, an Amendment stood on the Paper in his name as follows:—
      Clause 4 page 2, line 42, after "belief," insert "or to the raising of any tax, or to the appropriation, directly or indirectly, of any part of the Irish Public revenue, or of any tax, duty, or impost imposed by the Irish Legisla-

      571
      ture, for the purpose of, or in connection with, religion, or for the benefit of the holders of any religious office as such."
      It would shorten their consideration of the question which it raised if he said that he was willing to accept the suggestion which had been made by the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman proposed that, instead of the terms of the Amendment standing in his name, the following words should be inserted in the place indicated by him:—
      "Or receive or appropriate directly or indirectly, save as heretofore, any public revenue for any religious purposes."
      But he wanted to make an appeal to the Chief Secretary to go a little further, and to accept also the words—
      "Or for the benefit of the holders of any religious office as such."
      If he was willing to accept these words, it would be unnecessary for him (Mr. Williams) to labour the contentions he had embodied in his Amendment as it stood.
      MR. J. MORLEYsignified his assent.
      MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid, he was much obliged. On the question of Order, he did not know whether he should move his own Amendment, or move one embodying the words he had suggested?
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: The hon. Member can bring up the amended Amendment—his own Amendment, but, of course, in the amended form.
      MR. POWELL-WILLIAMSsaid, he moved accordingly. He wished to say that he should like to know whether the words "save as heretofore" would imply that there was anything in the Bill in front of this Amendment which would give liberty to the Irish Legislature to do anything which the Amendment would keep them from doing? He would direct attention to the proviso in Clause 3 as to the powers of the Legislature. He begged to move the Amendment.
      Amendment proposed,
      In Clause 4, page 2, line 42, after the word "belief," to insert the words "Raising or appropriating, directly or indirectly, save as heretofore, any public revenue for any religious purpose, or for the benefit of the holders of any religious office as such."—(Mr. Powell-Williams.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. SEXTON: I rise for the purpose of endeavouring to form a just judgment upon this Amendment. We ought to pay careful regard, I think, to the provisions in the clause already dealt with on this subject. It is already provided that the Irish Legislature cannot deal with the question of endowments, or with any disability that may be imposed on account of religious belief. These words, which were more formidable and drastic than those which originally appeared in the Bill, were amended after careful consideration and discussion. Not only was the endowment of religion forbidden, but the conferring of any advantage or benefit on account of religious belief. He had listened to the Debate in Committee, which was conducted by the most competent persons, and he had heard satisfaction expressed at the insertion of those words. He should have thought, therefore, that the House might have been spared any further reference to the matter. The Chief Secretary proposed now to provide that the Irish Legislature should not have the power to make any law, to raise or appropriate directly or indirectly any public revenue for any religious purpose, or for payment to the holder of any religious office as such. He should like to hear from a Minister in what respect the Government judged that the words already included in the Bill differed from the present proposal, because it seemed to him that the words forbidding direct or indirect endowment of religion would apply to the payment of public money to the holder of any religious office as such, the one being a general phrase, the other being a reference to the individual. The appropriation of revenue for religious purposes appeared to him to be covered already, for would not the appropriating of money for religious purposes be conferring an advantage on account of religious belief? It struck him as strange that the Irish Legislature should be forbidden to do what the Imperial Parliament did every Session. It had been found expedient and necessary in Ireland, and would be so after Home Rule was granted. The words, "save as heretofore," were probably intended to guard that which had been done already in the past, and which would probably be continued. It had been found ex-

      573
      pedient in Great Britain and in Ireland to pay ecclesiastics and members of Religions Orders for services to the State as schoolmasters, chaplains in the Army and Navy, in prisons, in workhouses, and asylums. The payments were made for religious purposes. Would they come within the Amendment? Payments were made to monks and nuns and others for services in the management of reformatories and industrial schools, and those persons were selected deliberately because they were ecclesiastics and members of Religious Orders, and would render service to the State more efficiently and cheaply than other persons. But upon what principle would the payment to holders of religious offices be provided? These persons were specially selected because they held religious offices, and the services they could render to the State might have still further development in the future. At present their services were recognised in the manner he had mentioned, and in connection with education; but why should the Irish Legislature be shut out from any development of the principle? In many ways the services of nuns might be utilised in giving educational training, teaching girls such accomplishments as domestic economy, sewing, cooking, and other matters in which experience had shown that they gave most efficient instruction. Would the Irish Parliament be shut out from making payments on such account? He could see that a difficulty might arise, and he would suggest that the Govern merit should modify the words "save as heretofore," so that it would be clear that the payments might be made according to the same principle as heretofore—for instance, they might use such words as "save on such principle as heretofore," or "save in regard to analogous services," or words that would imply that similar services from ecclesiastics might receive State payment as at present. In that way the right hon. Gentleman would relieve a well-founded apprehension that the clause might prevent the development of a system under which ecclesiastics had done the State good secular service?
      *SIR C. RUSSELLsaid, that payments for the purposes which the hon. Member contemplated would not be payments for religious purposes, and could consequently be made. He confessed he had some doubt
      574
      whether this Amendment was necessary at all; but the Government thought it would save time to accept it in its modified form.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      SIR T. LEA SIR T. LEA rose to move to insert in Clause 4—
      "Provided that nothing herein contained shall prevent the Irish Legislature from making grants for the continuance of the Training Colleges as existing at the date of the passing of this Act."
      *SIR C. RUSSELL: That is out of Order.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I would submit that the Amendment is already covered.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is so.
      On Motion of Mr. J. MORLEY, the following Amendment was agreed to:—
      Clause 4, page 3, line 1, after "diverting the property." insert "or without its consent altering the constitution."
      MR. A. J. BALFOURrose to move an Amendment to Clause 4, standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Down, to provide that the powers of the Irish Legislature shall not extend to the making of any law—
      "Whereby any denominational University or College may be established or endowed, in whole or in part, or subsidised in any way out of public funds."
      MR. J. MORLEYhanded a communication across the Table to Mr. Balfour.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Unfortunately, if I give way now I shall not be able to speak again; therefore, I must make my statement on this subject. As hon. Gentlemen who have done me the honour to listen to the utterances which from time to time I have been obliged to make on this subject are aware, I have always held that the circumstances of Ireland were such that it would be a proper thing to establish, I will not say a University, but at any rate a College, under Roman Catholic management. The whole tendency of Catholic views is to prevent the training of Catholic youth in any save Denominational Colleges. I am sorry that the Catholics of Ireland do not follow the example set them by the members of other Religious Bodies, and allow general education to go on under circumstances which bring together

      575
      all sections of the community, and thus give all the better results of University training. At the same time, I admit that we have to recognise the fact that the great majority of Irish Catholics will not consent to receive University education except in a Catholic College or University. It is absurd to refuse to give to Catholic Irishmen a training in matters outside doctrine simply because of this view. Under the circumstances, I have always held, and still hold, that to deprive Irishmen of a knowledge of mathematics, sciences, classics, and all the other subjects of a University curriculum simply because I do not approve of the conditions under which they will consent to receive it is a policy which we cannot carry on. I have never seen any reason, and I do not now see any reason, to depart from my public utterances on the subject. But when you leave these broad principles and come to the question of permitting an Irish Government to impose taxes in Ireland on Protestants and Roman Catholics alike for this purpose, we change altogether the conditions under which this University or College should be instituted. To ask the population of the United Kingdom to provide the necessary funds that would be required for this object is one thing, but it is a totally different thing to allow an Irish Legislature, entirely dominated by the Roman Catholic vote, to impose taxes upon a population in violent opposition with them to maintain a Catholic University. I should never willingly be a party to giving an Irish Legislature power to do that. By all means let the policy be carried out by the Imperial Parliament, which will retain power to carry it out. It will then be done with the free will of the whole community, and without imposing hardship upon any class; but if it is done by the Irish Assembly the Protestant minority will not consent to it. If their money is taken it will be taken under coercion. This is the broad distinction I draw; the policy may be carried out by the Imperial Parliament, but not by the Irish Legislature. For these reasons, while adhering to all I have said, I move this limiting sub-section upon the particular powers to be given to the Irish Legislature.
      Amendment proposed,
      576
      In page 3, line 4, after the word "or," to insert, as a new sub-section, the words—" (4) Whereby any denominational University or College may be established or endowed in whole, or in part, or subsidised in any way out of public funds; or."—(Mr. A. J. Balfour.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. SEXTONsaid, he noticed with interest the development of the sense of equity and statesmanship in the Leader of the Opposition, who could justify a thing done by the Imperial Parliament, but not the same thing done for Ireland by an Irish Parliament.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hear, hear! Out of Irish funds. It would be grossly unjust for the British Parliament to tax Ireland for this purpose, but to tax the whole of Great Britain and Ireland for an Irish University would not be objectionable.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, he should deny that the right hon. Gentleman was entitled to assume that the settlement of a Catholic University by the Irish Parliament would be intolerable to Irish Protestants. It would not be more intolerable for an Irish Legislature to tax a minority of Protestants than for the Imperial Parliament to tax a larger number of Protestants for this purpose.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With their own free will.
      MR. SEXTON: The endeavour would be to bring about such a settlement as the Protestants would accept. No one could deny that the state of University education in Ireland was most unsatisfactory so far as Catholics were concerned. Three years ago in the House the right hon. Gentleman admitted this in language clear and striking; but now he found it his duty to deny the power to the Irish Legislature. Undoubtedly, the present University system was unsatisfactory. The Royal University was but an Examining Board, discharging no other University functions. The Queen's Colleges were but slightly availed of by the Catholics, and Trinity College was a Protestant Institution.
      MR. CARSON: No, no!
      MR. SEXTONsaid, it was practically a Protestant Institution. He would not argue the abstract question; but, in fact, it was a Protestant Institution, endowed by the State out of confiscated lands, and

