Sitting of 4 July 1893

QUESTIONS.

  THE SASINES OFFICE, EDINBURGH.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether the Keeper of the Sasines Office, Edinburgh, has applied for a grant of
  798
  money from the Treasury; and, if so will he cause a full inquiry to be held by Committee, or otherwise, into the condition of this office before any grant is made?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir Gr. TREVELYAN, Glasgow, Bridgeton): The Keeper of the Sasines Office has recently been in receipt of an allowance for extra assistance, to prevent the otherwise unavoidable accumulation of arrears at the two six-monthly terms. In consequence of the unprecedented increase in the number of deeds presented for registration at the recent Whit-Sunday term, it is a question, regarding which I am in communication with the Treasury, whether there should not be a small temporary increase in the allowance. A detailed inquiry was made by a Committee presided over by a Judge of the Court of Session only four years ago, and I am not aware of any circumstances calling for further inquiry at the present time.

  THE NAVAL ESTIMATES.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty why in the Navy Estimates Programme the column headed "Coal Capacity at Load Draught—Radius of Action at 10 knots Speed," which was filled in in the Navy Estimates of 1890–91, was left blank in 1891–92 and in 1892–93, and why this column has been omitted altogether in the present Estimates; and whether there is any objection to furnishing this information before the Shipbuilding Vote is taken; and, if so, why?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLE-WORTH, Lancashire, Clitheroe): The basis originally used for results given in this column was proved by experience to be incorrect. This was the reason for omitting the information in 1891–92 and 1892–93. Extensive trials have been made in typical vessels to determine actual rates of coal consumption. The results are of great value to the Navy, but it is not considered desirable to publish them. They are special to warships, and could only be of service to other Navies, and not to our Mercantile Marine.

  THE ANGORA TRIALS.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will inform the House of the result of the Angora trials before the Court of Cassation as soon as it is known?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY or STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): The hon. Baronet shall be informed as soon as the result is known, and I shall be ready, if asked, to state it to the House.

  ACCIDENT ON THE TRALEE AND DINGLE RAILWAY.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has been informed that another accident took place on the Tralee and Dingle Railway on Saturday last, owing to the breakdown of an engine; and whether the information in the possession of the Board of Trade enables him to state what was the cause of the breakdown?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OP TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA, Sheffield, Brightside): The Board of Trade have received a telegram from the Railway Company to the following effect:—
  "Brass on outside rod on engine got broken; train could only proceed five miles from Tralee, and had to wait until another engine was sent from junction; a delay of several hours; no person can be blamed, and no accident beyond this."

  POULTON RAILWAY DISASTER.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the railway accident that occurred on Saturday, 1st July, 1893, at Poulton, near Blackpool, on the London and North Western Railway, whereby three persons lost their lives, and a large number of others were injured; whether he is aware that the accident happened at a point where there is a sharp curve on the line, which the Railway Company have been urged for more than 12 months past, in the interest of safety, to alter, but have not done so; and whether, in the interest of the travelling public and the unfortunate relatives of the sufferers in this accident, he will cause a searching
  800
  inquiry into the circumstances surrounding this terrible disaster?
  MR. MUNDELLA: An inquiry has already been ordered into the accident, and the Inspector will no doubt report whether the curve referred to was in any way contributory thereto.

  TRADES UNIONS AND GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS.
  MR. WOODS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that between 21st March and 6th April, 1893, 10 of the most prominent workmen were discharged by Colonel Wood, the manager of the firm of Messrs. M'Corquodale and Company, printers at Newton and elsewhere, who do part of the printing for Her Majesty's Government, because they had joined the Typographical Trade Union, and that a number of others received their notice, which was withdrawn only when the men signed a compulsory agreement to sever their connection with the above Society; whether he is aware that at the other branches of the same firm in London, Leeds, Birmingham, and Manchester, the men are allowed to join their Trade Union, and in consequence they work shorter hours and earn higher wages than at Newton; and whether, in view of these circumstances, it is the intention of the Government to take such steps as will give these men full liberty to join their Trade Union, or in the alternative will they cease to employ this firm in the future to do their work?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT, Oldham): A reference to the Resolution of the House of Commons of February 13, 1891, will show that it does not prescribe the employment of Trade Union labour, and in these circumstances the Treasury has no authority to interfere with the selection by manufacturers of the particular persons whom they choose to employ. I should perhaps add that I am given to understand that the work done by the firm in question at Newton is principally the manufacture of envelopes.

  MILLBANK PRISON SITE.
  MR. C. ROUNDELL: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he is aware that the Vestry of Westminster are in favour of appropriating a portion of the

  801
  vacant Millbank Prison site for the purpose of a public open space, in preference to an increase of buildings in the already overcrowded district, and that for that purpose they have announced their readiness to contribute a sum of £10,000, as well as to endeavour to raise a similar amount; and whether, having regard to the fact that the only existing public open spaces in the district are the garden by the Victoria Tower (1½ acre) and the disused burial ground of St. John's, Horseferry Road (1 acre), as well as to the fact that the opinion of persons of great authority in such matters, on economical and other grounds, coincides with that of the Local Authority, Her Majesty's Government will be willing to entertain proposals for securing a portion of the site in question as an open space?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER or WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE, Bradford, Central): It has already been explained to the House on several occasions that the Government has felt itself under an obligation, arising from a clause in the Housing of the Working Classes Act of 1885, to offer whatever part of the Millbank site is not required for Government purposes to the London County Council for the erection of Artizans' Dwellings. That offer is now under the consideration of the London Council. The facts stated by the hon. Member with regard to St. John's parish are no doubt accurate; but it should also be added that Battersea Park and St. James's Park are within very easy distance, and the Thames Embankment itself forms a most valuable breathing space for the district. It may well be that the London Council will consider that under these conditions, in comparison with other districts, the erection of Artizans' Dwellings is of greater importance than the provision of an open space.

  PRECAUTIONS AGAINST CHOLERA.
  MR. TANKERVILLE CHAMBER-LAYNE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of the fact that it is the duty of the Local Authorities in all towns in the country to take all possible precautions against the cholera, irrespective of their geographical position, he will impress on them the
  802
  advisability of doing this by contributing towards the expenditure necessary to establish an efficient blockade at our seaports, thus dividing the cost equally amongst those who are equally interested and who would be equally benefited by these precautions?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER, Wolverhampton, E.): I regret that I cannot do as the hon. Member suggests.

  THE QUEENSTOWN MAILS.
  MR. TANKERVILLE CHAMBER-LAYNE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General which is the most expeditious route for the delivery of mails between London and New York, viâ Queenstown or viâ Southampton, if the steamers are of equal speed?
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Is it not a fact that letters dispatched viâ Queenstown are often delivered at their destinations in the United Kingdom 24 and even 48 hours earlier than those sent viâ Southampton; and is not the recent change causing general dissatisfaction among business men in the United Kingdom?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): I am afraid I cannot answer the supplementary question in detail. With steamers of the same speed there would be a slight advantage in favour of the Queenstown route; but the advantage diminishes as the speed of the steamer increases. Allowing 17 hours for the conveyance of the mails from the General Post Office, London, to the Packet at Queenstown, and four hours from the General Post Office, London, to the Packet at Southampton, the advantage would be as follows:—Steaming 16 knots, 5 hours 41 minutes; 18 knots, 3 hours 50 minutes; 20 knots, 2 hours 21 minutes; 22 knots, 1 hour 9 minutes; 23 knots, 36 minutes.
  MR. MACARTNEY: How many hours are allowed for steaming between Queenstown and Southampton?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The rates I have given represent the speed from port of starting to the destination of the vessel.

  MILITARY RANK.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for

  803
  War how many Major Generals' appointments have lately been, or are to be, converted into Lieutenant Generals, what will be the increased cost to the public in pay and allowances, and what is the reason for the conversion; and to what extent will the conversion retard the promotion of Colonels, considering that as soon as the Lieutenant Generals have been reduced by absorption to their fixed establishment, there is to be no minimum fixed establishment of Major Generals, and no Colonel is to be promoted except by selection to fill a vacant Major General's appointment?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN, Stirling, &c.): Two Staff appointments hitherto carrying the pay of Major General will in future carry that of Lieutenant General. The appointments of Lieutenant General form a part of the general scheme under which the establishment of General Officers was reduced. Though an addition is to be made to the number of Lieutenant Generals on full pay, the number on half-pay is considerably reduced; and on the whole scheme there is a reduction of expense. The reduction in the number of promotions of Colonels to the rank of Major General necessarily results from the system of giving promotion only on succession to a full-pay appointment. The Colonels, however, who fail to be selected can retire at 57 years of age on the increased retirement of £500 a year, which exceeds the former unattached pay of Major General.

  IRISH FISHERIES REPORT.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland why the Report of the Commissioners of Irish Fisheries has not been presented to Parliament before this, in accordance with the provisions of the 5th and 6th Vict., c. 106, which directs it to be presented within three weeks after the sitting of Parliament; and when it will be laid before Parliament?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne): The Report was presented on the 12th June, and copies will be ready for distribution in the course of a few days.

  IRISH PARLIAMENTARY REGISTERS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it was the duty of the clerks of Unions, in making out lists of persons entitled to vote at Parliamentary elections, to insert the names of persons entitled by virtue of successive occupation; and, if so, whether instructions should be given by the Local Government Board to clerks of Unions to insert the names of such persons?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The comparison of the Irish precept with the English precept was now being made with a view to their uniformity as far as possible. The precept, he understood, would deal with the questions raised by the hon. and learned Member.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: As this is urgent, I presume prompt steps will be taken?
  MR. J. MORLEY: We will do the best we can.

  NEWFOUNDLAND FISHERIES.
  SIR C. W. DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies if there is any truth in a telegram from Newfoundland stating that the Captain of H.M.S. Pelican has, at French suggestion, removed a large number of lobster traps which had been working for some years past; and when the Papers with regard to Newfoundland, now promised, are likely to be in the hands of Members?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON, Tower Hamlets, Poplar): We have received no official information as to the alleged incident, but we are asking for information on the subject. Papers will be presented as soon as possible; but they are not, as yet, in a very forward state of preparation.

  HORSE RATES FROM DUNDALK TO LINCOLN.
  MR. E. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, under the new arrangements, the rate for horses from Dundalk to Lincoln has been increased from £1 4s. 6d. to £1 13s. per head; is he aware that the said increase of rate upon nine horses, with the stop-

  805
  page of free passes, has made a difference of £10 16s. extra to be paid; and if he will ask the conveying Companies to revert to the old rates?
  MR. MUNDELL: The Board are in communication with the Company, and a copy of their reply when received shall be sent to the hon. Member.

  ALLEGED IMPROPER DEALINGS WITH ARMY CLOTH.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what steps have been taken by the Military Authorities with respect to the information given to the Army Clothing Department, that cloth belonging to Her Majesty's Government had been sold to a firm or firms in the City by master tailors in the Army, named Cooper, attached to the depôt at Canterbury, and Stone, attached to a regiment at Lucknow; whether any, and, if any, what, steps have been taken by the Military Authorities as regards Cooper and Stone in connection with such transactions; whether the Secretary of State is aware that a traffic in Army cloth has been carried on between private firms and master tailors, acting in collusion with quartermaster sergeants, or otherwise; and whether he will cause any inquiry to be made with the view of stopping such practices? I beg also to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department will he explain on what grounds further proceedings were abandoned by the Metropolitan Police respecting illegal sales of Army cloth to City firms, which the evidence in their possession connected with the firm of Messrs. Terry and Co., of Milk Street; and for what reasons Inspector Mitchell of the City Police subsequently called on witnesses who had given evidence to the Metropolitan Police and demanded the return to Messrs. Terry and Co. of documents incriminating that firm which had been laid before the Scotland Yard authorities?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The circumstances attending the sale of Government cloth by Cooper, the civilian doing duty as mister tailor at the Cavalry depôt, have been thoroughly investigated with the assistance of the Criminal Investigation Department. Acting on the advice of counsel, I have refrained from instituting legal proceedings in the matter, but Cooper's connection with the Cavalry depôt has been terminated and a military
  806
  sergeant master tailor appointed. The old system of supplying clothing in. material to be made up at the headquarters of the regiment by a civilian master tailor has been abandoned in the Service (except in the Household Cavalry), but the change had to be introduced gradually, and the Canterbury depôt was the last example of it; and it had been decided that the new system of supplying made-up clothing direct from the Clothing Department should take effect at Canterbury on the 1st of this month. Under this new system no irregularity such as had occurred can take place. We have no special knowledge of the other case referred to, the clothing arrangements of regiments in India being controlled by the Government of India.