      577
      it was controlled by Protestant Fellows. Protestant services were held in its chapel, and it had Chairs of Protestant Theology. No one over supposed that it would be accepted by the Catholics of Ireland. The only effect of adopting the Amendment would be to concentrate the efforts of the Irish Legislature on the reform of Trinity College, so that its endowments should be available equally for Catholics or Protestants. But with freedom in the matter, he was disposed to think that the settlement of the University Question would take the direction of the establishing of a University which, for Catholics, should compare with the position of Trinity College towards Protestants. The condition might be laid down that the University to be established by the Irish Parliament should be such an Institution as would bear to the Catholic community a character corresponding to that of Trinity College for the Protestant community. In that way equality would be established between the Protestants and Catholics of Ireland. What was a Denominational University or College? This was a popular phrase; they read it in the newspapers and heard it in Debate, but would anyone toll him what was a Denominational University or College? Did it mean a College governed by ecclesiastics of one creed or by laymen of one creed, or did it mean that the curriculum included the teaching of theology of any creed, or that a particular creed were excluded? He could give half-a-dozen different definitions, and if they allowed any such words as these to remain the Irish Parliament would not know upon what line to proceed. They would not know what was excluded or allowed by the phrase, whilst it was impossible to say what interpretation might be put upon it by any Judicial Tribunal. He would suggest that, instead of the insertion of such general words, the Opposition should lay down precisely what it was they thought an Irish Parliament might do, or what they thought it should not do. If they would lay that before the House in plain and temperate language they would find the Irish Party ready to consider any reasonable proposal.
      MR. J. MORLEY: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour) took up a position
      578
      with reference to this question—not on this Amendment, but previously—in which I confess that I, for my part, although I approach it from a different point of view, am not very much in disaccord with. Ho and I will agree that the ideal which inspired those who first inaugurated and brought to completion in Ireland, 50 or 60 years ago, the system of mixed education or places of instruction—both primary and higher and secondary instruction—was that they should be places where students of all the great religious communions might meet, and meet upon the common ground where a love of letters might be laid by which the unfortunate social and religious differences which had sprung up in Ireland might be softened and assuaged. But I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that as things have gone, and as they are at this moment, that is an ideal which must be postponed. Then the only question between the right hon. Gentleman and mo is whether, if you are setting up an Irish Legislature, it is fair and expedient that they should be allowed to seek an end which the right hon. Gentleman himself fairly admits to be in the highest degree desirable. I do not wish to press this in a controversial spirit, but let the House note how far the right hon. Gentleman goes. He admits it is desirable that there should be a well-equipped College under Catholic control, and that that College should be supported by public funds. The only difference between us is that, even if an Irish Legislature is to be set up—the right hon. Gentleman will not willingly admit that it will be—that even then it must be only this Imperial Parliament and this Imperial Purse which is to provide for this well-equipped College under Catholic control. I confess I agree with the hon. Member for North Kerry in not being able to see the slightest difference in principle between the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman is not unwilling to see carried—which, perhaps, some day or other he may propose to introduce into this House—I do not see the slightest difference in principle, in the great controversy of denominational education, between his proposal and that which we assume the Irish Legislative Body would desire to act upon. However that may be, I think, so far as this particular Amendment goes, it is impossible for us

      579
      to accept it in the words in which the right hon. Gentleman has moved it. It would be very easy to show, if it were worth while—but I hope to get to less technical ground—that in its drafting this Amendment is entirely incomplete and misleading. I will give one illustration—
      "Whereby any University or College may be established or endowed out of public funds."
      How can a Denominational College or University be "established" out of public funds? Therefore, the hon. Member who drew up the Amendment must have meant "established and endowed"; otherwise, if you leave the Amendment as it stands at this moment, it would prevent the grant of a sum of money by the Irish Legislature towards a chemical laboratory in a Catholic College. It would prevent such a grant as, for example, Parliament gives the Royal Society in Loudon for prosecution of researches in meteorology. That is an illustration only of the inadequate form which he has given to the wording of the Amendment.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It was not my Amendment.
      MR. RENTOULsaid, he drew up the Amendment, and he referred, rightly or wrongly, to funds given for buildings. It was quite possible to conceive there might be buildings.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I do not wish to dwell upon these minor objections to the Amendment at all. I think, after what passed in this House when we discussed this question before, the House will be prepared for the position I now propose to take up in respect to this Amendment, and we shall go upon the lines foreshadowed by the hon. Member for North Kerry, though I admit those are lines which indicate a considerable degree of moderation on the part of the Catholic Party. If they accept those lines which the hon. Member for North Kerry has indicated, and which I shall say in a moment or two are the lines we propose to take towards this Amendment, then I think that the House will have reason to congratulate itself upon having got an accommodation in this most difficult question, which both sides may accept with, out sacrificing any principle which either side rightly holds sacred. I will now bring the matter to a point. What I shall propose will be this—to leave out
      580
      the word "denominational" before "University or College," and to substitute for the words "or endowment," the words "and endowment," and to leave out those most dangerous and misleading words "in whole or in part, or subsidised in any way," and then to let the Amendment run in this way—
      "Whereby there may be established and endowed out of public funds any University or College in which the conditions set out in the University of Dublin Tests Act of 1873 are not observed."
      My hon. Friend the Member for North Kerry was really substantially right, in spite of the hon. and learned Member who represents the University, in his account of Trinity College. You all maintain upon that side that Trinity College is not denominational. What is there in Trinity College? I am not in the least attacking it, or accusing it of narrowness. Nobody has more admiration for Trinity College, or more readily recognises the great part it has played in the history of learning, than I; and therefore I am as far from wishing or intending to give a disparaging description of Trinity College as any hon. Gentleman opposite. Trinity College, first of all, grants degrees in the Faculty of Theology; in the second place, it has Professors and Lecturers in Protestant Divinity, and, as a matter of fact, though not in lawr, all its Governing Bodies in times past have belonged to, and continue to being to, one religious persuasion.
      MR. SEXTON: There are one or two exceptions.
      MR. CARSON: It entirely depends on whether you are speaking of the Senate or the Board. If you refer to the Board I do not think there are any Catholics upon it. If you refer to the Senate there are Catholics upon it, and what I interrupted the hon. Member for was to say that there was nothing to prevent Catholics by degrees from coming up to take Fellowships. There are some Fellows who are Catholics.
      MR. J. MORLEY: What I meant was the Board. [Mr. CARSON: I agree.] The Board has control over the University, and it is composed of members who belong entirely to one religious persuation, all being Protestants. I do not intend to labour the matter. The House will see clearly how we stand. If the Irish Legislature is minded to contribute

      581
      from public funds for such emoluments as would bear to the Catholics the relation which Trinity College bears to the Protestants, then we think that would be a settlement which might be accepted without any sacrifice of principles. That is why I object to the word "denominational." The Amendment which I have suggested does not sanction—on the contrary, the whole of our Bill goes upon the assumption that there is not to be—an endowment of religion. It would not sanction a Denominational University in any narrow sense. But I think hon. Gentlemen opposite who have followed mo, and who are sufficiently up in the controversy, will agree that if Trinity College is not denominational then the Irish Legislature ought not to be precluded from setting itself to achieve that great task which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester agrees would be desirable. I think the modification of the words of the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman which I have suggested will meet the purpose.
      MR. RENTOULthought the settlement of this question on the lines suggested by the Chief Secretary would be a difficult matter. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that there were Theological Professors in Trinity College, and that Trinity College granted degrees of D.D. in Protestant Theology. That being so, the argument would be, if the Chief Secretary's Amendment were accepted, that then the Irish Parliament might establish a University in which Roman Catholic Theological Professors would be the only Theological Professors, and in which the degree of "D.D." in Roman Catholic Theology would be the only theological degree granted by that University. He was afraid it would be impossible for them to accept that, because if Trinity College or Dublin University had been about to be established now the Presbyterian population might have had as much difficulty as the Roman Catholic population in accepting Trinity College. Trinity College was an established University. It was established before their time, and with it they had nothing to do. They were now referring to something in the future, and he wished from the bottom of his heart that he could agree with the statement of the hon. Member for North Kerry that he
      582
      believed an amicable settlement of this question between Catholics and Protestants was at the present time possible. There was no man in that House who would desire more than he to meet the hon. Member for Kerry as far as he could on this matter, and to have a settlement of this very difficult question; but when they recollected the difficulties which had beset them before, when they recollected that one of the strongest Governments of the Prime Minister was defeated on the question of Irish University education, the difficulties in the way of a settlement of the question became apparent. He considered that the University education in Ireland was adequate. If it was not adequate now it was certainly perfectly adequate before the old Queen's University was abolished; because the Queen's University was a teaching University, having affiliated Colleges planted in the different corners of Ireland. It was an extremely cheap University to meet the wants of the poor population; it was in every sense a fully-equipped and complete University, and he thought Ireland would have wanted nothing in the matter of University training if that old Queen's University had been allowed to remain. He thought even the hon. Member for North Kerry might have some difficulty in accepting the Amendment of the Chief Secretary in the form in which it was put forward. One of the very first questions that would come before the Irish Legislature was that of the establishment of an Irish University. Archbishop Walsh had said—
      "Without running any risk of being set down as a false prophet, I may safely say that an attempt to deal with the Irish University Question will be among the chief proposals to be set before Parliament when it begins its work."
      The point to be next considered was in what spirit would the Irish Legislature approach this question? Cardinal Logue, speaking in Belfast, contended that the Queen's Colleges in Ireland and the University of Dublin were godless institutions, and dangerous alike to the faith of Catholic students. Thus they had it that one of the earliest things an Irish Parliament would do would be to approach this question of University education, and that it would be approached in the spirit that both Trinity College and the Queen's Colleges—which were

      583
      entirely non-sectarian institutions—were dangerous alike to Catholic faith. But if he understood that it was distinctly laid down that it was impossible for the Catholic religion to exist under a system of mixed education he should have great difficulty in pressing this matter upon the House, because if mixing with Protestants in a University would be entirely destructive to the Catholic religion then he thought there would be a good deal to be said on the point that the Catholics could not be expected to tolerate anything that would destroy their religious life or religion. Those of them who did not approve of the Catholic faith might disapprove of the Catholic religion, but they did not want to persecute it or treat it unfairly. Bishop Doyle said before a Committee of the House of Lords 60 years ago that no danger to the Catholic religion might be apprehended from mixed education, so that it turned out that this desire for denominational education on the part of Catholic ecclesiastics was merely a fad or contention of to-day that had no foundation in the past. When the Irish Parliament dealt with this University Question it would have to do so under the control of the ecclesiastics of Ireland. What the Land Question was to the farmers of Ireland the Education Question was to the Irish ecclesiastics, and it was idle to talk about the people of Ireland being able to act as they liked themselves. The day was past when anyone doubted that the ecclesiastics of Ireland were not able to do whatever they liked, as they had proved in the very clearest manner. The difficulty of arriving at the amicable settlement to which the hon. Member for North Kerry referred seemed to be historical. They had first Trinity College or Dublin University, and the Catholics were not satisfied with that. They had then a mixed University—the Queen's—a thoroughly Collegiate University, and they were entirely dissatisfied with that. They had now the Royal University, a mere Examining Board, in which the Catholics enjoyed many important positions—in which Catholics and Protestants were equal in every point of view, and yet they were dissatisfied with that; therefore it did seem to be a difficult task to settle this University Question. They believed that the Catholics were
      584
      determined to get University education in Ireland into their own hands. The Catholic ecclesiastics of Ireland had, in fact, said so in the most emphatic language. Believing that this would not be right, he asked that some such restriction as he had proposed should be placed upon the Irish Legislature, and that they should not be permitted to establish an exclusively Catholic University such as Cardinal Logue said they desired. At the present time Trinity College was open to the Catholics without any disability whatever. It was true that there were lectures given in Protestant episcopal theology and degrees granted; but those who did not belong to the Episcopal Church found no difficulty in graduating in the University of Dublin because there were these Chairs. That being so, they felt that the Catholics laboured under no disadvantage at the present time. What was the reason that the Protestants of Ireland were so strongly in favour of united or mixed education? They had no desire to proselytise the Roman Catholic population of Ireland; but they believed that the system of secular education which brought all creeds together under the same roof tended to make them all better friends, and that it was one of the most advantageous systems that could possibly be established in Ireland. The entire Unionist population of Ireland, Protestant and Catholic alike, held that opinion; and he hoped, therefore, the Government would see their way to accept the Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper.
      *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, as he held opinions on this question which were different to those held by most of his Colleagues from the North of Ireland, he should like to say one or two words upon it. He had always held, that as regarded primary education, the Roman Catholics of Ireland had no real grievance. But he had always held that, as regarded higher education, owing to the attitude taken up by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, there was a want which ought to be supplied, if it were possible to supply it. That being his position, he had followed in this matter the Leader of the Opposition ever since he made his speech in the year 1888. He frankly admitted he had little or no support in the North of Ireland; that he was not representing the