  FISHERMEN'S COTTAGES IN THE DINGLE UNION.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the local Sanitary Inspector has reported that, of the 34 fishermen who have applied for cottages to the Dingle Board of Guardians, only two are living in houses fit for human habitation; and whether, in view of the circumstance that not a single cottage has been built in the Dingle Union since the passing of the Labourers Act of 1883, the Government will take steps to have proper house accommodation provided for the fishermen and labourers of the district?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It would appear from the Report of the Sanitary Inspector, who examined the houses of the fishermen, not that the houses of all the applicants except two are unfit for human habitation, but that only two of the houses are in this condition. The Inspector's Report is under the consideration of the Guardians, and the Local Government Board propose to await their further proceedings with regard to these cottages.

  LOUGH SWILLY STATION.
  MR. BODKIN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Commissioners of Irish Lights strongly recommended the Board of Trade to sanction an allowance of 4s. per week to the men on Lough Swilly Station to take them to their place of worship on Sundays, which the Board of Trade refused to sanction;

  807
  whether the Commissioners also strongly recommended the Board of Trade to sanction an allowance of £8 to the Rev. John O'Leary, P.P., for two vessels to the keepers at Tearaght, both of which requests were refused by the Board of Trade; whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the reason (if any) of such refusal; and, if possible, have the strong recommendations of the Commissioners of Irish Lights carried into effect; and whether he will take steps to have that Body re-organised on a representative basis?
  MR. MUNDELLA: For several years past the Board of Trade have felt themselves obliged to decline to sanction special allowances of this description, which if permitted in Ireland could not be refused in England and Scotland, and would have to be extended to all denominations. The constitution of the Irish Lights Commission is regulated by Statute, and can only be altered by an Act of Parliament.
  MR. BODKIN: I may say the last paragraph of the question as it appears on the Paper has been so altered that it does not express my meaning. Will the right hon. Gentleman give the Board effective control and re-organise it for the purpose? Are the matters to which the question refers not within the authority and jurisdiction of the Board of Lights?
  MR. MUNDELLA: We ask the Board to make recommendations and suggestions. They have no absolute power to spend money.
  MR. BODKIN: Then their authority is entirely confined to making recommendations?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Certainly.

  THE UNEMPLOYED OF WEST HAM.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been called to the proceedings of the West Ham Board of Guardians, reported in The West Ham Herald for 1st July, in which the Chairman and Clerk of the Board stated that they had no powers to acquire laud on which to set the unemployed to work; and whether this is a correct interpretation of their powers under the present Poor Laws? I beg also to ask whether his attention has been directed to the action of the West Ham Board of Guardians, at whose meeting last week
  808
  a deputation representing the unemployed were refused a hearing; and whether he possesses any powers to compel the Guardians to receive representations made on behalf of 3,000 men who are out of employment?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: These questions only appeared on the Paper last night. I am in communication with the Guardians with reference to the facts, and I must ask the hon. Member to postpone his question till Monday next.

  THE SLADE-WALLACE EQUIPMENT.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War what is the total amount paid, or to be paid, for the inventor's rights or claims in respect of the Slade-Wallace equipment; what rights or claims was the sum of £4,000 intended to include; did it include payment for royalties on equipments supplied to all of Her Majesty's Forces, including the Volunteers, or only on those supplied to a portion of those Forces; and what portion of such royalty, or of the £4,000, has been paid to any officer on full pay or who had served as a member of the Equipment Committee?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The sum of £4,000 was paid in 1891 in full discharge of all claims, present and prospective, in connection with the Slade-Wallace equipment. In the final settlement no mention was made of royalties; but the supply to Volunteers was left to arrangement between the officers commanding corps which made purchases and the manufacturers or contractors supplying the goods. It may be remarked that this particular equipment is not compulsory on Volunteer corps, as considerable latitude is allowed as regards pattern. Half of the £4,000 was paid to Colonel Slade, who is on full-pay, and had been from 1884 to 1886 a member of the Equipment Committee, as the hon. Member was informed on the 19th of July, 1889.
  MR. HANBURY: Do I understand that no royalty was paid in addition to the £4,000 before that sum was actually paid?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not imagine that any royalty was paid; but as the hon. Member is aware, I am not personally cognisant with the facts. I understood the £4,000 was in discharge of all claims, personal and otherwise.

  FOREST GATE DISTRICT SCHOOLS.
  MR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he proposes to institute an inquiry into the circumstances attending the recent poisoning of 132 children in the Forest Gate District Schools?
  MR. GROVE: At the same time, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether his attention has been called to the poisoning of 132 children at a school in Forest Gate, by the use of a chemical preparation used to preserve meat in hot weather; and, if so, whether he will give instructions that no such preparations, whereby the lives and health of the children of the poor are endangered, be used in future?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER; The Inspector of the Local Government Board visited the school immediately we became aware of what had occurred, for the purpose of ascertaining the facts. Two of the children, I regret to say, have died; an inquest is being held, and I must ask to be allowed to defer any statement until the investigation by the Coroner is completed.

  TELEGRAPHISTS' PETITIONS.
  MR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether a Petition of second-class countermen and telegraphists of the E. C. District, dated 28th January, 1893, has been received; and, if so, when a reply to it may be expected?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The Petition referred to has been received, but the subject to which it relates is one of considerable difficulty, and a reply will be sent when a decision has been arrived at.

  OCCASIONAL LICENCES.
  SIR W. LAWSON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that, on Saturday, 1st July, Alderman Morgan, sitting at the City Summons Court, Guildhall, granted an occasional licence to Miss Emma Lake for the sale of refreshments at St. Mary's, Woolnoth, seats having been erected there to view the Royal Procession, and that she was requested by the churchwardens to make the application for the licence; and whether a
  810
  Magistrate sitting alone had power to grant such a licence?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH, Fife, E.): The statements contained in the first paragraph are correct. With regard to the second paragraph, a Magistrate sitting alone has the power to consent to such an application in pursuance of Section 20 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1863 (26 & 27 Vict., cap. 33). The granting of the licence itself rests with the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.

  ARMY SURGEONS' TRAINING.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether representations have been made to him on the part of the Army surgeons as to the sufficiency of their powers to properly carry out their duties to the sick and wounded in the field, and that they do not receive the assistance and protection of the authorities in time of peace in properly carrying out their sanitary duties towards the rank and file of the Army; what training do Army surgeons and their corps receive in time of peace to enable them to efficiently carry out their duties on the field of battle; and whether he will consider the advisability of improving the condition of the private soldier?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No representations such as are referred to in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question have been received from Army medical officers. There are two courses of instruction for medical officers on joining the Service:—(a) At Netley—in hospital organisation and routine for peace and war, and the study of special tropical diseases, military surgery, and hygiene. (b) At Aldershot—in military duties, medical staff corps and ambulance work generally, such as they would have to perform on the battlefield. They are instructed in the practical duties of bearer company and field hospital work, and for this purpose the equipment of one field hospital and one bearer company is kept at the Medical Staff Corps Depôt, Alder-shot. As I stated a few days ago, it is intended that some additional opportunity shall be afforded for special training in field duties. The last paragraph of my hon. Friend's question appears to have no immediate connection with the Medical Service. The subject of improving the

  811
  condition of the private soldier must always be present to the mind of the Army authorities, but I have nothing to add to what I said on the Army Estimates.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received any representations such as these referred to in the first paragraph on the part of Army surgeons?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, not on any of those points.

  PREMATURE PUBLICATION OF COMMITTEE'S REPORTS.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has seen a very full report in the Yorkshire Post, of Friday, 30th June, of the provisions of the Building Societies Bill, and the deliberations of the Select Committee on Building Societies; and whether, as Chairman of the Committee, he can explain how these matters became public although the House is not yet in possession of them?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. H. GLADSTONE, Leeds, W.): The report in question, which is practically verbatim, was brought to my notice. As The Yorkshire Post is a Tory journal, published in Leeds, I at once wrote to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds expressing, as Chairman of the Committee, my strong regret that the Building Societies Bill, as amended by the Committee, should have been given to a newspaper before being issued to hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman informs me that he is responsible for having given the information to the representatives of The Yorkshire Post, having been under the impression that the Report was public property. He says that if unintentionally he has shown disrespect to the House he is exceedingly sorry.
  MR. JACKSON: I hope I may be allowed to explain. The position of the matter is this. The Committee had been sitting for some time. Their labours had terminated, and their Report had been made to the House. I was under the impression that when a Committee was discharged and its Report made to the House there was no longer any reason for reticence with regard to the conclusions at which the Committee had arrived. It is certainly
  812
  within my recollection that a great many Reports of Committees have been made public at once after having been laid on the Table. During the evening of Thursday last one of the Lobby representatives asked me whether I could tell him what conclusion the Committee had arrived at, and I did so. I was under the impression, and still am, that I was within my rights in doing so. I think it would be convenient if Mr. Speaker would be good enough to guide us with his opinion on the subject—namely, whether, when a Committee to which a matter has been referred have reported to the House, an hon. Member is any longer debarred from stating the conclusions at which the Committee have arrived?
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I was about, with your permission, to ask Sir, whether, although a Report on amended Bill may have been formally communicated to the House, it is not more regular, before communicating their contents to the public, to allow the print to be distributed to Members?
  MR. SPEAKER: There has been a prevalent impression that when a Committee's Report was laid upon this Table it at once becomes public property. That view has been acted upon in several instances; but I am bound to say that the more regular practice is that the Members of the House should be the first to be put in possession of the results of the deliberations of a Select Committee. Still, I am quite aware that the contrary practice has prevailed more than once.

  THE HOME RULE BILL.—CLAUSE 27.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can inform the House why no Notice appears on the Notice Paper containing the Amendments to the Government of Ireland Bill of the Amendments to Clause 27, the Amendments to Clause 28, the new Clause after Clause 28, and the new 5th Schedule to the Bill, which it was stated, in a Return laid by him upon the Table on the 7th April last, were to be proposed on behalf of the Government; and whether he intends to give notice of the Amendments, the new clause, and the new Schedule in question?
  MR. J. MORLEY: These matters have been under my consideration for

  813
  some time, and I hope the Amendments will appear on the Paper on Thursday or Friday.

  WOMEN SUFFRAGE IN IRELAND.
  MR. W. S. B. M'LAREN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in the event of the Amendments to Clauses 6 and 7 of the Government of Ireland Bill, standing in the names of the right hon. Member for the Bodmin Division and the hon. Member for the Crewe Division, which raise the question of the right of duly-qualified women to vote for both branches of the Irish Legislature, not being reached by 10 o'clock on Thursday, he will afford facilities for the Committee to express its opinion on the subject in some other way; and, if this be impossible, whether he will promise that the House shall have an opportunity of considering it on Report?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have not asked my right hon. Friend what answer he is prepared to make; but I am myself of opinion that the subject-matter of the question does not come within the scope which the Government intend to give to the Bill.
  Subsequently, when Mr. GLADSTONE had taken his seat,
  Mr. W. M'LAREN repeated his question.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The question as to who shall make proposals and what proposals shall be made upon the Irish Government Bill is not a question altogether within our jurisdiction. If it had been, the probability is that a very different set of proposals and in very different numbers would have been made. If my hon. Friend means that the question of Women's Suffrage is a question for the discussion of which it is the duty of the Government to obtain or give special facilities, I am bound to say I cannot agree with him for two reasons. If there are any questions that should be treated as Irish questions, I think the question whether women should vote is one of them. The question of the admission of women to the suffrage, considering all that it entails, is one of the greatest questions, most subtle questions, most far-reaching questions that ever can be submitted to Parliament; and on that
  814
  account it would be very inconvenient to attempt to have a serious discussion upon it in connection with a Bill which, Heaven knows, is already sufficiently overweighted.
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he considers that this is a question which can properly be solved only by the priests and people of Ireland?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It appears to me that for Ireland it ought to be solved by the Irish Government. The definition of "priests and people" is one supplied by the hon. Member himself only, and I cannot be expected to assent to it.

  VOTES ON ACCOUNT.
  MR. HANBURY: On behalf of the hon. Member for North Islington, I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he intends to ask for a third Vote on Account; and, if so, when?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The second Vote on Account will last until the end of July. It will be necessary, however, to have a third Vote on Account, and to proceed with the matter not later than Monday, July 31.
  MR. HANBURY: Seeing that the Closure has been applied to the Debates on the two Votes on Account that have been taken, will the right hon. Gentleman give opportunities for a fuller Debate on the third Vote on Account?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That must depend on the exigencies of the situation.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATIONS.
  MR. DILLON: With the indulgence of the House, I desire to say a few words by way of further explanation with reference to the incident of yesterday evening. In the first place, I beg to apologise to the House for the error into which I was betrayed, and I offer that apology in the frankest manner possible. I will now explain in a sentence or two how the error occurred. When the right hon. Member for Birmingham on a former occasion challenged me about an old speech of mine I asked for a reference, and I consulted the newspapers. While reading the speech the impression conveyed to my mind with

  815
  singular force was that I had alluded in that speech to the incident I related to the House yesterday, and also to the events at Mitchelstown. I cannot now offer any explanation how that impression arose in my mind, except that I must have made in the autumn subsequent to the events at Mitchelstown a speech of the same character, and reading a speech six years old the impressions from the two speeches got mixed up in my memory. That being so, I threw away the newspaper, and, being accustomed as I have been for many years to similar attacks by the right hon. Gentleman, I did not think the matter of sufficient importance to justify me in raising it by way of explanation, and the whole subject passed out of my mind until the right hon. Gentleman renewed his challenge. I left the House to get a newspaper, but I admit that without inquiry and without investigation I spoke from memory of that old transaction, and was betrayed by my memory into a gross mistake. Every hon. Member who reflects on the character of the mistake will be convinced that I spoke in good faith. Even my bitterest enemy will not suppose that I offered to the House a story which carried on its face its own refutation. I was to blame for not refreshing my recollection, and I have only got to say that my memory, as a rule, has been extremely faithful, and that for the first time in my life on that occasion it failed me. I can only again assure the House that I spoke in perfect good faith without the smallest intention of misleading it; and I think that every Member, no matter on what side he sits, will accept that assurance from me. As other extracts have been read, I may take this opportunity of disposing of the matter, which I shall do in a very few minutes. During the course of the last 10 years I have delivered five or six hundreds of speeches, often under circumstances of great aggravation. Acting in what we conceived to be our public duty, we Irish Members were often subjected to what we thought was extraordinary, unnecessary, illegal, and unconstitutional violence, and we witnessed almost weekly acts of violence and cruelty directed against the people who trusted in us.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I rise to a point of Order. I desire to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon.
  816
  Gentleman is not now departing from the matter of personal explanation, which he is well entitled to make, and which the House would gladly hear from him?
  MR. SEXTON: As bearing on the point of Order, I wish to say that more than one extract was read yesterday from my hon. Friend's speeches. He is now disposing of the general charge based upon them.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman may offer his personal explanation. The thing to be avoided is recrimination.
  MR. DILLON: The only reason I had for intruding further on the indulgence of the House was that during my momentary absence last night the hon. Member for South Tyrone read another passage, which I became aware of first when I took up The Times this morning. With regard to the extracts that have been read, witnessing acts of cruelty and violence to our people, those of us who took an active part in the agitation would have been more than human if our language had been always so calculated and moderate as to be free from criticism and even condemnation. I deny that I now entertain, or that I ever entertained, a purpose of revenge against those opposed to the people of Ireland in the recent agitation, I deny it, and I confidently affirm that no fair-minded man can find any justification for such a charge, making due allowance for the circumstances in which the language was spoken. Out of the hundreds of speeches I have delivered, hon. Gentlemen, no doubt, may find a few passages of heat and passion to criticise, and I regret them; but I think the speeches, as a whole, will bear comparison not unfavourably with those of any political man who has gone through the same political vicissitudes as I have.
  MR. HARRINGTON: I desire to make a short personal explanation. I made a statement last evening, the accuracy of which was questioned by the right hon. Member for Birmingham.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Did you give him notice?
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: He never gave us notice.
  MR. HARRINGTON: I intended to give the right hon. Gentleman notice if

  817
  he were in the House. I shall merely read an extract from the letter written by himself.
  LORD R. CHURCHILL: I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, it is in Order to read an extract from his letter?
  MR. SPEAKER: Any personal reflection on the right hon. Gentleman the hon. Member would not be entitled to make; but he is entitled to make a personal explanation.
  MR. HARRINGTON: I quoted from memory last night, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham said that what I stated was absolutely untrue, and I merely want to vindicate myself from that accusation. These are the exact words.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I rise to Order? As I understand the hon. Gentleman, this is only a question of comparative accuracy of statement as between himself and the right hon. Member for Birmingham. It would be more convenient, I submit, that this explanation should take place in the presence of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, because, as I understand the hon. Gentleman, he can hardly make his own explanation without an attack upon the right hon. Member for Birmingham.
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: On the point of Order—
  MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of Order necessary to be raised. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham reflects upon his accuracy he is entitled to make an explanation.
  MR. HARRINGTON: I thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I must say that the statement impugning my accuracy was brought to the notice of the Chair, and I want to set myself right with the House, as the right hon. Gentleman said that what I stated was absolutely false. The quotation I intended to give was this—
  "I consider that Ireland has a right to a local government more complete, more popular, more thoroughly representative, and more far-reaching than anything that has hitherto been presented, and I hope that the first Session of a reformed Parliament will settle this question, so far, at least, as what is called county government is concerned. But, for myself, I am
  818
  willing to go even further. I believe that there are questions not local in any narrow sense, but which will require local and exceptional treatment in Ireland, and which cannot be dealt with to the satisfaction of the Irish people by the Imperial Parliament. Chief among these are the Education Question and the Land Question; and I would not hesitate to transfer their consideration and solution entirely to an Irish Board, altogether independent of English Government influence. Such a Board might also deal with railway and other communications, and would, of course, be invested with powers of taxation in Ireland."
  MR. COURTNEY: I am very sorry to add a word in this matter; but I think I must put you, Sir, and the House in possession of the real facts.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am quite ignorant of the circumstances that have occurred; and what I should first wish to know is, how the accuracy or the veracity of the hon. Gentleman is impugned in connection with what he has just read to the House?
  MR. HARRINGTON: I quoted from memory a letter written by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, and, as I stated, for the purpose of being shown to me in common with other Irish Members. My own copy of that letter I mislaid. I had it not by me. The right hon. Gentleman impugned my version of the letter, and I have now read the letter.
  MR. COURTNEY: Mr. Speaker, in a very few words I will recall to the memory of those who were here last night what did occur. I entirely acquit the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken of any desire—[Cries of "Order!"] I am speaking in defence of my right hon. Friend, who is not present. Justice demands it.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the right hon. Gentleman is not here to explain for himself, possibly the House may think it not improper to listen to an explanation from a Colleague.
  MR. COURTNEY: I hold in my hand the report of The Times of the whole transaction, and hon. Gentlemen who were here can listen to that report, and they will see how far it is accurate. The hon. Member for the Harbour Division was speaking, and used these words—
  "He remembered the time when the right hon. Gentleman sent some of his emissaries to Ireland with a letter to the Irish Members, many of whom were in gaol."

  819
  That was the statement made. The report proceeds—
  "Mr. Chamberlain stood up, but Mr. Harrington refused to give way. There were loud shouts from the Nationalist Members, and cries of "Chair" from the Opposition. Presently, at the height of the din, the right hon. Gentleman cried—'The statement of the hon. Member is absolutely untrue.'"
  That is what the hon. Member considers a reflection upon himself, and which he is allowed to explain. The subsequent account of the transaction is this—
  "Mr. Chamberlain: A charge has been made, and I am bound to meet it at once.…. I am very sorry that the hon. Member for Dublin was not allowed to finish, because I should have known what it was that I had exactly to answer. But I can answer his statement as far as he made it. He says that I gave letters to Mr. Duignan, of Walsall, to the Irish Members, in which I made offers to them of some bargain or arrangement."
  That was the transaction, and further on, the hon. Gentleman having accepted that statement, my right hon. Friend went on—
  "If he said that, it was in error. Mr. Duignan was not a friend of mine; he was a political acquaintance. Mr. Duignan himself, on his own account, entirely without reference to me, went to Ireland, and when he returned he wrote me a very long and interesting account of what he observed of the political situation, and I wrote him, in reply, a letter marked 'private'"—[Laughter]—"in which I expressed my own personal views about the desirability of meeting the demand "—[Nationalist cries of "Go on!"—"in which I stated in so many words"—[Cries of "Oh, oh!" and ironical laughter]—"I do not ask leave to wait for a week before replying; I trust my memory." ["Hear, hear!"] "In this letter I stated distinctly that I could never consent to Home Rule." ["Oh, oh!" and Irish laughter.] "Yes; the letter exists. There is no secrecy about it. The letter was printed. Subsequently I expressed my opinion that something in the nature of a National Council, which I roughly sketched out"—[Laughter]—"in this private letter, might be a settlement of the difficulty, and, as the House knows"—
  [At this stage Mr. J. CHAMBERLAIN entered the House.] I do not know that it will be necessary for me to proceed further with the quotation.
  MR. SPEAKER: I really do not think it is necessary to pursue the matter further.
  MR. COURTNEY: I have a telegram which I ask your permission, Sir, to read.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the matter goes further I shall have to hear the whole Debate. The House may listen
  820
  to a personal explanation, but it is impossible for me to go into the whole Debate on one side and the other.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Speaker, I have not been in the House long enough to have heard what has taken place in my absence; but this telegram has been put into my hands. It is addressed to the Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, and is as follows:—
  "I have read your statement in The Daily Post. It is true and singularly accurate. DUIGNAN."

PRIVILEGE.

  THE SPEAKER AND MR. CONYBEARE.
  MR. TRITTON: I claim the indulgence of the House to refer to a mutter which seriously touches its honour, its dignity, and its privileges. I wish, by your permission, Sir, to draw attention to a letter which appeared yesterday in The Daily Chronicle from an hon. Member of this House, to whom I have given notice that I intended to call attention to it. It is a letter which strongly impugns your impartiality, Sir, in the Chair, and seriously calls your conduct in question. With the permission of the House I will read one brief paragraph from the letter—
  "Another not insignificant advantage I gained by it—namely, that it called pointed attention, which the Speaker's curt severity only emphasised the more, to the contrast between his treatment of the Liberal majority on this occasion and his treatment of the Tory majority under the parallel circumstances of June 10, 1887."
  I may say that letter refers to the proceedings which took place in the House in the early hours of Friday morning last. I feel sure that these sentiments arc repudiated by all sections of the House. They are sentiments which will meet with universal disapproval, and therefore we most distinctly wish it to be stated in this House that no such suggestion as that you, Sir, have for a moment deviated from the strictest line of impartiality in these Debates can be allowed to be put forward. I refer to you, Sir, for direction as to whether it will be necessary to move that this letter constitutes a Breach of Privilege; and, in the meantime, I will content myself with taking the prelimi-