      585
      views of the majority of his constituents; and that if he gave a vote of that kind—as he should do—he should have to defend it in his own constituency, and in Ulster generally. He also frankly admitted that he was at issue with nearly all his Colleagues in Ulster, and he hoped the House would bear with him on that account if he ventured to occupy the time of the House for a few minutes. The proposition made by the Chief Secretary that night was, he thought, an exceedingly moderate one on the face of it; but, in his opinion, it ran counter to the 4th clause of the Bill itself. The 4th section declared that there should not be any endowment of religion either directly or indirectly; and what the Chief Secretary undoubtedly did by, his Amendment was to endow Theological Chairs, or permit the Irish Legislature to endow Theological Chairs, in any University that might be set up for the benefit of Roman Catholics. His view was that there should he no endowment of religion in any shape or form, and he always regretted that the Divinity School was left in Trinity College in 1869. He thought it ought to have been removed at that time, and beyond all doubt it did give a denominational aspect to that Institution. But let him put this to the Chief Secretary—this Divinity School in Trinity College existed for the training of clergymen for the Protestant Church in Ireland; and because that Divinity School existed the Chief Secretary, so far as he could gather, thought that it would be proper to allow the Irish Parliament to erect a College on the same basis—that was to say, endow Theological Chairs. ["No!"] His answer to that was this—that if the Chief Secretary did not endow Theological Chairs undoubtedly he would not reach the Catholic ideal in education. Whilst Trinity College had its Divinity School, Maynooth had a large endowment out of the public funds for the training of Roman Catholic ecclesiastics, so that the one balanced the other. He thought the Chief Secretary's proposal would be a reasonable one if they could get rid of the endowment of Theological Chairs. He must say he sympathised with the Chief Secretary's argument, which the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) had rather derided. If a proposal were made in that House to
      586
      supply a want that everybody admitted existed—he supposed because Roman Catholics could not conscientiously take advantage of the Institutions now existing—if a proposal were made in this Parliament to sot up such a College he should support it. At the same time, he recognised the great difference between having the thing done in this Parliament and having it done in an Irish Parliament, simply because the British Parliament would attach conditions which the Irish Legislature, being practically in the hands of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, would not attach. He should be very glad if a solution of the difficulty could be arrived at. He was bound again to say that on this question he spoke only his own views, and that he was in conflict, he supposed, with the whole of his Colleagues from Ulster.
      MR. HANBURYthought that with regard to University education in Ireland the Catholics had a distinct grievance, and he was sorry that the present Leader of the Opposition had not obtained the support he ought to have received when he tried to remove that grievance a few years ago. He (Mr. Hanbury) was not going to split hairs on this question. He should have much preferred to have had it settled by the Imperial Parliament, but he did not think the Imperial Parliament would have an opportunity of settling it; and, rather than not see it settled at all, he should vote for having it dealt with by the Irish Legislature. He should, therefore, go into the Lobby with the Government, and he thought one or two other Members of the Opposition would do the same.
      *MR. D. PLUNKETsaid, he did not wish to give any decisive opinion upon this Amendment, as it seemed to him extremely doubtful what its effect would be in consequence of the form in which it was proposed. The Chief Secretary (Mr. J. Morley) had set up some kind of claim for equity on behalf of some future College which was to be in a position corresponding to that of Trinity College, Dublin, and was to have the power of teaching and giving degrees in Catholic theology. The proposal with which the House was now concerned was whether it should be established under the authority and pro-

      587
      tection of a Legislature which would be distinctly Catholic in its ruling character. When the Unionists proposed that Trinity College should remain under the authority of the Imperial Parliament they were met at once with a negative. There, therefore, appeared to be no reciprocity whatever, and if anything of the kind suggested by the Chief Secretary were proposed he should again claim that Dublin University should be placed under the control and protection of the Imperial Parliament.
      *MR. W. JOHNSTONsaid, he rose to take part in this discussion with considerable reluctance and great feelings of regret, for he found himself at variance with hon. Members whose opinions he respected, and for whose character he had the highest esteem. His hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone, as he himself had indicated, spoke on this University Education Question for himself, and not for the Protestants of the North of Ireland. Standing there, he (Mr. Johnston) ventured to speak as one of the Representatives not only of the City of Belfast, but of the great Protestant Province which was so distinguished for prosperity and progress; and though he was sure that the sentiments he would utter might seem out of date in that Assembly, he believed he should be untrue to the principles he had held all his life long if he hesitated, even in the face of an adverse audience, to give vent to those sentiments which he cherished in his heart of hearts. There was no question that the subject of education was one of paramount importance in the eyes of the ecclesiastical hierarchy of Ireland. While the farmers aimed at obtaining the land in many cases without paying any rent at all, the ecclesiastics desired that supremacy for their Church and principles which it had been their constant and unremitting aim, century after century, to succeed in obtaining, not only in Ireland, but throughout the world; and he felt that if Ireland were handed over to Romish teaching and to the ecclesiastical supremacy of that Church, there would be an end to enlightened literature; there would be the suppression of all history; the termination of moral philosophy, and there would be a return of the dark ages against which Europe had long struggled on many a field of fight. His hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone
      588
      honestly and earnestly advocated any cause that he took up; and on this occasion, as on many others, the hon. Member had shown the courage of his convictions in expressing opinions which were adverse to those of the majority of the constituency which he represented. Ho trusted that the House would not give its sanction to a proposal for erecting an ecclesiastical supremacy in Ireland. He was perfectly prepared to concede civil and religious equality to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. It had been the fashion to talk as if they in Ulster were struggling for Protestant ascendency. No such feeling existed in the minds of anyone. If there was Protestant ascendency it was the ascendency of intellect over ignorance—of industry over idleness. It was this that had made Belfast so prosperous, and had given to the fair fields of Ulster that position which they occupied of prosperity in the land. The Romish hierarchy of Ireland already possessed ample educational means for teaching their priests. Amply endowed as Maynooth had been by the generosity of Parliament, they required no further assistance, either from the Imperial Parliament or the Irish Legislature, to teach the tenets of their Church. In former days the ecclesiastics of the Church of Rome were prepared to accept the Educational Institutions that were established in Ireland for the benefit of his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen. But by degrees they withdrew from those Institutions—from the Queen's College and the University—one after another; and it was impossible to say what would satisfy them in the demands which they made from time to time upon the Parliament of this country. He regretted to differ on this subject of University education from his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. He should like to have said in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman what he was compelled to say in his absence—that on this question the right hon. Gentleman did not represent the sentiments of the Protestants of Ireland. The Protestants of Ireland were not prepared to see either the Irish Legislature or the Imperial Parliament sot up in Ireland an establishment for the teaching of the doctrines and tenets of the Church of Rome. They had already had sufficient evidence of what those doctrines and tenets

      589
      produced in Ireland. He unhesitatingly and fearlessly said that it was to the teaching of Maynooth and kindred Institutions that they owed all the revolt, the rebellion, the agitation, and the turmoil that existed in Ireland at the present day. He believed that this great Empire owed its position and prosperity to the steady maintenance all down the centuries of those Protestant principles which were established at the Reformation; and the further it receded from them towards infidelity, or indifference, or Ritualism, it was an approach to the Romanism against which he ventured to protest. The further it proceeded in that direction from the great principles of the Reformation, so far would it go back in prosperity and progress, till possibly its glorious sun of ascendency might sink never again to rise. He would not venture on that occasion to do more than enter this protest. But, no matter from what side of the House it might come, he should resolutely and energetically oppose any attempt to endow out of the funds either of Ireland or of Great Britain an Educational Institution which would have for its object the teaching of those tenets which had produced disorder in Europe age after age, which would remove from its pristine glory this Empire, and which, if carried into effect, would bring to a termination all those civil and religious liberties for which their forefathers had so long contended.
      MR. BODKINsaid, it was not necessary to follow in any detail the speech of the hon. Member for South Belfast. But one argument the hon. Gentleman had used was that the Catholics of Ireland were inferior in intellect to the Party and the creed to which the hon. Gentleman belonged. For that inferiority of intellect he supposed there was no remedy; but, surely, the ignorance of the Catholics was an argument for, instead of against, the establishment of a Catholic University. All the Catholics asked was for a University in which their ignorance might be removed. The opinions of his hon. Friend the Member for South Belfast— for he hoped he might call him his hon. Friend—were at least honest, and they had a great respect for honest opinions, however foolish they might be. He did not think there was anything in the
      590
      speech of his hon. Friend that could be seriously discussed; but he thought the speech of the Leader of the Opposition on the subject deserved considerable attention. The right hon. Gentleman had said that ho believed a Catholic University for Ireland was a good thing—he said it, too, four years ago—and that the Imperial Parliament ought to give it to Ireland. It was part of the tenets of the right hon. Gentleman and his followers that everything the Imperial Parliament ought to do it would do. It was the one reason against Home Rule. The Imperial Parliament was able and willing to do justice to Ireland. Then why did it not give a Catholic University to Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman was able to give Ireland a Coercion Act which he considered expedient. Why did ho not give it a Catholic University which he also considered expedient? If, as the right hon. Gentleman practically declared, the Imperial Parliament ought to give Ireland a Catholic University, and did not give it, why was the question to be reserved to that Imperial Parliament, and retained from the Irish Parliament which would give it? What was the only argument the right hon. Gentleman found to cover his change of front on this question? That the Protestants of England should be taxed to give Irish Catholics a University, and that the Irish nation should not be taxed for that purpose. If it was right to tax the Protestants of England for an Irish Catholic University, surely it was equally right to tax the Protestants of Ireland, and he would venture to think there would be no serious disagreement on this question. The Protestants of Ireland, as well as the Catholics of that country, were substantially in favour of denominational education. They were in favour of the inclusion, and not the exclusion, of religion from University education. He challenged even the hon. Member for Dublin University (Mr. D.Plunket) to say that he would wish to exclude religion from the walls of Trinity College. Ho believed the Protestants of Ireland, when they came to consider this question, had fair play sufficiently in their minds to give to their Catholic fellow-countrymen what they desired for themselves. They must be convinced that the real safeguard of Trinity College, the real safeguard of

      591
      that Institution of which all Irishmen were proud as having given so many great men to Ireland, was to plant beside it a University of the majority of the people in honest and healthy emulation. He did not think there was any Protestant in Ireland who would object to such a course. He was of opinion, therefore, that if the argument of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) bore any interpretation, it was an interpretation that Homo Rule was necessary in order to do justice to Ireland in this matter. The Imperial Parliament had refused to settle this question of University education in Ireland, and therefore it should be relegated to a Parliament that was able and willing to settle it.
      *MR. WEBBsaid, he was entirely in accord with his Catholic Colleagues on the question of University education, and he entirely reciprocated the feelings of the Chief Secretary in his remarks upon the subject. He regretted deeply, however, that it did not appear possible in Ireland, as in some other countries, that education could be carried on in common, and that people should thereby learn to respect and love each other, and to forget those differences which were duo to differences of religious education. One of the most interesting institutions to him in Ireland was the Central Model School in Dublin, where there still was an effort being made to carry on that system of education; but he must admit the effort was a failure, because few in Ireland desired its continuance. In no part of Ireland was the system of denominational education extending more than that Northern district from which came so many Members who here opposed it. Statistics proved that the number of denominational schools was increasing, and he could not understand how anyone could put forward Trinity College as being more or less than a Denominational Institution. The Catholics might be said, theoretically, to have equal rights with the Protestants; but in justice they had not, and it appeared to him that the whole influence of the place was Protestant. If they would just turn the case round, and imagine a College in which only Catholic services were carried on, and where the head of it was a Catholic ecclesiastic, would any Protestant say that College was not a Denomi-
      592
      national Institution? He thought the Protestants had made a mistake in not being satisfied that Catholics should have equal rights with them. He thought the wisest plan would be to leave Trinity College as it was, where Protestants could receive an education under Protestant influence, and to establish an Institution where they would obtain a similar advantage for Catholics, because if Trinity College were further undenominationalised, the result would be that Protestants would send their children to be educated in England under Protestant influences. It was only fair that Catholics should have a University of their own. One of the previous speakers on this subject used a strange argument, which was that, while it would be right to tax 30,000,000 English Protestants for a Catholic University in Ireland, it would not be right to tax the 1,000,000 Protestants in Ireland. For his own part, he was convinced that a more satisfactory solution of the question would be arranged in an Irish Parliament than by seeking to settle it in the Imperial Parliament, where the power on one side alone was applied to effect a settlement. In this as in every other question, he believed, the Protestants would find their influence more effectively used in affecting the minds of their fellow-countrymen rather than in seeking to call in extra power to keep the Protestant minority in its position. He himself had no fear but that the question could be satisfactorily settled in an Irish Parliament, and for that reason he would vote for the Chief Secretary's Amendment.
      *SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, this was a question that excited much interest among his constituents in Surrey; and, as an English Member, he felt unable to give a silent vote upon the subject. He was pledged to vote against the application of public money for endowing, establishing, or supporting a Roman Catholic University in Ireland, or anywhere within the British Isles. It was a very delicate as well as interesting question, and in an Assembly like that he thought it was one upon which they had better state their conclusions briefly. After consultation with his constituents, he felt bound to do whatever he could to prevent a Parliament in Dublin, and he was bound to vote for any Amendment

      593
      which would prevent it. He hoped his hon. Friends of the Roman Catholic religion would allow him to add that he entertained most kindly, most friendly, and most respectful sentiments towards all Roman Catholics, and ho hoped they would forgive him for stating in this very plain manner the conclusion at which he had arrived. He had to ask himself whether the Amendment of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was not a sort of compromise; and whether it might not be accepted by Members who took the view he had expressed? The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman was open to this objection—that it was not quite clear or conclusive what it meant. He imagined that any layman or non-professional man not acquainted with Dublin might easily be misled. But, from the manner in which the Amendment had been received in certain quarters of the House, he apprehended that it would virtually permit an Irish Parliament to vote public money to establish a Roman Catholic University. With that apprehension—he might almost say suspicion—in his mind, he was bound to vote against the Amendment.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I did not catch what the suspicion was.
      SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, his apprehension and suspicion was just this—that, under cover of the Amendment, the Parliament in Dublin might vote public money for establishing and supporting a University which would be really and truly a Roman Catholic University.
      MR. J. MORLEY: What do you mean by a Roman Catholic University?
      SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he meant one that was strictly denominational, and would teach exclusively the Roman Catholic religion. There might be certain rules and conditions under which that University might teach other forms of the Christian religion; but ho meant a University that would in practice, and in substance and essence, teach exclusively the Roman Catholic form of Christianity. In the presence of distinguished Members of Dublin University ho would not say a word regarding that Institution, nor regarding the Maynooth Vote; but he would say a word or two respecting British Universities, which he understood. The doctrine that public funds ought not to be given to a Denominational University applied throughout
      594
      Great Britain. No money was given by the British Government to the great Universities of Oxford and Cambridge. With regard to London University, the money granted by that House was fully recouped by the receipt of the fees; and in the case of the Scotch Universities, to which that House voted monies three years ago, they were absolutely undenominational. So he assured his Roman Catholic friends that he was endeavouring to enforce no view against their Universities that did not apply in other cases. For the reasons he had stated, he was bound to vote against the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
      MR. CARSONsaid, as one of the Members for Dublin University, he could hardly give a silent vote on this question. He hoped the position ho took up on the subject would not be considered a bigoted one; it was one which he took up not for the first time, for he had over and over again, publicly and privately, expressed it in reference to University education in Ireland. He would be sorry to put forward any proposition which might, in the slightest degree, be construed as a desire upon his part to withhold from his Roman Catholic brethren in Ireland any of the advantages which he, as a Protestant, himself enjoyed; it would certainly he his wish, so far as this question was concerned, that Roman Catholics in Ireland—among whom he had many relatives himself—should have exactly the same benefits in reference to University education that Protestants had. He hoped this discussion might be of some use in tending to bring together men of both religious, and to enable them to arrive at a common understanding as regarded the settlement of this University Question. But his first allegiance must be to his own University and constituency, and he would say this—that while ho was prepared in the very fullest degree to concede to others of a different faith such advantages as Protestants derived from Trinity College, Dublin, he was not prepared to concede anything more. He certainly thought it was a strong proposition to put forward that the House, having refused to accept from the powers of the Irish Legislature any dealing with Trinity College, Dublin, they should now be asked to concede, in addition to

      595
      that power given to the Irish Legislature, the power of setting up a Roman Catholic University in Ireland out of public funds. If the Chief Secretary's Amendment were accepted, the right hon. Gentleman should now make the concession that Trinity College should, in terms, be excepted from the powers of the Irish Parliament. He must say he did not consider that the University of Dublin stood at the present moment upon an entirely satisfactory basis. Some misapprehension had arisen in the minds of hon. Members as to what the exact constitution of Trinity College was at the present time. With the exception of the Theological School, every Professorship and office was open to members of any religion, and that, so far as it went, was, he thought, entirely satisfactory. He was prepared to admit that Roman Catholics had not entered in sufficient numbers to give them a fair proportion in the government of Trinity College; but he might mention that last year, or the year before, one body in the College that they were very proud of— their first eleven at cricket—was composed of nine Roman Catholics as against two Protestants. The Fellowships were open, and the Board was elected simply and solely by seniority; and if there were a sufficient number of Roman Catholics winning Fellowships, in the course of time the Board of Trinity College would necessarily become largely constituted of members of their religion. There was in connection with Trinity College a Chair of Theology; there was this Divinity School which supplied clergy to the disestablished and disendowed Church in Ireland; and if the Board of Trinity College was to become largely constituted of Roman Catholic members, it would be an entirely unsatisfactory, if not an entirely unworkable, Board. When they considered that they had the entire regulation of the Divinity School, which dealt with only one particular religion, and having regard to the fact that the Board of Trinity College was entirely open to any religion—just as Protestants were elected not on account of religion but simply and solely in consequence of seniority as Fellows—he did not think anyone would say that was an entirely satisfactory state of things to exist in a Board which might become at any moment the guardians of a Divinity
      596
      School which dealt with only one religion—that of the Disestablished Church in Ireland. If they were going to make the concession to the Irish Legislature that they could establish a University which would be more acceptable than Trinity College had been to the Roman Catholic religion in Ireland, surely they ought to except the University of Dublin—which stood in the ambiguous position of having a Board which might become Catholic and which dealt with a Protestant Divinity School—from the power of the Irish Legislature, which would be largely composed of Catholics. While they conceded to the Irish Legislature the power of establishing such University as they thought proper to meet the wants of University education in Ireland, they ought to secure immunity to Trinity College, and leave it under the control of the Imperial Parliament. If Trinity College were excepted from the Irish Legislature, for his part he was not prepared in the slightest degree to oppose a most liberal settlement of this question, and he thought it would be a great advantage to Ireland—whether Homo Rule passed or not—that they should come to a common understanding on this question, which he looked upon as one of the most vital questions which had for many years divided the people of Ireland on the subject of education. The Amendment proposed by the Chief Secretary was in one view, he thought, entirely satisfactory. At the same time, it was well the Amendment should be understood. He did not entirely understand it, and he would say why. The manner in which it was framed simply put the question of the tests under the University of Dublin Act, 1873. The tests under that Act were framed in a very peculiar way, and they had to be framed in that peculiar way in consequence of the pertinence of that Divinity School to Trinity College. Of course, it was quite apparent that so long as they had Professors connected with the University of Dublin who would have to teach in these Theological Schools belonging to one religion only, to abolish the tests in relation to these Professorships would create an absurdity. So that this Act made an exception in relation to the Divinity School, and provided that one matter was to stay as it was; and whilst this one test was to continue in existence in relation