  821
  nary step of asking that the letter be read by the Clerk at the Table.
  The letter having been brought up,
  Sir R. PALGRAVE,the Clerk, read the letter as follows:—
  "The Editor of The Daily Chronicle.
  "Perhaps you will allow a 'luckless' wight to state why he courted the 'withering' asperity of Mr. Speaker by making what your reporter is pleased to consider an 'inopportune Motion for the Closure' at half past 3 a.m. on Friday morning.
  "I knew perfectly well that the Speaker would refuse the Motion. Indeed, it was the talk of the Lobby that he had earlier in the evening told our Leaders it must be a two days' Debate. Whether that be so or not, we felt on our side that we could not give in to the Tory demand to postpone the carrying of the Resolution till Friday afternoon, without the justification of vis major in the shape of the Speaker's refusal to accept any Closure Motion. The moment I had elicited his emphatic refusal to closure the Debate the conditions of the fight were altered, and even without the compromise with the Opposition Leaders, we should have been relieved of all further responsibility, and could have gone home to bed with an easy conscience. I fail, therefore, to see what of inopportune there was in my Motion.
  "Another not insignificant advantage I gained by it—namely, that it called pointed attention, which the Speaker's curt severity only emphasised the more, to the contrast between his treatment of the Liberal majority on this occasion and his treatment of the Tory majority under the parallel circumstances of June 10, 1887. But then, of course, a Liberal Home Rule Bill is not to be compared with a Tory Coercion for-ever-and-ever Bill.
  "I believe I moved the Closure at nearly the same hour at which it was accepted by the Speaker on the historic occasion of the 1887 precedent.
  "Yours obediently,
  "C. A. V. CONYBEARE.
  "Southwold, July L."
  *Whereupon MR. SPEAKER addressed the House, as followeth:—I do not know whether the way in which the hon. Gentleman has introduced this question permits me to say anything to the House now. It was at no instance of mine that this question has been brought forward. I did not know till the present moment that this letter was going to be submitted to the notice of the House. I had not read the letter, and did not know its contents until it was read a moment ago. The hon. Gentleman who has signed this letter—I do not know whether he is present—has in past Parliaments taken upon himself to censure my conduct in the Chair, and past Parlia-
  822
  ments have signified their disapprobation of the conduct of the hon. Gentleman. In all seriousness, I cannot think that it is respectful to the House for any hon. Member who thinks my conduct is censurable to write to the newspapers. His proper course is to impugn my conduct in this House, and I shall be quite ready to meet the imputation. The hon. Member is not justified in saying that I treated him with curt severity. It appears to me, on hearing this letter read, that the hon. Member was defending himself against a charge, made against him by someone, that his intervention for the Closure was inopportune at the moment, and so I deemed it to be. My action during the whole of that evening is before the House. I maintain that my action in refusing the Closure actually led to a friendly arrangement being made between both sides of the House, which otherwise, I think, would not have been arrived at for some time. The only part which I can take to-night is to deprecate any severe action on the part of the House which it might possibly be willing to take as regards the hon. Gentleman. My only course is to leave my conduct to the judgment of calm-thinking and fair-minded men. Nothing I should more deeply feel than that there should be any just reflection upon my conduct in this Chair. The past relations in which the House has permitted me to stand towards them justifies me in thinking that I am not generally accused of what the hon. Member has accused me of, and I hope I may venture to say that there is not another Member of the House who would think so, or who would accuse me (whatever my failings and shortcomings may have been during a period of ten years) of having ever been partial to one side or the other.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have still less advantage than yourself, Sir, of any acquaintance with the matter that is now introduced to the notice of the House, inasmuch as I was not able to be present during the latest hours of the Sitting on Friday morning, when the circumstances arose. But matters of the deepest general interest have been opened up upon which I think it right and imperative upon me to say a word. I understand you, Sir, in the exercise of your carefully-guarded and most impartial

  823
  judgment to have deprecated further substantive proceedings upon the present occasion. I attach the greatest weight to that recommendation proceeding from the Chair, and I think it would be wise if the House should act in accordance with it. At the same time, I do not think, especially if we are to act in accordance with it, there ought to be any shadow of doubt as to the sentiment which prevails in the House as to what has taken place. I think it most unfortunate that any Member of the House should be tempted to question the impartiality of the Chair, and I believe there are few men in this House who would have been able to maintain that impartiality or to produce that universal impression of impartiality which has been your happy lot during a period of what I may call unexampled difficulty. It is, Sir, still more unfortunate—for I admit that a Member may be justified in, or, at all events, may have to his own mind plausible ground of justification for, questioning the impartiality of any man, however judicial his conduct may have been—I say I think it is still more unfortunate that any Member of this House should so far forget the dignity of the House, as to what is due to the Chair, as to what is due to himself as a Member of the House, and as to what is due to the whole House, as to make his appeal upon such a subject as that to the columns of a public journal. I must say that in my view it is a most grave and serious error, and I feel convinced that the hon. Gentleman, who probably in a moment of haste has been betrayed into that error, will himself, upon reflection, take that view of the question. It would have been at any period in my recollection a duty on my part, if I had stood in the same position, to take this notice of what has occurred. But I think there is also this to be borne in mind: that the duties of the Chair, always difficult, have been growing in difficulty from Speaker to Speaker, and from year to year, so that it is hardly within the limits of the human faculties for any Speaker to undertake those duties and to discharge them in a satisfactory way, and that, in the effort to discharge them made, Sir, as it has been by you, and made with results so remarkable in their character, it is, I think, evident that the whole duty of
  824
  supporting the Chair has acquired a new force. Every man who is brought to that Bar to take the Oath, and every man who takes his seat upon those Benches, ought to feel, and must feel, during the whole course of his continuance here, that support of the Chair, respect to the Chair, not an acknowledgment of the infallibility of the Chair, but strict regard to the Rules under which alone the conduct of the Chair can be questioned, is one of the primary and most sacred obligations which are incumbent upon every Member of the House. Sir, in deference to your judgment, I hope we shall take the wise advice you have given us; and I confidently hope that what has happened will be a monition and a warning to all of us, should any of us at any time be tempted to pursue a course so unfortunate as that which led to the present interposition.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is unnecessary that I should add anything to the weighty and eloquent terms in which the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House has explained his view of the duty every man in this House owes to you, Sir, and to every man who may hereafter hold the office you occupy. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking from unexampled experience and authority in such matters, has laid down, in terms which I certainly cannot improve, his view, which I think is the view of every man who listened to him, of what the character of our duty is towards the occupant of the Chair. I regret, Sir, that the hon. Gentleman, who had full notice I believe of what was going to occur to-night, has not thought it incumbent upon him to be present now to express to the House what I have no doubt would have been his regrets for what has occurred—not, I fear, for the first time—in the career of that hon. Gentleman. As he has not thought necessary to be present, and as you, Sir, I think wisely, deprecate any further explicit action on the part of the House—["No, no!"]—well, I thought that was implied—I certainly do not know that anything would be gained by my hon. Friend behind me, who has called attention to the matter, proceeding further on the present occasion. I feel that the way in which your observations, Sir, were received by the House at large, and the way in which the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite was re-

  825
  ceived, sufficiently indicate the opinion which is entertained by every Party and by every section of the House, and, I think I may add, by every individual in the House. Perhaps it would be employing too powerful a weapon on this occasion if we should take any further notice of a matter on which we may by silence, even more eloquently than by Resolution or specific action, express our collective opinion. I feel sure that what has fallen from you, Sir, what has fallen from the Leader of the House, and the general sense of the House will prevent in any quarter, or from any individual, a repetition of conduct of this kind; and henceforth, if it should ever be necessary, and I trust and believe it will never be, to call in question the impartiality or the action of the Chairman, that will be done by a regular proceeding known to this House, and will not be done through irresponsible letters directed to the daily Press of this country. I hope my hon. Friend will be satisfied, as I think he has reason to be, with the result of the action he has taken on the present occasion, and that he will not think it necessary to proceed further in the matter.
  MR. TRITTONintimated that, in accordance with the advice of Mr. Speaker deprecating any severe action which the House might possibly be willing to take, he would not proceed with the Motion which he had intended to submit to the House.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 6) Bill, Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 7) Bill.
ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL. (No. 209.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 3rd July.]
    [THIRTIETH NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Executive Authority.
    Clause 5 (Executive powers in Ireland).
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER*MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER (Belfast, W.), who was speaking last night when
    826
    at 12 o'clock Progress was reported, resumed his observations in supporting his Amendment. He proposed in the briefest manner to recapitulate the points which he had advanced last night in support of his Amendment when interrupted by the Twelve o'Clock Rule. He had endeavoured to support his Amendment on two grounds: The first was that it was a matter of definite public importance concerning the whole community that the prerogative of mercy and pardon should be retained under the control of the Imperial Legislature on the ground that when a prisoner was released he could not be confined to the district in which he had committed his crime, but might go to any other part of the United Kingdom if he pleased. The second point was that there was strong reason to believe that if this power of reprieve were put into the hands of Irish Ministers—for that was what it would mean if handed over to the Lord Lieutenant—it would be seriously and grossly abused to the detriment of the State. We were face to face with the fact that the views upon what was crime and worthy of punishment of Nationalist Members on the one hand and the Government were diametrically opposite. The House had a remarkable instance of the truth of this with regard to the persons who were imprisoned for complicity in dynamite conspiracies. The Home Secretary strongly expressed the opinion that the persons who had been tried and convicted ought to be kept in prison, and the prerogative of mercy ought not to be exercised on their behalf. But hon. Members opposite had expressed just as strongly the opinion that the Government, in withholding the exercise of that prerogative, committed a grave error of judgment. It was natural to suppose that those hon. Members, if ever they got the power to put into execution the intention they had expressed, would release these men who, in. the opinion of nine-tenths, or, at least, five-sixths, of the House were justly imprisoned, and ought not to be released. The past of hon. Members opposite fully confirmed his view of them. He had listened to and studied many of the statements of hon. Members opposite on this subject. The hon. Member for East Mayo had said that many of the words and actions of the past were said and done in heat and haste. He had stood

    827
    at the foot of platforms when the hon. Member had been addressing meetings in Ireland, and had heard the incitements the hon. Member had made. He had also seen the incitements to crime made not in anger or passion, but deliberately, by the hon. Member for the City of Cork. He had seen pictures, which had taken weeks to elaborate, circulated among the people of Ireland by the hon. Member for Cork, telling their plain story that what was ordinarily regarded as crime he and his friends did not regard as crime at all; that those offences were not only venial, but were not offences at all, and should receive the sympathy and encouragement of the Irish people. What were they to expect but that when these gentlemen became responsible Ministers in Ireland they would carry out their view of the whole moral code and give effect to the principles they had stated? The difficulty was enhanced by the fact that there were persons who kept out of Ireland to avoid arrest for crime. The hon. Member for Kerry had been the confidant, colleague, and director of a certain number of persons who had left this country and escaped from the power of Criminal Law, one of whom had had a true bill for wilful murder returned against him.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. Member says I was the confidant of certain persons. Does he mean to impute to me in reference to those or any other persons that I had in any degree a guilty knowledge of crime?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: That was not my assertion, Sir—
    MR. SEXTON: He used the expression that I was the confidant of men accused of murder and of crime. Does he cast the imputation that I had a guilty knowledge of such crime?
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: What I was about to say was this: that the Executive of the Land League met first in Abbey Street and then in Sackville Street; and that these men and the hon. Member were members of that confidential body. Week after week they sat together, and Boyton, Sheridan, and Brennan went about the country organising. Wherever these men went there was a track of blood. In time that organisation was "blown" upon and destroyed, and I know, for a fact, that the confidential documents of that committee never saw the light, because for a whole
    828
    day the officials were engaged in destroying documents which they could not take out of the country—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think the hon. Gentleman is going a great deal too far. I hope the hon. Gentleman will confine himself more strictly to the matter of the Amendment.
    MR. SEXTON: If the hon. Gentleman in any direct or indirect form endeavours to convey that at any time and in relation to any persons I had any guilty knowledge of crime, I shall bring the matter to an issue in the strictest terms, no matter what the Rules or Procedure of this House may be.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I have endeavoured to keep within the scope of my Amendment. I have referred to the connection between the hon. Member for North Kerry and certain persons who have fled the country. I do not put my statement higher than the statement which was made by the Special Commission which sat on the question, and which, after a careful hearing, gave a judicial pronouncement on the matter, finding that several Nationalist Members, of which the hon. Member for Kerry was one, incited to intimidation, and that in consequence of that intimidation—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have already-pointed out to the hon. Member that he must confine himself to the question. That is not the question. I must beg of him to attend to my ruling.
    MR. SEXTON: I must ask your leave, Mr. Mellor, to say, as a further imputation has been cast upon me, that I was examined on oath before the Special' Commission three or four years ago, and cross-examined by the late Attorney General, and that not one question was put to me from beginning to end, either in examination or in cross-examination, suggesting that I had any such kind of knowledge as the hon. Gentleman has imputed.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am sorry I am not allowed to take up the challenge. I did my best to do so, and I was interrupted. I will endeavour now to turn to the other part of my Amendment.
    MR. SEXTON: Really, I cannot allow this to go on. Does the hon. Gentleman mean to convey that he could take up the challenge and prove that I was a party to these crimes? The