      597
      to all other offices, the matter was to be thrown perfectly open. He did not know, from the way in which the Amendment had been framed, whether it was intended that Theological Schools should be established in the new University. That was a matter upon which they should come to a perfect understanding. For his part—and he knew he did not at all speak the views either of his Colleagues or other Members on that Bench—he had no objection to these Theological Schools, because he really would wish to face this education question—whether primary or University — according to the views that were held by the great body of Roman Catholics in Ireland, and he had long thought it was a fatal mistake upon the part of those who had to do with legislation in Ireland that they I should lay down broad theories which, good in principle, for years and years the Irish Roman Catholics had declared they were not prepared to accept. It was really a foolish thing, in his opinion, to go on, year after year, leaving open these bitter controversies as between Parties in Ireland, whore, in fact, they were settling nothing, but giving large sums from the State in Ireland, but really were not conceding what were the wishes of the great majority of the people in that country. He dared say he had many constituents who would differ from him, but during his election contest he never hesitated to put forward the views which ho put for-ward now. Speaking for himself, he did not see any objection to a University which had no tests—just as they had no tests in Trinity College—having, at the same time, a Theological Chair, which would help to educate clergy for a Church to which lie did not belong. It was well that this matter should be rendered clear in that House. He bound no one by his opinions. He did not know what the opinion of the bulk of his constituents might be, but he regarded this matter of such essential importance that lie felt it his duty to express what he felt upon the subject. His views were exactly as ho had stated, and he had no objection to these being set up as kindred to the University of Dublin such a University as would give an exactly similar system to the religion of the majority in Ireland in relation to this matter. Then came this question. They had enacted
      598
      in the 1st and 2nd sub-sections certain restrictions and disabilities on account of religious belief. If they passed the Amendment of the Chief Secretary he did not know how these restrictions were to work upon that Amendment, and certainly if they were to come to a settlement at all he thought it ought to be a settlement which could not afterwards be in any way repudiated by either side. They ought to have an understanding as to how far they were prepared to go, and his vote would be exactly in accordance with the opinions to which he had given expression. He greatly deplored this Home Rule discussion; but long and protracted as that Home Rule discussion Had been, and bitter as it had been, it would not have been fruitless if they had come within measurable distance of making in a statesmanlike, liberal, real, and genuine way, one attempt, at least, to settle this question of Irish University education on a broad and generous principle.
      MR. DILLON: Before the Deputy Speaker puts the Question, I should like the Chief Secretary to state how he proposes to proceed. He will notice there are two ways of dealing with this subject. One would be of moving an Amendment to the Amendment on the Paper, and the other would be for the Government to defeat the Amendment on the Paper and put down their Amendment as an Amendment to the clause. I think before the Amendment is put the House should know which course the Government propose to take. I do not wish to occupy the time of the House, but I would wish to say this: that the speech we have just listened to from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Mr. Carson) is, to my mind, one of the most remarkable and interesting we have heard in the House for a long time. I must say I think it will afford grounds, even in the minds of Conservative Members who sit behind the hon. and learned Gentleman, for believing that the Irish Parliament might not be such a scene of disorder as they think. Here is a question that for 25 years has been constantly before this House, an Irish question which has upset more than one Government, and which this House for 25 years has not even endeavoured to settle so as to satisfy the people of Ire-

      599
      land, and we have now in the course of a discussion on Home Rule a gentleman who represents a Protestant constituency—I might almost say an Orange constituency—at all events a strongly Unionist constituency—standing up and delivering a speech which shows that he and we, if we were shut up in a room upstairs, or, better still, in a room in Ireland, would in the course of a few hours amicably and without difficulty arrange this question which the House of Commons for 25 years has failed to settle. I very much doubt whether, in the whole course of these Debates on Home Rule which have occupied this House for many months, a stronger speech in favour of Home Rule for Ireland has been delivered than the speech of the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin. I think that after the speech to which we have just listened the course would be for the Government to move the Amendments which are suggested by them, and settle this matter without committing the House to a second and, perhaps, a longer discussion on this subject, which has been fully debated. Because, if the Government adopt the other course, this inconvenience might arise—that when the Amendment of the Government comes up the whole of this subject might be debated at great length again by Members who did not take the trouble to be in the House when the present Debate was going on. I therefore would ask that before you put the Question the Government would declare the course they would adopt.
      MR. J. MORLEYsaid, he could only speak by the indulgence of the House. In answer to his hon. Friend who had just spoken, his own notion was that the best course would be for the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment, and then he (Mr. J. Morley) would move his. He had listened with interest to the very remarkable speech of the hon. Member for Dublin University, with the tone of which no one could complain. Then there was the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who told them that he had always deprecated the preservation by Trinity College of this Divinity Chair. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin University, of course, did not at all deprecate the maintenance of the Divinity Chair, but he indicated that some objections which
      600
      might be felt, not by himself but by his constituents to the Amendment, which he (Mr. Morley) sketched out before the dinner Adjournment, might be removed if they included Theological Professorships along with those subjects for which the Irish Parliament might not be allowed to provide funds, except in compliance with certain conditions. His own interpretation upon full consideration of the Bill as it stood was, that by the 1st and 2nd sub-clauses of the 4th clause, that would be guarded against; but, in order that their situation might be perfectly clear, he would move the Amendment in these words—
      "Whereby there may be established and endowed out of public funds any Theological Professorship or any University or College in which the conditions set out in the University of Dublin Tests Act, 1878, are not observed."
      What were the conditions set out in that Act? The conditions which were referred to in the Amendment he had indicated were—that access to education in the Institution should be open to all without compulsion as to any given religious in struction or to pass theological examinations. The conditions of that Act were that it was not to be an indispensable condition of holding a Fellowship or of earning other prizes provided out of public funds that there should be any subscription to any article or formula of faith; any declaration or oath as to religious belief or profession; nor any act in connection with any form of public worship; nor any compulsion on anybody elected to a Fellowship or other office to be ordained in Holy Orders. He did not think that the provisions in the language he had used in the Amendment would be disagreeable or inconvenient to any of those whose views and aims it was the declared object of all to meet. His Amendment, of course, did not preclude the endowment of Theological Professorships out of funds other than public funds. He thought that the agreement that had been arrived at constituted a very remarkable advance in the troubled controversy with regard to Irish University education, and he agreed with the remark of the hon. Member for East Mayo that that agreement was remarkable as an indication of the spirit in which that troubled Irish Question might have been discussed by fair men whether sitting on these or those Benches, or

      601
      meeting altogether with a desire to work out the regeneration of their own country.
      MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that, as the technical Mover of the Amendment, perhaps he might be allowed to say that he still preferred that the matter should have been left to the Imperial Parliament to deal with. In those circumstances, he would not withdraw his Amendment, but he should not ask the House to go to a Division upon it.
      Question put, and negatived.
      MR. J. MORLEY MR. J. MORLEY then moved the following Amendment:—
      "Whereby there may be established and endowed out of public funds any Theological Professorship or any University or College in which the conditions set out in the Dublin University Tests Act, 1873, are not observed."
      MR. SEXTONsaid, it was not easy to arrive at an absolutely conclusive judgment upon an Amendment which depended on the interpretation of a complicated Statute; but having paid close attention to the Debate, and having listened to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in moving the Amendment, and being himself one of those Irishmen—the great majority of Irishmen, as he thought—who desired that, under fair conditions, the Protestants of Ireland should be allowed to maintain their present position with regard to Trinity College, if the fair claims of Catholics were met, and recognising in the Amendment of the Chief Secretary a valuable and memorable attempt in that direction, he felt entitled to support the Amendment.
      *MR. D. PLUNKET: I desire to say one word on this subject in order to explain the course I intend to adopt. The hon. Member for North Kerry has said it is not easy for him to form an exact opinion as to what may be the ultimate effect of the Amendment suggested by the Chief Secretary. I should think, if any person has had any early information upon this subject, it is much more likely to be the hon. Member for Kerry than anybody else. So far as I am concerned, it comes upon me for the first time, and I must say I am not prepared to give my assent to this Amendment in the form in which it is now submitted to the House, not having had sufficient time to consider it. As far, however, as I understand, it is
      602
      to give to the Irish Parliament the power, if they should so think fit, to establish and endow as a recognised University in Ireland any College—we will say, for example, the existing Roman Catholic College in Stephen's Green, on one condition only—namely, that that University should in that case supply the funds for its own Divinity Professors.
      MR. J. MORLEY: There is a Conscience Clause. It should be open to all students without tests.
      *MR. PLUNKET: I assumed that was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman. The view I take of it, quite apart from any consequences that might follow from the adoption of the clause, which, as I say, I have not had time to consider, and to which I am not now prepared to give any general assent, is this—that a broad line being drawn between the University of Dublin and other Institutions in Ire-laud, because it is said it is mainly a Protestant Institution connected with the minority of the people in Ireland, and those other Institutions in Ireland which it is intended to benefit by this clause and to give advantages to if a Homo Rule Parliament should ever be established, there appears to mo this palpable injustice. You propose to give over to the Irish Legislature not only the control and direction of the College which is assumed to represent the interests of the majority of the people, and of that class of people who will have an overwhelming preponderance to do practically as they like upon subjects such as this in the Irish Legislature of the future, but you refuse the same privilege to us, the minority, whose College you set apart and tell us it is not a National University because it is confined practically to the minority of the population. You refuse us our request which we made to you on the Committee stage of this Bill, that that College should be left under the care and protection of the Imperial Parliament. I say this is not fair treatment, and I, for one, cannot under these circumstances assent to the proposed Amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      MR. CARSONsaid, he wished as a corollary to the Amendment just now

      603
      accepted to move the following Amendment:—
      "Or affecting the constitution, endowments, or management of Trinity College, or the University of Dublin."
      He said that an Amendment of a similar character was debated and rejected in Committee, but at that time they had had no specific assurance from the Government or the Prime Minister, such as was eventually given, as to what would be the position of the Irish Legislature in relation to the establishment of any University. They had now had an Amendment giving permission to the Irish Legislature to establish another University in Ireland. Hon. Members below the Gangway having got that power—to set up a University in accordance with the sentiments of the people whom they represented—they were entitled to ask, ho thought, that the University of Dublin should be left to be dealt with by the Imperial Parliament and according to the sentiments of those by whom that University had hitherto been governed. Fair play demanded this, and they asked that the Bill should contain some expression to this effect. He felt almost certain that hon. Members below the Gangway would acknowledge that they had a complaint if this were not done, and thought he might appeal to them, after what had happened, to support the Amendment which he ventured to move.
      Amendment proposed, after the foregoing Amendment, to insert as a new sub-section, the words—
      "Or (4) Affecting the constitution, endowments, or management of Trinity College, or the University of Dublin."—(Mr. Carson)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he would like to ask whether the protection demanded was not already provided in Sub-section 6, whereby the Irish Legislature was prohibited from making any law affecting an existing Corporation and depriving such Corporation of its rights, privileges, or property? Did that not apply to Trinity College?
      MR. CARSONsaid, he might be allowed to answer the question. In his opinion, Sub-section 6 did not cover the point. By an Address from the two
      604
      Houses of the Irish Legislature, with the consent of Her Majesty, Trinity College might be dealt with. To his mind, this was not so satisfactory as being dealt with by the two Houses of the Imperial Parliament. He thought in a matter of this kind they might be met by hon. Members. He asked that Trinity College should be reserved for treatment by the Imperial Parliament, and, after the Amendment which had been adopted, the request was not an unreasonable one.
      MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that this was a very fair answer; where was the University which had been promised to the Nationalists? Hon. Members had given them "a Castle in Spain," and therefore the concession was of little value, especially in view of the fact that the House of Lords was going to reject the Bill. They thanked the hon. Member for the consideration ho had shown, and they recognised the spirit he had displayed that evening, and ho would be glad if he could show that there was any substantial concession. They must look at the clause historically, and remember what took place in 1886. The hon. and learned Member had made an offer; he (Mr. Healy) would make another. If it was contended that Subsection 6 was no protection to Trinity College, and another clause was to be inserted, then he submitted that the sub-section ought to be struck out. If the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin wanted his Amendment accepted it would be a fair exchange to knock out Subsection 6; or, if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Harrow were substituted for that sub-section, he should be very glad to yield to the contention of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin University.
      *MR PLUNKET: I think, Sir, we have had a very fair illustration of the union of hearts which was boasted of as the immediate result of the generous speech of my Colleague. All the concessions have been on one side; and when we want to get something in return we are put off with everthing except what we want. If the Irish Parliament is to get control over and have the care and protection of this new College—which is to be the University of the Catholic population of Ireland—are not the minority entitled