    829
    whole thing from beginning to end is absolutely false.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! I pointed out that the line the hon. Member was taking was out of Order. It is not in Order to discuss matters which I have declared to be out of Order.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERregretted he was not able to finish the passage he was reading. He thought it was clear, however, to every reasonable man that his Amendment was more than justified, and that the exercise of the prerogative should be confined exclusively to the Imperial Government. He would put an alternative case. It might be—it probably would be—that cases would arise in Ireland in which this prerogative ought to be exercised, but when it would not be exercised. He had in his mind cases from the North of Ireland, in which, no doubt, vindictive punishment would be inflicted. It was, therefore, absolutely necessary for the protection of the minority, whether in the South or in the North, that the prerogative should be exercised solely in the public interest, and not to serve any Party, whatever it might be, in Ireland. He begged to move his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 10, after Sub-section (1), to insert the words "Provided that the prerogative of mercy shall not be exercised by the Lord Lieutenant on behalf of Her Majesty, except upon the advice of Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State."—(Mr. Arnold-Forster.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTON: I wish just to say that this is not the first time the hon. Member opposite—
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether the hon. Member for Kerry is to be allowed to go into the question when the hon. Member for West Belfast was prevented?
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is not in Order to go into matters which I have ruled out of Order. If the hon. Member for North Kerry has any personal explanation to make he may proceed.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I should like to know, if the Member for North Kerry makes any statement impugning the accuracy or veracity of the Member for Belfast,
    830
    whether you will give him full permission to reply?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I intimated to the hon. Member for Belfast the course that it was proper to take. He took that course, and I think the incident had better terminate.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. Member has made a definite charge against myself. [Cries of" Order! "] Yes, it is quite in accordance with the tactics of the Party of perjury and forgery to try to silence me. I intend to reply.
    MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square): I rise to Order. I quite understand that the hon. Member wishes to reply, but let us see how far the understanding is to go. If the hon. Member insists upon replying, notwithstanding your ruling, Mr. Mellor, then I trust it will be in Order for the hon. Member for West Belfast to reply to him.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have stated that it is impossible that this matter can continue. I understand the hon. Member for North Kerry to deny the imputation made on him; and therefore, after having stopped the hon. Member for West Belfast from going into that matter, it would hardly be in Order for any further discussion to take place with regard to those particular matters.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. Member opposite presented a picture. He spoke of me as being the confidant of persons who had subsequently fled from justice. [Cries of" Order! "] I am submitting a point to the Chairman. The gentlemen of England object to being gagged! The hon. Member, having presented that picture, suggested imputations arising out of it. Am I to be limited to a simple negative in denial, or am I to be allowed to proceed? My reply will be brief. [Cries of "Order!"] I must say it is quite in accord with the chivalry of the Orange Order and with the craft of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham to prevent me from returning even a most brief reply to the allegation made against me.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I rise to Order. No one has suggested that the hon. Member should be prevented from making his reply, but I once more put it to you, Mr. Mellor, whether you have ruled that he will be out of Order in making his reply, and whether, if you have ruled that he is in Order, my hon.

    831
    Friend will also be in Order in replying?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have already pointed out that I stopped the hon. Member for West Belfast from making these charges. The hon. Member for Kerry denied the charges at once and emphatically. It will be impossible to allow any discussion of this question, which I have ruled out of Order. I think the Committee will be satisfied that the hon. Member for Kerry has done all that he could in answer to the statements which were partly made, and which I prevented from being carried further. Therefore, I think this matter ought now to terminate.
    MR. SEXTON: I must appeal to you. The hon. Gentleman stated that I was the confidant of certain persons who afterwards fled from justice—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I hope the hon. Gentleman will confine himself to the point of Order.
    MR. SEXTON (proceeding): And he said if he had been allowed to read the passages which he was about to read he would make good his case. I hope I may be allowed to say that all these matters to which the hon. Member, with a malignity peculiar to himself—[Cries of "Order!"]
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I rise to Order.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think now that the hon. Member for Kerry has given his explanation—
    MR. SEXTON: I have not; I have not been allowed to.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has denied the charges made, and has stated that there was no foundation for them. I think the matter should now drop.
    MR. SEXTON: There are two things I ask leave to say. One is that whilst I was a member of the Land League I had no conference at any time with any person upon any subject which was contrary to law, or which involved any guilty knowledge; and the second is that all the transactions of that year—12 years ago—with which I was concerned were the subject of judicial investigation four years ago by the Special Commission, when I was examined as to that period, and that never, from the beginning to the end of the case, was it suggested by the learned counsel by whom I was cross-
    832
    examined that I had any kind of guilty knowledge or was open to any of the imputations which the hon. Member has made. To repeat these imputations under cover of debate after that judicial investigation is, in my judgment, infamous and base.
    Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE and Mr. ARNOLD-FORSTER rose together; but, there being calls for the latter, Mr. GLADSTONE gave way.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I am quite at a loss to understand why those who speak on behalf of the persons who suffered under the Land League—[Nationalist cries of "Order, order!" and "Pigott!" Mr. CHAMBERLAIN: Gag, gag!] I can assure the hon. Member that, although I made statements which are grave, I spoke of what I believe I know. What I said was that the hon. Member was in consultation for two years with four persons who have fled the country. I have proof of it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! This matter has ceased to be material to the Amendment. Therefore, I think it should terminate. Mr. Gladstone.
    Mr. W. E. GLADSTONEagain rose.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN, rising amid cries of "Order!" and "Chair!" said: I rise to a point of Order. I ask you whether it is in Order for a Member of this House to say of another that his statements are "infamous and base"?
    THE CHAIRMAN: All such expressions are out of Order; but I beg to point out that I did not interfere before because charges were made—I think quite unnecessarily—against the hon. Member, and he used this expression in defending himself.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I do not intend to trespass upon forbidden ground; but a sense of justice compels me to say that I have never known in all my experience a more wanton introduction—[Opposition cries of "Order!"]
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: I rise to Order. I want to know whether the Prime Minister is to be allowed to use these expressions?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The expression used was "wanton introduction." I cannot say that that is out of Order.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I hope the hon. Gentleman will take a lesson and not be so hasty. I am bound to finish my

    833
    sentence; I have never known a more wanton introduction of venomous matter into a Debate on an Amendment which raises a political question of considerable delicacy and difficulty, and on which a sense of duty, of policy, and of decency ought alike to have induced the hon. Member to keep apart from all extraneous considerations. I hope this will be a lesson to the hon. Member. The question raised by the Amendment is one which eminently ought to be considered without the smallest heat. There are various reasons which make it undesirable that the matter raised should be subject to specific regulation by Act of Parliament. The question of the prerogative of mercy stands in a very peculiar condition. The hon. Member supposed it was a matter in which the Executive Council in Ireland would be likely to interfere. My impression is that the Executive Council will not be likely to interfere in such a matter. By an invariable tradition of this country—I speak with an experience of a quarter of a century in the Cabinet—the prerogative of mercy is dealt with by a single Minister, and the agency of the Cabinet in it is a thing unknown. That practice is so obviously expedient that I cannot suppose it would, for no purpose that I can conceive, be departed from. Owing to the division between Imperial affairs and local affairs, you cannot bring into a single category all that relates to the prerogative of mercy. It is not done in the Colonies. Colonial Governors are charged in their instructions to deal with matters relating to the prerogative of mercy where Imperial interests are concerned apart from their Executive Council. There are three classes of cases which are involved in this matter—namely, cases in which the considerations are strictly Imperial, such as cases of treason and treason-felony, where the considerations involved are strictly Imperial, and where it would be absolutely the duty of the Lord Lieutenant to allow of no intervention by the Irish Executive. Then there are the ordinary cases of the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, and the very trivial cases. The last class of cases would include such a case as that mentioned last night by the hon. Member for East Mayo, in which a woman was sentenced to a month's imprisonment for assaulting a bailiff.
    834
    Surely nothing could be more inconvenient or absurd than that such a case as that should be brought over for the consideration of the Home Secretary. How could he know anything about it; how could he communicate with the proper officers or with the Judges who tried the case? Take, again, the second class of cases—cases of ordinary crime in which the question is whether the prerogative of mercy should be used. Is there any good reason for taking the matter out of the hands of the Irish Ministers? In cases involving nothing of an Imperial character, it would be very unwise to take the power out of the hands of the Irish Executive. They would have a general responsibility for the administration of the Criminal Law, and how can they be deprived of that power by which alone occasional errors and excesses in the Criminal Law can be checked—namely, the exercise of the prerogative of mercy?
    SIR H. JAMES: Nothing can be further from my wish than to refer to the episode in the discussion of this Amendment between the Member for North Kerry and the Member for West Belfast; but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not suppose by our silence that we concur in his statement that my hon. Friend's observations were of a wanton character. My hon. Friend has a lesson to learn if he has offended against the Rules of this House at all. [An hon. MEMBER: Decency.] The Prime Minister made the observation after the matter had been closed by the Chairman, so that I cannot be out of Order in saying we do not concur in his statement. However, I gladly pass by that subject, and I wish to refer to what the Prime Minister said directly on the Amendment. I think the Prime Minister is right in saying, no doubt, in the Cabinet you do not, as a matter of practice, lay the responsibility of dealing with the prerogative of mercy upon all the Members of the Cabinet, but one Minister takes charge of that matter. We are asking simply that there should be a corresponding rule in the future with regard to Ireland, and that Minister we ask should be a British Minister responsible to this Parliament. My right hon. Friend says that in respect of treason the Irish Executive can take no part in dealing with the prerogative of mercy.

    835
    I beg, with great deference to the right hon. Gentleman, to say that, so far as the Bill is concerned, there is nothing to prevent the Irish Executive from exercising the prerogative of mercy, that is, when advising the Lord Lieutenant. There is no correlative impossibility of dealing with acts compared with the power of dealing with legislation; and if there was a person convicted of high treason the morrow after this Bill passed, the Lord Lieutenant would be the person to determine whether there should be a pardon or commutation of the sentence, and that would be determined upon the action, I submit, and upon the advice of the Executive of the Irish Committee. But let us go a little further. There are men now in Ireland convicted for grave offences—I will except cases of high treason for the purpose of my argument. If the Bill passes the prison doors are to be opened. The Lord Lieutenant will be able to grant a pardon to every one of these prisoners, whatever his offence may be. [Mr. SEXTOX: He can do it now.] That is exactly my point. The Lord Lieutenant, in regard to every person convicted in Ireland, can grant a pardon or commute the sentence, and what can be done now we do not object to it being done in the future. He does it now on the advice of a British Minister, and we are asking that he shall have to do so in the future. In reference to all the stormy past and to all offences committed, every prisoner who has been convicted in Ireland I repeat could, if this Bill passed to-morrow, be set free if the Lord Lieutenant should think it right he should be free. The Lord Lieutenant will have to act on the view of the Executive Committee; and if he differs from the Executive Committee he will have to yield; and so it comes to pass that the Irish Ministers, as the Bill stands, will have in their hands the power to let free every prisoner with whose views, so far as they are semi-political, they might have sympathies. I do not think that is a state of things that even the Prime Minister would wish to see in existence. He draws the line apparently in accordance with the nature of the offences, and says that with respect to certain offences the Imperial Government would necessarily act, and that in such cases the Irish Executive would not. There is nothing in the Bill to support the distinction
    836
    which the right hon. Gentleman has drawn. It will be a matter of practice, and will depend on the will of the Irish Executive who will interfere and determine what shall be done. My right hon. Friend proceeded to say—"Look at the inconvenience of the Amendment! How is the Lord Lieutenant to communicate here in England with the Home Secretary, and how is the Home Secretary to acquaint himself with the facts of the case? "Why, those who were present last night heard that that was to be the daily course of conduct of the Lord Lieutenant. He was to go to the Board of Trade one day and to the Home Secretary next; and when we pointed out last night the difficulty there would be in the Lord Lieutenant consulting the Home Secretary in respect to sending down a policeman, say, to Cork we were asked, "Why object to that? He can do it. Every day telegrams pass between the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary when the latter is in London, and there is no inconvenience in such transactions." We were answered by the argument that the Lord Lieutenant communicated with Ministers here on the smallest matters of detail. Now, when we are pointing out that grave matters will be left in the hands of the Irish Executive, we are told that, however grave the offence might be, it would be inconvenient that the Lord Lieutenant should consult a British Minister upon it, because there are cases in which only a month's imprisonment is inflicted. What is the use of saying that the Irish Legislature shall not legislate on matters of treason-felony when the Executive have it in their power to advise the Lord Lieutenant to commute the sentences on persons convicted of that offence? The truth is this Executive Government power is superior in its effect to all the legislative power we have given; and if we do not restrict the Executive power our restrictions upon the legislative power will be of no use; and, unless this Amendment should be accepted, this Bill will be handing over the criminal administration of justice unrestricted to the Executive Government of Ireland. That is not the intention of the Government; they have said that the administration of justice is not to be placed in the hands of the Executive Committee, and the only way to give