      605
      to protection? The majority will have absolute power in the Irish Legislature, and they will be bound to use it. I claim again what I have claimed before—that Dublin University should remain under the protection of the Imperial Parliament, and I claim it all the more on account of the way in which the concession which my hon. and learned Colleague has urged the House to accept has been received by those on whose behalf it was put forward.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I think the right hon. Geutleman (Mr. Plunket) has put a misconstruction upon what fell from my hon. Friend the Member for Louth; and I think the union of hearts would be established if Parties could deal with questions of this character as they have been dealt with to-night. We have had shown a rational desire to arrive at a conclusion which would be agreeable to all Parties in Ireland. I can find no fault with the spirit of the speech in which the hon. and learned Member introduced his Amendment. With the spirit of his Motion we agree. But we maintain that Trinity College is amply protected by the 6th sub-section of Clause 4. Trinity College may have Laud and Railway Stocks—
      MR. CARSON: That does not come within the Amendment. The general law would not be interfered with.
      MR. J. MORLEY: We contend that Trinity College is amply protected under Sub-section 6 of the 4th clause. It may consent to be deprived of its property, but that is not likely. There may be an Address from the two Houses of the Irish Legislature on the leave of Her Majesty, which means, in effect, a Secretary of State. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman suppose that in the condition of Parties in this Parliament any of those iniquitous and confiscatory laws against Trinity College which this Amendment is intended to avert are ever likely to be carried?
      MR. CARSON: I can.
      MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. and learned Member is not long a Member of this House—neither am I. We are not very experienced in the House, perhaps; but I would appeal to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Goschen) whether he can imagine a state of things in which a Secretary of State would be likely to
      606
      advise Her Majesty to consent to the plunder and robbery of the property of Trinity College? I confess I cannot.
      MR. GOSCHEN: Those who would plunder a Church would plunder a University.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: You did it in 1869. You were a Member of the Cabinet in 1869.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I ask my right hon. Friend was he not a Member of the Government of that day?
      MR. T. M. IIEALY: A white sheet?
      MR. GOSCIIEN: I do not admit that we plundered the Irish Church.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I submit that the interruption of my right hon. Friend is one of the most futile and irrelevant interruptions that I have ever heard. I asked my right hon. Friend, with his large Parliamentary and official experience, whether ho could contemplate such a state of Parties in this House that a Secretary of State would advise Her Majesty to acquiesce in the plunder of Trinity College. And my right hon. Friend said that those who would plunder a Church would plunder a University. He plundered the Church—so far as Ireland is concerned. Well, Sir, I cannot conceive that the hon. and learned Member believes such a result as the plundering of Trinity College would take place. I hope he has not forgotten what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton)—that there is no desire, as there is no danger, of plunder in this case.
      MR. GOSCIIEN: I am not afraid to meet the challenge of the right hon. Gentleman. I said that those who would plunder the Church would plunder a University, and the right hon. Gentleman assumed I was referring to the Irish Church. I did not say that or anything like it. He misinterpreted. He did not conceive the idea I had in my mind.
      MR. MAC NEILL: You did it.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, order!
      MR. GOSCHEN: These intonations only prolong the proceedings. I believe that the present Government and their supporters would be perfectly prepared to direct the revenue of many

      607
      ancient Institutions. [Cries of "You did it!" from the Irish Members.] It is not a question of what I have done. I do not use the word "plunder," but the word "diverting." [Renewed cries of "You did it!"]
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
      MR. GOSCHEN: The question is whether there is danger that the revenues of Trinity College will be tampered with, and I believe there are a large number of hon. Members opposite who regard that contingency as perfectly possible—[Laughter and cries of" Hear, hear!"]—and that it would be in accord with what has been already done in regard to ancient foundations. [Interruption.] At all events, there is nothing ridiculous in the statement. [Further interruption.] I think it is discourteous to interrupt—
      MR. BARTLEYrose to call the attention of Mr. Deputy Speaker to a remark of an hon. Member below the Gangway near him. It was a very offensive remark, and he hoped they would be protected from those interruptions.
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hope there will be no further interruptions. It is most desirable that hon. Members should abstain from interrupting.
      MR. GOSCHEN: The question is whether it is possible that that could happen. The right hon. Gentleman says that no Party could find a Secretary of State who would venture to advise Her Majesty to do this: but if a Commission were appointed—we know what opinion prevails among advanced Radicals—if a Commission were appointed and reported upon the question, does the right hon. Gentleman regard that as impossible? I do not say it is probable, but it is possible, and I think the case is one in which precautious should be taken. I do not think it is so entirely remote that the Chief Secretary should refer to it as he has done.
      MR. DILLONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Dublin University (Mr. Plunket) was under some misapprehension as to the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Louth, in reply to his colleague in the representation of the University. Speaking for himself, he (Mr. Dillon) had no desire to resist any
      608
      guarantees which would convey to the Representatives of Trinity College the most perfect sense of security against any action by the Irish Parliament to interfere with the privileges or the revenues of that Institution. He would suggest that Sub-section 6 of Clause 4 should be withdrawn, and that any Institution in Ireland which it was desirable to protect should be named in the Bill—Trinity College, and the Belfast Queen's College, if the hon. and learned Member wished. That would be better, he thought, than—and he would himself prefer it—the vague sub-section as it stood. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Carson) had been very reasonable, and he, for his part, would be pleased to meet his view as far as he could. In that he might hope that he spoke for those around him; but, at all events, he was personally willing to do as he had suggested.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. Member who has just sat down has taken the opportunity, as I understood him, of suggesting a bargain. He suggests that the sub-section we are discussing should be withdrawn, and that we should name Trinity College—
      MR. DILLONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood him. He suggested that they should drop out Sub-section 6 altogether, and then let them devise a section which would give satisfactory protection to Trinity College and the Belfast Queen's College. They said that this sub-section gave complete protection. It was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman that it did not, and he said they should now provide a section which would be satisfactory to Trinity College; and, to prepare the way for that, he would have them withdraw the present sub-section.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Very well; I accept the explanation. I did not know that that was the hon. Gentleman's meaning. Then the hon. Gentleman says he would give protection to those two Institutions, and that all—
      MR. DILLON: I spoke only for myself—with regard to protecting Trinity College and Belfast College.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Then all other Institutions are to be deprived of protection?
      MR. T. M. HEALY: What are they?
      Another hon. Member: We want to know what they are?
      MR. DILLON: There are only two mentioned in the Bill.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: What are they?
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Hon. Members ask, what are they? I should like to know what the Royal College of Physicians would think of that? It is a proposal lo which I cannot give my assent. This is the conclusion of a series of Amendments, in which we have debated the position in which the new Home Rule Parliament will stand towards education in Ireland. As the House knows, the proposal is to leave the question as it is now—in the case of the Imperial Parliament. I still adhere to that. I hold that we are bound to take care that Trinity College shall not be subject to any possible action on the part of the new Irish Government. Trinity College should be left entirely in the hands of the British Minister.
      MR. J. MORLEY: The British Parliament.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is the same—the British Minister would he subject to the British Parliament. We are entitled to say that Trinity College shall be subject to this Parliament, and not to the new Irish Government. I do not want to go into the question of Subsection 6, except to say that by the Amendment we have passed we give to hon. Members the power to set up a Catholic Institution. We are bound to go a step further. Is it not likely that those who have the control of a rival Institution should use that power for the purpose of injuring a rival Institution? Beyond the Roman Catholic hierarchy there will he a force capable of destroying the older Institution; and what security have we that this force will not be used? I venture to suggest that there can be no objection to the Amendment. The hon. Member who has just sat down has declared that he has no objection to it. He said he spoke for himself; but I suppose, to a certain extent, in what lie said he represented the gentlemen sitting around him. At all events, I suppose they have no objection to the
      610
      principle of the Amendment. Well, if he has no objection, why should the Government wish to go beyond that— why should they have any objection? What possible motive can they have in refusing what hon. Members from Ireland accept? Hon. Members from Ireland admit that this can be done. I confess I cannot understand the attitude of the Government. I do not know how it is that they feel themselves obliged to resist the Amendment, and hope that even at the eleventh hour they may find it in their power to accept the Amendment, and so help towards the settlement of a question which is a source of great difficulty in Ireland.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, he ventured to say that they had been somewhat unfairly treated in respect of this Amendment. The senior Member for Trinity College suggested that some concession had been made to them, and that they made no concession in return, and that by way of return they were bound to accept the Amendment now before them. He (Mr. Sexton) denied that account altogether. The transaction relating to the last Amendment was not merely a concession from one side. He thought those concerned with Trinity College had received as much as they gave. If the promise upon the question of a future University had not been made at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, there was no doubt that Trinity College would continue to be the subject of attack from the Catholics of Ireland. There was no doubt that the Catholics of Ireland would never rest content so long as their right to a University corresponding to Trinity College was denied. If the junior Member for Trinity College had not made his statesmanlike speech, a speech distinguished by a very creditable spirit, the compromise might possibly have been refused, or would have been carried only upon a Division. The result, however, secured was that Trinity College was now safe. No candid man of any creed in Ireland would deny that upon the establishment of a Catholic University the future of Trinity College would be absolutely safe, and that no man in Ireland would think of making or suggesting any attack upon its endowments or privileges, or upon the manage-