    837
    effect to that declaration is by accepting an Amendment of this kind.
    MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, he was surprised that the Prime Minister could possibly have committed himself to such a statement as that it was inconvenient to consult English Ministers with respect to the prerogative of mercy when sitting next to him was the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. To whom did the Chief Secretary go when he had to consider the prerogative of mercy in the Gweedore cases? He went to the Lord High Chancellor of England, and here they had in their most recent memories one of the most serious and critical cases since the present Government came into Office in which the Chief Secretary found it his duty to consult an English Minister, the Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, and yet they were told it would he inconvenient for the Irish Lord Lieutenant to consult an English Minister with reference to matters which were of local interest in Ireland. There was a more serious matter than that. It was a mistake to suppose the only danger was the danger of leniency to criminals in Ireland. There was a danger of severity and unfairness to those who were associated with the loyal minority—unfairness and severity not only apprehended by them, but threatened by hon. Members below the Gangway. The Prime Minister had said that these matters in Clause 3 would, of course, go to an English Minister, who would advise the Lord Lieutenant. The right hon. Member for Bury (Sir H. James) had shown that unless something was put info the Bill such matters would not go to an English Minister, because the only provision in the section as to this question affected legislative and not Executive action. This danger was a serious danger to the loyal minority; and the suggestion that capital cases, cases of sedition and so on, in which the loyal minority were concerned, should be left to the uncontrolled advice of the Irish Cabinet was one more example of that callous indifference to the interests and safety of the loyal minority which was being made more plain every day as being the prevailing opinion of the Government.
    MR. BLAKE: It seems to me that the question before the
    838
    Committee is one, no doubt, in part of convenience; but I do not think the main part is at all of convenience or inconvenience. I rely much more strongly upon the other ground which the Prime Minister put forward, the Constitutional ground; and once again we are face to face with the fundamental and irreconcilable differences between those who support and those who oppose the principle of this Bill. This Bill gives to the Irish people, with reference to the vast bulk of criminal offences, the power of making the law and of enforcing and administering the law, and it is a part—and an important part—of the administration of criminal justice to exercise the prerogative of mercy or pardon. That is really a part of the administration of criminal justice—nothing less, nothing more. To that people to whom you commit by the action of their Representatives in Parliament the power of making laws which regulate the offences, which determine what shall be offences and what shall be the punishment for those offences—to that people through their Administration, through their Executive, which is responsible to their Legislature, you properly commit the administration of that law; and if you do all that, it is the height of absurdity to pause at the prerogative of mercy. It is the height of absurdity to say—"We will trust them in determining what the law shall be, with the appointment of Judges, with the administration of law, with the appointment of the Attorney General who may enter a nolle prosequi, who may prosecute or not as he pleases; but we will not trust them with the prerogative of mercy." Therefore, it is opposed to the main fundamental principle of the Bill to suggest that while all these large matters are to be conferred, the prerogative of mercy is something so sacred that it is not to be entrusted to the people who have all the rest. The distinction is just such as the Prime Minister tells us. There is a, certain proportion of criminal justice which remains within the legislative and necessarily within the commensurate Executive capacity of those outside Ireland—within the Imperial sphere; and no man here contends with reference to these matters, as to which this Parliament regulates the law as to criminal justice, that the Irish Executive shall have the power to inter-

    839
    fere in that part of the administration of that law which involves the prerogative of pardon. But just on the same principle that we fully concede the view that the prerogative of pardon in this case belongs to, and is to be exercised upon the advice of Imperial Ministers, upon the same principle we demand as a necessary part of that Legislative and Executive power to be given us, that we should have the exercise of the prerogative of mercy with reference to the other matters. It is said there is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Irish Executive from pardoning for treason or treason-felony. There is nothing in the Bill to give the Irish Executive that power at present. It is one of the prerogatives to be given by an instrument to be prepared and issued under the clause now before the Committee; and if the Members of the Committee hold that the prerogative may possibly be moulded on Irish matters in another way, that is still under the control of this Parliament. In the case of the great Colonies the prerogative of mercy is accorded to the Head of the Executive, the Representative of the Queen, by his commission and by his instructions, and, as the Prime Minister has said, under general Constitutional rules. With reference to the vast mass of cases in which this prerogative is to be exercised, they are those which concern only the people of the Colony itself, and it is then exercised upon local advice. But where Imperial interests intervene necessarily the only practical solution is that the Representative of the Empire, the Governor, acts upon his own discretion under general instructions, or, if necessary, upon the special instructions of Ministers who are responsible here. I maintain that it is perfectly reasonable to say that under this clause the delegation of power shall be distinctly accorded to the Viceroy, to act upon local advice with reference to all things local, and upon the instructions of an Imperial Minister with reference to all things not local; and I repeat the observation which I made last night, that if objection is to be taken to the Bill in this respect from any quarter it should be from the Irish Benches, because we leave practically in the hands of the Imperial Parliament the determination from time to time of what
    840
    the delegation should be and what the restrictions should be, confiding, as we do, in the view that the Imperial Executive and the Imperial Parliament will execute that duty from time to time in the spirit of the Act itself. Now you are not making a Constitution with reference to prisoners who appear to be in Irish gaols just now, but with reference to prisoners who may be in Irish gaols in years to come, and the same principle must be applied to that condition of things; to the men in the present and to the men in the future. I repeat it is contrary to the fundamental principle of the Bill to assign to the Irish people the creation and the administration of the laws with reference to criminal justice, and to decline to them that small but important part of that administration which belongs to the prerogative of mercy.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The Prime Minister told us that this was a very difficult and delicate question, and the speech we have heard just now confirms what fell from the Prime Minister's lips, because it is evident that in regard to this matter there is an essential difference of opinion between the views of the Government and those entertained by their supporters. [Mr. BLAKE: Not at all; not one bit.] I will remind the hon. Gentleman of what he said and of what the Prime Minister said. The hon. Gentleman says this: that the administration of the Criminal Law was incomplete without the power of granting the prerogative of mercy; that the administration of the Criminal Law was part of the duty imposed upon the Irish Legislature under this Bill; and that, therefore, the Lord Lieutenant should exercise the prerogative of mercy on the advice of the Irish Cabinet or Council.
    MR. BLAKE: That is, as to those portions given over to them.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: With regard to all those portions of the Criminal Law which are not mentioned in Clause 3. But what did the Prime Minister say? What the Prime Minister said was that he did not doubt the Irish Executive Council would not interfere with the prerogative of mercy by the Lord Lieutenant, and that it would be highly improper if they were to do so.
    MR. BLAKE: As I understood the Prime Minister, what he said was that the invariable practice was that it should

    841
    be done not by the whole Cabinet, but by one responsible Minister out of the Cabinet.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The broad fact remains. The Prime Minister, as I understood him, did not think that the prerogative of mercy in Ireland should be exercised on the advice of the Irish Cabinet or any Member of the Irish Cabinet—[Mr. BLAKE: No, no!] That is what we understood, at any rate, from the right hon. Gentleman. A great deal of the controversy will turn on what is the practice at present. As I understand the procedure at present, the Lord Lieutenant really acts ministerially in these matters under the advice of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. He advises as to whether the prerogative shall or shall not be exercised, and he himself forms his opinion in any way he can, and takes himself the advice of the English Lord Chancellor or any other lawyer or politician of distinction whom he thinks can help him. That was not the practice when I was Chief Secretary, nor was it when my right hon. Friend near me (Mr. Jackson) was Chief Secretary, nor when the present Member for Bristol (Sir M. Hicks-Beach) was Chief Secretary. In those times, it was invariably left to the Lord Lieutenant to decide these matters, and he decided them upon his own responsibility. I have no doubt he took the advice of the Judge who tried the case, and of the Lord Chancellor. There was nobody in Ireland to give the Lord Lieutenant advice on these subjects as the Home Secretary gives advice to Her Majesty in England. That is the broad distinction. In this country, practically, the matter is settled by the Home Secretary; in Ireland, until the last few months, it was settled by the Lord Lieutenant, who took the advice of the Judge who tried the case. The Lord Lieutenant, when he acted, acted on his own responsibility, if he pleased in direct contradiction to the Lord Chancellor, and without consulting the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant at all. As Chief Secretary, I used constantly to be questioned about the exercise of the prerogative of mercy, and I invariably declined to answer any question in this House on the subject, because I held, and I still hold, it was wholly outside my functions. I did not know what course the Lord Lieutenant
    842
    would take. I refused to advise him to take any course, and what course he ultimately decided upon he decided upon on his own responsibility. As I understood the Prime Minister, that is not only an accurate statement of what ought to take place now, but of the Prime Minister's view of what ought to take place under the new Bill. The Prime Minister holds that there would be certain inconveniences in requiring the assent of the Home Secretary to every exercise of the prerogative of mercy, however trifling, insignificant, or dependent upon local circumstances the case might be, with regard to which the Home Secretary could know nothing, and which were remote from broader political issues. In answer to objections of this kind, I have to say it is a monstrous thing, in regard to the exercise of this prerogative of mercy, to leave the Lord Lieutenant in the hands of the Executive, and to make him their instrument and machine in carrying out their will. I think there may be some basis of agreement between the two sides of the House in this matter. My hon. Friend who moved this Amendment is anxious that thin should be the prerogative of the Crown, exercised on the will of the Executive Council as a whole, or some Member of the Executive Council. I agree with him absolutely, and I think it would be a most dangerous and serious thing if the matter were left as it stands in the Bill. I also agree with the Government that it would be inconvenient to make an English Minister responsible for all the details of the exercise of the prerogative. But we were told last night the Lord Lieutenant is to act not merely as the servant or representative, and at the bidding of the Irish Government; he is not merely to be their representative, but also that of the English Cabinet, and outside these two spheres of office there are still some further duties he has to perform, not as representing either the Home Secretary here, or the Irish Cabinet, or any Member of the Irish Cabinet. My suggestion is that we relegate this prerogative of mercy to the Lord Lieutenant in this third capacity, not as representing the English or British Administration, not as carrying out the advice of the Home Secretary, still less as representing the Irish Administration, or carrying out the advice

    843
    of the Irish Administration, but that we direct in this Bill that the prerogative of mercy should be exercised by the Lord Lieutenant as representing Her Majesty, words which, by the Definition Clause, are to be declared to mean he is to act as a mere functionary and representative of the Irish Cabinet. It appears to me that a great deal of discussion might be saved if that view met with general approval, as, I think, it does meet with the approval of most of us, and my hon. Friend probably would feel that his main object had been carried out, whilst I understand the suggestion is one that would meet with the approval of the Government. If no Amendment were put in this clause and the words in the section were allowed to remain as they stand, the phraseology of Sub-section 2 of the clause will probably make it obligatory on the Lord Lieutenant, whatever his views may be, to take the advice of the Irish Cabinet, and not of an Irish Minister. He will be obliged to do that very thing which the Prime Minister said would be most improper to do. If you read Section 2 of your clause, you will see there that, unless you put in words of a qualifying character, the Lord Lieutenant has no choice in the matter, and that he must take the advice in these cases, not of a Minister, English or Irish, but of the Irish Cabinet as a whole. If the Government would accept words carrying out my suggestion, I think my hon. Friend would be not ill-advised if he were to withdraw his Amendment. Of course, if they will not hold out the olive branch in this matter, it will be necessary to divide on the Amendment. I do think words could be inserted to carry out all we desire without creating any of the undoubted difficulties which might follow by adopting the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the hon. Member for Longford had truly said that the discussion on the Amendment showed the irreconcileable difference between the two Parties who were supporting and opposing this Bill. He wished briefly to state how this matter presented itself to him. There were in Ireland a certain class of prisoners called the Crossmaglen prisoners—
    MR. T. M. HEALY: They were let out five years ago.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: No.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Yes, they were.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Very well. He was not so well acquainted with prisons and prison matters as other people, therefore he might be wrong; but the mere fact that they were out would not alter his argument, which applied to other prisoners who were exactly of the same character. He would take that class of prisoners as an illustration of his meaning. These prisoners were in gaol in Ireland for complicity in a murderous association. That was beyond all dispute, and was proved in a Court of Justice in Ireland.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: In Belfast.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: These men were convicted by juries, and properly convicted. On at least two occasions in that House Motions had been made from those (the Irish) Benches opposite for the unconditional release of these men found guilty by juries for complicity in this murderous association in the North of Ireland. He said that if the Lord Lieutenant, advised by this Executive Council or Privy Council in Ireland, was to have the power of exercising the prerogatives of mercy, hon. Members opposite would have no option but to liberate prisoners such as these whom they had defended in that House. That might be all right for those who espoused the cause of these men; it was not all right for those who had espoused the cause of these people who were murdered by these men. That was his point, and he said it was a monstrosity to hand over to men committed to the very chin to the release of this class of criminals throughout the whole of Ireland the sacred prerogative of mercy.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Manchester (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has made a very interesting biographical communication to-day. As I understand from his statement, his course during his career in Ireland was this: that in all matters affecting the prerogative of mercy be left the Lord Lieutenant severely alone, and gave him no advice one way or another. If I followed his statement accurately this was the position. The Lord Lieutenant in Ireland holds the same functions as Her Majesty the Queen does in this country.

    845
    In other words, without meaning any disrespect, the Irish Lord Lieutenant, generally speaking, is a ceremonial officer. As a rule, the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is a gentleman occupying the same position as that held by Lord Londonderry, whom we all remember as a Member of this House, and who, to use the words of Mr. John Bright was rather a dull man. [Cries of "Oh!"] These are Mr. Bright's words, not mine. As a rule. His Excellency was engaged over here in attending race meetings, and we have now the confession from his Chief Secretary, his responsible adviser, and from a Cabinet Minister, that in regard to all the matters which arose under the Coercion Act in Ireland, for which he was responsible, he left the Lord Lieutenant severely alone.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I never said that. My statement had reference to the prerogative of mercy.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Certainly; is not that what I am dealing with? I am dealing with the prerogative of mercy, and I ask the Committee to assume the A B C of my argument. I say that in regard to the questions affecting the administration of the Coercion Act, so far as it concerned the prerogative of mercy, the Lord Lieutenant was left severely alone by the Member for East Manchester, and yet this is the right hon. Gentleman who protested in the most vehement manner, assisted by the Member for St. George's, at the fact that the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland was put into a kind of second category by the Government—namely, that he was a kind of a monster who, at times, did not act upon the advice of the responsible Minister. Therefore, it comes to this: that when we were arraigning the action of the Crown in Ireland we were arraigning the action of a kind of legislative monster who was not acting upon the advice of his Minister at all, because that Minister has confessed in this House that he gave the Lord Lieutenant no advice whatever. And yet the Opposition have been engaged for the last few days in attacking the position of the Government, when they declared that in certain mat-
    846
    ters the Lord Lieutenant would be allowed to act on his own initiative. Where is the distinction? I can see none. We have had from the Member for South Tyrone some little idea of how much he knows about Ireland. He reminds me of what Horace Greely said as to how much he knew about farming. He gave some account of the Crossmaglen prisoners. These prisoners were in this curious position: They were tried by a common jury in Belfast and Mr. Justice Lawson—and the principal prisoner, Bernard Smith, having been convicted by Judge Lawson at the March Assizes of 1883—Bernard Smith had been directed by Judge Lawson to be acquitted and discharged with the assent of Lord Spencer, within three weeks after he was convicted, and a sentence of 10 years' penal servitude was passed. At one time I was thoroughly acquainted with the history of these Crossmaglen cases, but, after this lapse of time, I have forgotten a good deal about the matter. This, however, I do remember: that there was hardly a year of Lord Spencer's Vice-royalty that he did not discharge one or other of the Crossmaglen prisoners, and a more tainted case to be brought before this House I cannot conceive. Now that so much scavenging is going on, I would suggest to hon. Members who are given that way that if they look through Hansard for 1883 and 1884 they will be able to find a complete history of the case of the Crossmaglen prisoners. Is there, I would ask, never a case of doubt in regard to the conviction of prisoners? Will the noble Lord the Member for Paddington say there is no such case of doubt in regard to the conviction of some prisoners? Will the late Solicitor General for England say there are no cases of doubt as to the conviction of prisoners? Will the Member for Cambridge University say there is no question sometimes with regard to the conviction of prisoners? I think I heard in this House a speech once made when some Members from Ulster were described by the Member for Cambridge University as reactionary Ulster Members, because doubts were thrown upon the administration of law and order, and I think I heard the noble Lord the Member for Padding-

    847
    ton say that the true course to take in regard to the administration of law and order in Ireland was to run it upon the exact antithesis—if I may use the expression—to run it exactly the contrary way that Lord Spencer had conducted affairs in Ireland.
    LORD E. CHURCHILL: It had nothing to do with the prerogative of mercy. What I said affected the general policy of the Government, and did not deal with the prerogative of mercy.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: The Debate at that time had to do with the prerogative of mercy. The whole question involved was the prerogative of mercy, and we went into the Division Lobby assisted by the noble Lord, and by, I think, the Member for Cambridge University, and certainly by the late Solicitor General for England on a view of the prerogative of mercy that does not quite hold water with the views now so loudly expressed by the Member for Bury (Sir H. James), who went into the other Lobby. I think, if I may humbly say so, it is perfectly absurd to argue on the question of Home Rule for Ireland, whether in regard to the prerogative of mercy or on any other ground, lay reference to events of the past 10 or 12 years. Is it to be supposed that if a man in Ireland got 10 or 12 years' penal servitude some years back, that all the Irish Members in Office, because they have made strong speeches about landlordism in the past, are immediately to release him? Such a view, in my judgment, is wholly absurd. On these Amendments, as was well said by the hon. Member for Longford, we start from opposite poles, and we debate them from opposite poles, and there is no chance of our coming to a conclusion; and, although it may be pleasant enough for us to hear the hon. Member for West Belfast and the hon. Member for South Tyrone, I think, on the whole, the House of Commons might be better engaged.
    LORD R. CHURCHILLthought the Government would be disposed to give some consideration to the Amendment he was about to move to that of the hon. Member for West Belfast. He thought he would be able to give reasons which would carry conviction to the
    848
    Government upon the point. They knew that the exercise of the prerogative of mercy might be subject to comment in that House. It might be commented upon by the Representatives of Ireland, and it certainly might be commented upon by either of the English or Scotch Parties. He would assume a case where the sentence had been executed or commuted. The Government of the day would have to defend the action of the Lord Lieutenant as representing Her Majesty. The Lord Lieutenant now acted on his own responsibility; but in cases of great complexity, and giving rise to great controversy, he acquainted the Government of the day with the reason for his acting as he did—either in executing or remitting the sentence. That was to say, the Government must know his reason in order that they might defend him in the Imperial Parliament. If they had no knowledge of his reason, how could they defend the action of the Representative of the Queen, who was practically part of the Imperial establishment? The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government (Mr. W. E. Gladstone) had just entered the House, and had not heard that he (Lord R. Churchill) proposed to move an Amendment to the Amendment, and which the Member for West Belfast would allow him to move. It was in these words:—
    "Provided that the prerogative of mercy shall be exercised by the Lord Lieutenant as representing Her Majesty."
    The definition of the Lord Lieutenant was "as representing Her Majesty" in the Bill itself, and he trusted the Government would be induced to grant a concession upon the matter.
    THE CHAIRMAN: As to the form of the noble Lord's Amendment it should be "Leave out"—
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: "Not be"—and "provide"?
    THE CHAIRMAN: No; leave out all the words after the word "shall" to the end of the proposed Amendment, in order to insert these words—
    "Provided that the prerogative of mercy shall be exercised by the Lord Lieutenant as representing Her Majesty."
    The Question I have to put is: "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment,
    To leave out from the word "shall," to the end of the proposed Amendment, in order to add the words "be exercised by the Lord Lieutenant as representing Her Majesty."—(Lord R. Churchill.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY, Forfar)said, the Amendment to the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord differed in language from that of the Member for West Belfast; but its effect was precisely the same. They could not interpret the phrase "Lord Lieutenant as representing Her Majesty" in the way suggested, because Her Majesty would have to act through a Secretary of State in all these cases. [Lord R. CHURCHILL: No, no!] It was the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir H. James) who had pointed out last night that there should be a Secretary of State. The Amendment now was on the same lines as that of last night, but it was in a different form. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) showed that the words "as representing Her Majesty—"
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: There are three ways.
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, there were only two. All that was discussed and explained last night. The Lord Lieutenant would be advised either by his Executive Council in Ireland or by the Secretary of State, or he would receive instructions from the Secretary of State here. There was no third way; but in a great many of the cases, as pointed out, he would not have to consult any person. It would be idle that he should do so, as on those every-day matters no Secretary of State had ever been troubled. They opposed the Amendment mainly because it was not an attempt to restrain the action of the Executive Council in Ireland or of the Lord Lieutenant, but of Her Majesty's Government here to prevent them from dealing in any way but one with the prerogative of mercy, whilst at present they could, by delegation, point out the class of cases by a reference to England, and could adapt themselves to the
    850
    circumstances of Ireland from time to time. This was another attempt to take away not from Irish Ministers, but from the Ministers of the United Kingdom, the control they exercised as matters stood.
    LORD R. CHURCHILLsaid, he would point out to the Solicitor General that the Government had used the words, "as representing Her Majesty," in the Bill several times. Were they to understand every time the phrase was used that an English Minister would be responsible to the Imperial Parliament for the action of the Lord Lieutenant?
    SIR J. RIGBY: Yes; that has been stated.
    LORD R. CHURCHILLsaid, in that case the Minister would take the responsibility.
    MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's, Hanover Square)said, he should like to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General who had just sat down whether, if the case stood as he suggested, it bore any reference to the position of the Lord Lieutenant on another matter which was debated last night—the question whether he was to be directed by an Irish Minister or by an English Minister—
    SIR J. RIGBY: Not "directed."
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, that was the word they had last night—that he was to be instructed or directed.
    SIR J. RIGBY: No.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, he thought it was.
    Several hon. MEMBERS: No, no!
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, at all events they were told that, in the case of the Constabulary, the Lord Lieutenant would be able to act upon his own judgment, but they had it now from the Solicitor General that in cases of a technical nature he was to act under the direction of one or two others. Which of them was he to act under? He was to act on his own judgment, but there would be one or two authorities for him. Which of these would advise or judge or instruct him? It was not very clear. It was clear, however, that in the case of the Constabulary, he was not to be under British Ministers, although in other cases