      611
      ment of its property. He claimed that the hon. Gentleman, who had conducted his case with skill, had gained so much for Trinity College as would, if he never made another speech, shed lustre upon his representation of Trinity College, and would entitle him to the eternal gratitude of that Corporation. He agreed with his hon. Friends that Sub-section 6 was most objectionable. It shut out many Institutions and Corporations, of which no list was given.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: The Toll Bridge at Waterford.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, yes; there was a Toll Bridge at Waterford, and the Irish Legislature would be obliged to leave that wooden bridge there for ever. He feared that there was a great variety of Institutions in Ireland which by virtue of Charters and local general Acts would come within the clause. He thought it would be offensive to the Catholics of Ireland, and he believed that in a little time after the passing of the Act it would become offensive to the feelings of the graduates and of many Protestants in Ireland that Trinity College should be singled out to be protected by the Imperial Parliament. He considered that Trinity College was absolutely protected by the Bill. They could not touch the College unless they got the consent of the College itself, or else upon an Address from the two Houses. Well, one of the Houses would be elected by the 170,000 electors of a valuation of £20 and upwards. It was claimed by the hon. Member for Armagh that the Unionists possessed not only the intelligence but the wealth of Ireland, and surely if that were so the Second Chamber must be, by a great majority, Protestant.
      MR. COURTNEYsaid, he thought they were a little out of Order in discussing Sub-section 6. As one who had urged in Committee that Trinity College should be reserved under the protection of the Imperial Parliament, he thought the Amendment just adopted on the Motion of the Chief Secretary had made a very considerable difference in the situation. Trinity College could not now be regarded as that exclusively Protestant establishment which it was described by hon. Gentlemen opposite. It had, no doubt, got a
      612
      great history as a Protestant Institution. It had Protestant Chairs, and the greater part of its present Governing Body was Protestant. But they had heard now that under the Act of 1873 all the prizes and all the educational advantages and benefits of the foundation were open freely to all students, and more than one Roman Catholic had become a member of the supreme Governing Body. So that it was quite open to the Roman Catholics of Ireland to enter upon a contest for Trinity College, and after a time to capture the College. That, at all events, was the Constitutional situation of the College, and that undoubtedly left the College in a very perilous condition if the new Legislature were quite free to deal with the whole matter. But under the present proposition Trinity College would be pretty well protected. The University that might be set up would be a University having its origin in Catholic energy, and to a large extent endowed through Catholic munificence; but it must be, in all essentials, an open University; its prizes must be open to everyone, and its Governing Body open to everyone. That being the case, it would be rather overstraining the matter to attempt to push the Amendment further.
      *MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, he would like to remind the House of the fact that in Committee the hon. Member for North Kerry declared that Trinity College was quite safe, but to-night he said that if this Amendment had not been accepted a determined attack on the privileges of endowments of Trinity College would necessarily have ensued.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, the hon. Member had not quoted him correctly. What he intended to convey was that if justice were conceded to Catholic claims Trinity College would be absolutely safe.
      *MR. GERALD BALFOURdid not think the purport of the hon. Member's words corresponded to what he now said. This cast a most lurid light on the position of Trinity College, Dublin. Surely the College could not be sufficiently protected under Sub-section 6 of Clause 4 if, in the absence of the Amendment just accepted, a determined attack on the privileges of Trinity College must necessarily have ensued. The Chief Secretary objected

      613
      to the present Amendment because, if accepted, it would make it impossible for the Irish Parliament to deal with land or railways if Trinity College held property either in laud or in railways. A more miserable, wretched, quibbling argument had not been used in the whole course of these Debates. He would do the Chief Secretary the justice of believing that this was not the mintage of the right hon. Gentleman's own mind. A lawyer's hand must have been at work here. Perhaps the hon. and learned Attorney General—
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. RUSSELL,)said, that was not so. His right hon. Friend had used words to that effect, but he withdrew them at his (Sir C. Russell's) suggestion.
      MR. GERALD BALFOURsaid, he apologised to the Attorney General, and was sorry for the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman said his object was to protect Trinity College, Dublin. It was clear from what had been said by the hon. Member for North Kerry that Trinity College would not be adequately protected unless this proposal was agreed to; and if the Government were not prepared to accept the Amendment, it would only be one more proof of their subservience to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway.
      MR. BARTLEYsaid, it seemed to be imagined that the Member for North Kerry was entitled to lay down the law upon this question; but the position had changed. When, however, a desire was expressed to protect Trinity College, Dublin, another bargain was struck and an attempt was made to get rid of all the exceptions laid down in the sub-section. It certainly seemed an extraordinary way of promoting harmony in that Assembly to put forward fresh demands whenever a concession was made. If the Protestants of Ireland chose to make use of the new University there was no reason why it should not be as much a Protestant University as Trinity College, which was not a Protestant University but was open to all denominations. If this were the case, however, the Irish Members would find that they had been deceived. He thought it must be acknowledged that the whole condition of University teaching in Ireland was in a somewhat chaotic state, and it would be well to recognise
      614
      that the Irish Legislature should have the right to establish a Catholic University if it pleased.
      *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the demand of Catholics in the past in this matter had been for equality, and, to listen to the hon. Member for North Kerry, one would have supposed that that demand had been conceded. All that had been conceded by the Chief Secretary's Amendment was equality in principle, and the House might depend upon it that the astute gentlemen who managed these affairs in Ireland would demand equality in endowment as well as equality in principle. Trinity College was a very wealthy Body. If the demand for equality were made where was the money to come from wherewith to meet it? Certainly the bankrupt Irish Legislature, as it had been described by the Nationalist Members, could not supply it, and he foresaw an agitation springing up in Ireland in favour of getting a share of the revenues of Trinity College for the purpose of endowing a Catholic University.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 99; Noes 144.—(Division List, No. 275.)
      MR. J. MORLEY: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. We have had a considerable amount of discussion upon it in connection with the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Somersetshire (Mr. H. Hobhouse), and I do not know that at this stage I need do more than formally move it.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 3, line 7, after Sub-section (4) to insert as a new sub-section the words—
      "(5) Imposing any disability, or conferring any privilege, benefit, or advantage upon any subject of the Crown on account of his parentage or place of birth, or of the place where any part of his business is carried on, or upon any Corporation or Institution constituted or existing by virtue of the law of some part of the Queen's dominions and carrying on operations in Ireland, on account of the persons by whom or in whose favour or the place in which any of its operations are carried on; or." —(Mr. J. Morley.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I must say that I was sur-

      615
      prised at the very few words in which my right hon. Friend introduced this Amendment. He says that on the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Mr. H. Hobhouse) there was considerable discussion. What does he call discussion? There was a good deal of representation made by those who have been in communication with the Government in this matter, but there was absolutely not a single word of reply. This Debate has been carried on up to the present time in the most conciliatory spirit, both by the Government and by those who are generally opposed to them—
      MR. J. MORLEY: May I interrupt my right hon. Friend? I thought there was no objection to the Amendment.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I really do not want to repeat anything I have said before — [Ministerial ironical cheers]—but I will do so at once if it is the desire of hon. Gentlemen who interrupt me. I may say, however, that I think I have already shown conclusively that the Amendment proposed by the Government does not fulfil the pledge given by the Prime Minister. I really must appeal to the honour of the Government. In matters of this kind there always is a very strict feeling of honour which induces a Government to act not only in the spirit, but according to the letter of any pledge or promise given; and I fully admit that, as far as we have gone, that has been the spirit in which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his colleagues have conducted these discussions. I say that the Amendment of the Government does not deal in the slightest degree with indirect preference. The Prime Minister, when dealing with the subject, said there ought to be means of bringing under consideration the question whether indirect preference had been committed or not. Are the Government willing to accept from mo an Amendment for the insertion of the words "directly or indirectly"? That would cover the pledge with regard to indirect preference given by my right hon. Friend. All I claim is a fulfilment of that pledge. I am obliged to ask the Government whether they intend to fulfil it. If they do not we have no means of forcing their hands; but in that case I must say there is an
      616
      end of anything like agreements, even when they are made in the face of the House. My second point is this: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister admitted that it should be the object of the Government to prevent anything in the nature of preference. He did not limit it to preference on account of birth, or parentage, or place of business, but spoke of any kind of unfair and illegitimate preference. That was the distinct understanding, and I pointed out in a speech which occupied some little while that there were numerous cases—and I gave illustrations of each class of case—in which the Amendment of the Government would not deal with preferences. I am satisfied with it as far as it goes if the words "directly or indirectly" be inserted, except that I say it does not go far enough or cover the understanding entered into by the Prime Minister.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir C. RUSSELL,): I must remind the House of the history of the proposed Amendment of my right hon. Friend. A suggestion was made when a discussion was taking place on the question of preference on religious grounds—
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I bog pardon for interrupting. In order to make the matter clear I will move to amend the Amendment by inserting the words "directly or indirectly."
      Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to insert at the beginning the words "Directly or indirectly."— (Mr. J. Chamberlain)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      *SIR C. RUSSELL: During the discussion on religions preference my right hon. Friend suggested that the clause ought to be extended so as to cover preference of any kind. The House will recollect that a very extravagant illustration was given in support of that contention. It was said that some attempt might be made by the Irish Legislative Body to saddle Belfast with some responsibility which did not belong to it. Then there came a farther suggestion from my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage). He said that many of his constituents, being fishermen, occasionally resorted to the Irish coasts, and

      617
      he desired that they should be secured against any disability which did not apply equally to all persons in Ireland following the same calling. I think I have correctly sketched the argument put forward. We have, as we conceive, met that argument by the clause at it stands, because we believe the effect of the clause will be to put all the Queen's subjects upon the same platform of equality in this matter. No one is to be prejudiced on account of his parentage or place of birth, or of the place where any part of his occupation is carried on, and no Corporation or Institution is to be prejudiced on account of the persons by whom or in whose favour or the place in which any of its operations are carried on. I confess I am not able, as clearly as my right hon. Friend seems to think I ought to be, to see the way in which this Amendment fails to fulfil the contract entered into by the Government, with one exception. My right hon. Friend (Mr. J. Chamberlain) says the Prime Minister undertook to deal with indirect as well as direct preference. I think that the addition of the words "directly or indirectly" would not add any strength to the sub-section at all. At the same time, rather than have any difficulty about it, we are disposed to accept the Amendment. We had a long and interesting discussion on the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Somersetshire (Mr. H. Hobhouse), and he gave us a number of illustrations of what might be done in relation to trade, agriculture, and so forth. The Government have never admitted, and do not desire now to admit, that they wish to tie the hands of the Irish Legislature so as to prevent them doing what they think right for the fair and just encouragement of the improvement of agriculture, and of the manufacture of butter, and so on. I do not think their hands will be so tied under this Bill. The notion that they will interfere with the butter and cheese industry of Great Britain does not seem to me to have much weight. I cannot think that any attempt that may be made to encourage Irish industry will be fraught with the danger to the English manufacturer which some hon. Members think. The Amendment of the hon. Member for Somersetshire is a very ungenerously, framed Amendment. I do not think the
      618
      great industries of England are likely to suffer at all under an Irish Legislature, for all I am sure that would be done would be to give assistance for the improvement of agriculture and for the development of other kinds of industries.
      MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, that the speech of the Attorney General, coupled with the speech of the hon. Member for North Kerry, informed them exactly where they were—that was to say, there was to be no open preference given on account of parentage or place of birth. Of course, if this preference was to be given at all, it was not likely to be given in an open and direct way. The rejection of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Somersetshire showed the House plainly that the door was to be left open for all kinds of premiums—that was to say, certain trades were to be fostered out of the Public Purse of Ireland to the detriment of similar trades in England. The hon. Member for the Woodbridge Division (Mr. Everett), in his innocence, had ridden off with the idea, that the Amendment proposed by the Chief Secretary would protect the small agricultural manufacturers of Great Britain. The refusal of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Somersetshire showed that such was not the case, or intended to be the case, because that Amendment quite explicitly allowed all sorts of expenditure for the improvement of the industries of Ireland, but barred the giving of premiums for Irish industries when, and only when, they became injurious to the smaller industries in Great Britain. Therefore, they had now proof positive that the Government intended to keep an open door for the Irish Government to vote money to foster those small agricultural industries, which would affect the small agricultural producers of Great Britain rather than the large producers, and particularly affect the butter producer and the cheese producer. The intention of the Government was now quite plain, and there was no protection whatever to be given to the small producers in Great Britain against the unfair and unjust competition by the producers of Ireland. But not content with allowing the Irish Parliament to expend money on premiums for the encouragement of

      619
      the small agricultural producers of Ire-land, to the injury of the small agricultural producers of Great Britain, but the money was actually to be provided by the British taxpayers themselves. It was a monstrous proposition. He regretted the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not present, for perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be able to inform them how it was he was unable to find money to put down swine fever, and to encourage agricultural training in Great Britain, while he was expected to find money, to the extent, at least, of £500,000 a year—though they said it would be £2,000,000 a year—from the poor producers of Great Britain to enable the producers of Ireland to compete unfairly with themselves! Not content with doing nothing for the small agriculturists of England, to whom they owed their position, the Government were going to increase the fierce competition to which they were already subjected. The Opposition would have a good deal to say about all this in places where the Government could not gag them. This clause would be explained very clearly in the villages of England. The Government had given no reply to the Amendments. Let them give some arguments. If the Government were not permitted by hon. Members from Ireland to accept any Amendment, why did not they say so? The Opposition would then accept that explanation of the inability of the Government to grant them their wishes, and they would know clearly that their suffering industries were being sacrificed to the demands of the masters of the Government on the Irish Benches.
      *MR. EVERETTsaid, he formerly enjoyed the advantage of being represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings), and he had always at that time thought him an eminently honest politician; but after his speech that night he began to doubt whether he had rightly appraised the right hon. Gentleman's position in this respect. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the smaller agricultural producers of Ireland would be placed in an advantageous position as compared with the smaller producers of Great Britain. But anyone who read the Amendment of the Chief Secretary must
      620
      plainly see that that contingency was by it amply provided for. Therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman went to the villages of this country with the argument that the Government were placing the farmers of Great Britain at a disadvantage compared with the small farmers of Ireland, he would go with a distinctly false case.
      MR. GOSCHEN: The hon. Member who has just sat down thinks that the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bordesley (Mr. Jesse Collings) in regard to this Amendment is false. I do not know whether the hon. Member is aware that the hon. Member who sits on his own side for Somersetshire took precisely the same view as was taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bordesley. The hon. Member conceived that that was the direct result of the Government's proposal, and he voted accordingly. An hon. Member from Ireland, early in the Debate, made a challenge to English Members. He said that no English Member would get up and say that the Irish Legislature might not give some such preference to Irish farmers, which Ireland, being purely an agricultural country, might fairly claim. "Ireland," said the hon. Member, "is a poor country; England is a rich country" —though he might have added, parenthetically, that it has a very poor agricultural population—" who, then, would object on the part of the English to any preference that might be given to the Irish farmers? "The reply he got was that a Radical Member got up and said he would vote with the Opposition against the preference given by the Government. The hon. Member who has just sat down said it was perfectly right that the Irish should have some preference; that we did not grudge it to them; but that he had been assured by hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench that everything else was provided for by the Amendment. I should like to know is that true? I should like to know what is the policy of the Government upon this question? Are they, or are they not, of opinion that it would be fair to allow the Irish Government to give some sort of fiscal preference to the great Irish industries? That is a fair question to ask, and there is no reason why the Government should not answer it with

      621
      perfect frankness. What I complain of is that no one knows the full effect of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, nor do we know precisely the policy which underlies it. The policy of the Government, no doubt, is to prevent undue preference being given to Irish industries by the Irish Parliament; but in its present terms the Amendment does not carry out that policy.
      MR. J. MORLEY: We have accepted the words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain).
      MR. GOSCHEN: Oh, have you?
      MR. SEXTONsaid, the Attorney General had stated that the words of the Amendment added nothing to the strength of the section, and it was, therefore, to be regretted that it was proposed to add it when it would have the effect of increasing the difficulty and uncertainty which the Irish Legislature must feel in the exercise of its functions. The course of legislation in Ireland would necessarily be a course of material reform of legislation upon material concerns. He wished to ask, supposing the Irish Legislature passed a Bill to use the public funds to supply fishermen on the coast of Ireland with better boats and gear, with the means of carrying fish and bringing it to market, or passed a Bill to afford the Irish farmers better instruction in agriculture by the establishment of schools and by giving prizes for the best cultivated farms, or passed a Bill to give prizes for the best conducted dairies with the object of improving the quality of Irish butter and for the purpose of competing with others, be it in England or elsewhere, he wished to ask whether the passing of such Bills would come within the meaning of this Amendment? He should wish to have a picture put before them of some of the acts on the part of the Irish Legislature which would expose them to the action of this clause. He also wished to know what was the meaning of the words "where any part of his business was carried on," also what were the "corporations" and "institutions" which were referred to? He also wished to know what was the meaning of the final words of the clause?
      MR. J. MORLEY: I am rather surprised that my hon. Friend the Member
      622
      for North Kerry has doubts on this question, because I thought we indicated quite clearly, on the Amendment of the learned Member for Somersetshire, that all operations such as he described—the encouragement of fishing, the giving of prizes for the best fishing material, the improvement of dairy management, and all things of that kind, or some of them at least—are included in the work of the Congested Districts Board, and it was admitted by the other side that with those operations no one desired to interfere. The meaning of the phrase "the place in which any of its operations are carried on" is that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) demanded, no law should be passed that should place the Grimsby fishermen at a disadvantage as compared with the Kin-sale fishermen, or any other Irish fishermen, on account of the place where any part of their business is carried on.
      MR. SEXTON: Does it mean locality or all Ireland?
      MR. J. MORLEY: It means locality, not all Ireland. The words "corporation or institution" refer to the English and Scotch Insurance Companies which have offices in Belfast and Dublin.
      COLONEL NOLANsaid, he looked with great suspicion on the proposed new clause. There was an idea of protecting the industries of Ireland by preferential duties to be imposed on goods going into the country. Mr. Parnell gave that up in that House, but he got a quid pro quo of £1,400,000 under the Home Rule Bill of 1886. There was no quid pro quo in the present Bill for giving up preferential duties; and as he was afraid the Amendment would prevent them developing their industries in that way, nothing would make him vote for it.
      Amendment amended, by inserting, at the beginning, the words "Directly or indirectly."—(Mr. J. Chamberlain.)
      Question proposed,
      "That the words'(5) Directly or indirectly imposing any disability, or conferring any privilege, benefit, or advantage upon any subject of the Crown on account of his parentage or place of birth, or of the place where any part of his business is carried on, or upon any corporation or institution constituted or existing by virtue of the law of some part of the Queen's dominions and carrying on operations in Ireland, on account of the persons by whom or in

      623
      whose favour or the place in which any of its operations are carried on; or' be there inserted."
      SIR J. GORSTrose to move, as an Amendment to the proposed new Clause, to insert in line 3, after "birth," the words "or residence." He thought that Amendment was necessary in order to carry out the intention of the Government as expressed by the Attorney General, for otherwise it was clear that disabilities could be placed on some persons by reason of residing in England or Scotland. For instance, it would be possible for the Irish Legislature to pass a law preventing persons residing in England or Scotland from holding certain property in Ireland.
      It being Midnight, the Debate stood adjourned.
      Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

      WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL.
      Lords Amendments considered.
      Lords Amendment, in page 1, line 10, to leave out the words "except as hereinafter provided," and to insert the words "and 'The Wild Birds Protection Act, 1881,' and those Acts and this Act may be cited together as the Wild Birds Protection Acts, 1880 to 1893," the first Amendment, read a second time.
      MR. T. M. HEALYcomplained of the terms in which the Bill had been spoken of in the House of Lords, although it was introduced by a Member of the late Government, and of the remarkable changes it had undergone at their Lordships' hands. The Bill had been made unworkable.
      *SIR H. MAXWELLagreed that the Amendments which had been introduced into the Bill in the House of Lords tended to alter its character and make it unworkable. The principal objection he took to the Amendments was that, instead of giving the County Councils power to protect certain species of birds, they only enabled the County Councils to extend the protection to specified areas. He would illustrate the effect of such a provision by a concrete instance. A few years ago an attempt was made to make a raid on the breeding places of the great skua, an interesting
      624
      species of wild bird, which only frequented a few places in the Highlands of Scotland. If the areas in which the species breed were to be protected under the Bill as amended by the Lords every other species of egg would also have to be protected, and this would involve a great hardship, as the egg harvest was an important industry to the inhabitants. In the same way, if the County Council of Surrey desired to protect the nightingale, by an order prohibiting the taking of nightingale's eggs, they would have to include the eggs of the sparrow hawk and the carrion crow and other mischievous species in the order as well. He must, therefore, ask the House to disagree with the Lords' Amendments.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."— (Sir H. Maxwell.)
      VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he could not agree with his hon. Friend (Sir H. Maxwell) in this this matter. He feared that the power proposed to be given to the County Councils was too extensive; and as his hon. Friend was not inclined to give the Lords' Amendments a more favourable reception, he should object to further proceeding with the Bill.
      MR. CONYBEARErose to Order. He asked was it fair for the noble Lord to get up and make a speech himself, and then preclude others from saying a word on the subject?
      MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER: If objection is taken, of course the Bill must go over.
      Objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
      Debate to be resumed upon Monday next.

    SHERIFF COURTS CONSIGNATIONS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 430.)
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
    House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock till Monday next.