    851
    he was to act under them. Why might he not act on his own judgment in the case of the exercise of the prerogative of mercy? The difficulty was that the Lord Lieutenant would have to refer to a British Minister. If, in the case of the Constabulary, the Lord Lieutenant was to be at liberty to act on his own judgment, why should he not take the same course in other cases? He (Mr. Goschen) hoped he made himself clear. They were at the same point last night; and he thought the Solicitor General would see, and the Committee also, that there were certain cases in which the Lord Lieutenant could act without any direction at all.
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman told them they were at the same place last night. They had been three or four times at the same place. He pointed out then, as he had to point out now, that the Lord Lieutenant, in regard to police control, was the Representative of Her Majesty, and must act under the direction of the Imperial Government. But they were to be told that he could do nothing at all without direction from Her. Were they to be told he could not order a corporal or a corporal's guard to go from one side of Dublin to the other without communicating with London? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) was doing him the favour of listening to what he said, and he hoped he would not call upon him again. A general instruction was sufficient for all purposes in both cases, such instruction coming through the Secretary of State. There was a number of small matters which no Secretary of State would ever dream of giving an instruction upon, and in those matters the Lord Lieutenant would be guided by the general tenour of the instruction he would have received, and not upon a precise order written upon a particular piece of paper.
    MR. GOSCHENsaid, the Solicitor General had now answered the Prime Minister. The great difficulty was as to every case put being referred to the Home Secretary. The argument of the Prime Minister was that the Lord Lieutenant would have to refer to the Minister in every case; but the Solicitor General declared with the greatest emphasis that he would have a general in-
    852
    struction, and that he would be guided by this when he wanted to know what to do. They had now arrived at this point: that the whole of the bugbear about cases being sent to England had been removed by the lucid explanation of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He (Mr. Goschen) hoped he had made the matter clear.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Words added to the proposed Amendment.
    Question put,
    "That the words 'Provided that the prerogative of mercy be exercised by the Lord Lieutenant as representing Her Majesty be there inserted."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 250; Noes 293.—(Division List, No. 188.)
    MR. HARRINGTON (Dublin, Harbour)said, that before the next Amendment was moved it would be a convenience to the Committee if he drew attention to the fact that there were at the present moment 74 Amendment on the Paper to Clause 5. The Resolution of the House would bring to a termination on Thursday the discussion of several clauses besides Clause 5. [Cries of "Order!"] He wished, therefore, to make an appeal to hon. Members in charge of the Amendments to Clause 5 to assist the Committee in coming to a decision on the other Clauses.
    THE CHAIRMAN: There is no Question before the Committee at present. The hon. Member cannot conclude with a Motion.
    MR. J. REDMOND: I beg to move that the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," be now put.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot put that Question. There are some Amendments of substance upon the Paper.
    MR. FISHERsaid, he wished to move—
    In page 3, after line 10, to insert—"(2) The chief executive officer or officers who shall, for the time being, act in the place of the Lord Lieutenant shall be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen in Council."
    On a previous Amendment having reference to making provision for the

    853
    temporary absence of the Lord Lieutenant the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister admitted that it was important to make such provision, but that that was not the proper time to enter upon the discussion of the subject; that the proper time would be after the Bill had passed and when the Lord Lieutenant came to be appointed. To his (Mr. Fisher's) mind, the proper time to consider the question was now. Though it was a small question it was one of considerable importance when they considered that they were altering altogether the whole of the duties and responsibilities of the Lord Lieutenant entirely, giving him the power of veto over the legislation of the Irish Parliament. Let him put a set of circumstances to the Government. Let them suppose that the Bill was passed and that the first Lord Lieutenant had been appointed, and that one of the first acts of the Irish Legislature had been to suspend the operation of the Habeas Corpus Act. The Lord Lieutenant, being unwilling to veto this legislation on the part of the Irish Parliament, and being equally unwilling to give his sanction to it, chose to resign, in that case who would be the person or persons who would step into the place of the Lord Lieutenant; by whom would they be appointed? Would they exercise all the powers of the Lord Lieutenant, including the summoning, proroguing, and dissolving of Parliament, as well as the prerogative of mercy, and of vetoing the legislation of the Irish Parliament? He would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister whether there was any precedent for putting the veto in commission—colonial or otherwise? For his own part, he thought that whether the Deputies of the Lord Lieutenant were the Lords Justices appointed as they were now, or appointed as he had himself suggested they should be, by Her Majesty the Queen in Council, in any case no Deputy or Deputies should be entrusted with the power of the veto. If it had not been for the impatience of hon. Members, he should have been inclined to move a still further Amendment to the effect that in any case those appointed to fill the office of Lord Lieutenant should have the power of vetoing Irish legislation, even
    854
    though it might cause some inconvenience to the Irish Executive to withhold that power, and that it should only be used by the regularly-appointed successor of the Lord Lieutenant; and that in regard to any short period in which it was absolutely essential that the veto should be exercised, it should be exercised by Her Majesty the Queen, acting on the advice of Her Imperial Ministers. He had put down the Amendment for the sake of eliciting some information from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister as to his views on the subject.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 10, after sub-section (1), to insert the words, "(2) The chief executive officer or officers who shall, for the time being, act in the place of the Lord Lieutenant shall be appointed by Her Majesty the Queen in Council."—(Mr. Fisher.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONEwas understood to say that some of the hon. Member's observations were not unworthy of consideration, although the main point he had raised was not touched by the Amendment. The words "in Council" were especially inappropriate.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that those who desired on subsequent clauses to say something as to the composition of the Irish Legislature had rights in this Assembly as much as hon. Gentlemen representing the minority. [Cries of "Question!"] He was putting a question to the Chairman in the most respectful manner. As he understood it, the time limited to these clauses would expire on Thursday next. The question of the composition of the Irish Legislature and other important questions arising on the subsequent clauses the Irish Members desired to speak upon, and he respectfully submitted that it was unfair to those representing the majority of the House that the minority should be allowed to take up all the time on one clause. Those who were desirous of discussing the subsequent clauses were entitled to at least a portion of the time.
    MR. DAELING MR. DAELING (Deptford) rose—
    THE CHAIRMAN: In answer to the hon. and learned Member, I can only

    855
    say that I sincerely hope that all Members who have unimportant Amendments on the Paper will not proceed with them, so as to enable important Amendments to be discussed.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: On the point of Order, if I may express my agreement with you, Sir, I would say I hope that unimportant Amendments will not be proceeded with, but, at the same time, I hope that no effort will be made to curtail the Amendments the minority may have on this clause merely because some gentlemen belonging to the majority may wish to discuss some other Amendments. I pass from that question of Order, as I suppose I may call it, to the Amendment before the Committee, which is not one of those which deserve or should have any very lengthened discussion in the House. At the same time, it is not an Amendment devoid of importance. As I understand, the hon. Gentleman, though he did not touch on the question of putting the veto in commission, thinks that there should be provision in the clause so that the appointment of these officers in certain crises may not be necessary. I agree that the words "in Council" are inappropriate. You cannot get a Council at all times. Therefore, it is not necessary to press those words, but I think it necessary that there should be a means in the Bill for providing substitutes for the Lord Lieutenant whenever they are necessary.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 248; Noes 283.—(Division List, No. 189.)
    THE CHAIRMAN: The next Amendment (Colonel Waring's) is out of Order.
    COLONEL WARINGasked whether it would be in Order at a future stage of the proceedings?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The matter has already been decided on Clause 3, Subsection 1.
    SIR H.JAMES SIR H.JAMES moved to insert, before the word "there," in line 11, the words "after six years from the appointed day." He said, the object of this proposal was that for six years the Executive Government of Ireland should be
    856
    Imperial. It was, of course, impossible for anybody to prophesy what would be the condition of Ireland during the six years following upon the appointed day. Those who were hopeful might conceive that there would be perfect peace in Ireland; whilst, on the other hand, those who distrusted the future governors of Ireland, might fear that great disturbance and conflict would take place; but both classes of people would agree that there must be great uncertainty as to the condition of Ireland during the period named. This uncertainty would result from the fact that the Act was an untried measure, and the condition of Ireland during the first years in which it would be in operation could not be regarded without anxiety. The question was, Ought there to be a suspensory period during which the Act could not be too rashly carried into effect? The Government had already made provision for a suspensory period, and the question was to what extent was that system to be carried into operation? The Government limited the powers of the Irish Executive during the first six years, and, therefore, admitted that it was not to be trusted. It was proposed that the only Police Force existing in Ireland should be under the control not of the Irish Executive, but of the Lord Lieutenant acting on behalf of Her Majesty, as advised by Her Imperial Ministers. Therefore, that which represented the chief agency of the Executive Government was to be taken away from the Irish Executive. The collection of taxes would also be taken away from the Irish Executive. At the same time, during the first six years the Judges were to be appointed by the Imperial Government, and not by the Irish Executive. There was also to be a suspensory period of three years, during which the land was not to be dealt with by the Irish Legislature. What would be the condition, therefore, of the Irish Executive under the present proposition of the Government? The Sovereign was to be represented in Ireland by the Lord Lieutenant, who would be a local Monarch as the name implied. He did not wish to go into the Debate of last night, but he felt bound to refer to it. He had not contradicted the Solicitor General just now, because his hon. and learned Friend had

    857
    displayed so much physical energy as to somewhat terrify him; but the Committee had been told that there were to be three Executives in Ireland, and not, as the Solicitor General said, two. The first Executive, according to the Chief Secretary, would be the Lord Lieutenant as the representative of the Imperial Government; the second would be the Irish Executive dealing with matters purely Irish; and the third would be an Executive dealing with internal matters, but matters which were retained by the Imperial Parliament. With respect to the third of these classes, the Chief Secretary had said that the Lord Lieutenant, with regard to such matters, would take such advice as he thought fit from the President of the Board of Trade, or any other British Minister. When he (Sir H. James) had inquired who would be answerable for the advice given to the Lord Lieutenant, no answer at all was given. He thought he could bring home to the Committee what might arise under the condition that would prevail in Ireland. In Ireland, if at any time the Lord Lieutenant chose to declare that there was danger of rebellion or invasion great power was placed in his hands. It might be held that if any body of people refused generally to pay taxes it would amount to treason and to rebellion. In that case the Lord Lieutenant might declare the Habeas Corpus Act suspended in Ireland simply by his own proclamation. The Lord Lieutenant had this power by an Irish Act of 21 & 22 Geo. III. He presumed that, this being a statutory power, it would not be controlled by the power of delegation, and that what the Lord Lieutenant could do by Statute, with the advice of his Privy Council, he would be able to do with the advice of his Executive Committee. That being so, it would be possible to imprison, without power of relief, any subject of the Queen in Ireland with whom the Executive Committee would come in conflict, if such persons were, in the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant, in a state of rebellion. Last night the question of the police was referred to. As a matter of fact, the Executive Government in Ireland would not have the power to order a single policeman from one station to another. Well, if
    858
    for six years the Government would not give the Irish Government the charge of the police, how could they place upon them the responsibility of maintaining peace and good order in Ireland? The Government admitted, of course, that peace and good order must be maintained; but, at the same moment, they were taking away from the Executive Government the only means by which they could maintain it. According to the Solicitor General, there would be only two Executive Authorities in Ireland, and in that case if, say, disorder arose in County Clare, the Lord Lieutenant would have to decide what was to be done, not on the advice of his Executive Council, but without any advice whatever, unless the Magistrates formally communicated to him how, in their opinion, he ought to act. Then there was the question of the collection of taxes. Supposing they had to be collected by force, who was to make the collection? As a matter of fact, the Bill would make the Lord Lieutenant carry on the duty of government, while, at the same time, it would create a second Executive Government, with which he would often be in conflict.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 11, before the word "There,', to insert the words "After six years from the appointed day."—(Sir H. James.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE MR. W. E. GLADSTONE, who was indistinctly heard, was understood to speak as follows: My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the Act of 21 & 22 Geo. III., which enables the Lord Lieutenant upon certain conditions, one being that actual invasion or rebellion has taken place, to proclaim the suspension of the Act. What connection, I would ask, is there between that argument and my right hon. Friend's speech? It is a common thing now in this Committee to move Amendments and say nothing in their favour. [Cries of "Oh!"] Yes, again and again, and again and again. There was not one word said on behalf of the Amendment by my right hon. Friend from beginning to end. The Act referred to by my right hon. Friend may call for correction or not, but what

    859
    has that to do with the present Amendment? Now, Sir, by the leave of my right hon. Friend—and I hope he will forgive me—I will endeavour to consider the Amendment. It is of course a liberty, but still it is a liberty which I think it necessary to take. In the first place, my right hon. Friend must be aware that if the Amendment were carried it would simply, by a single stroke, be the destruction of the Bill. I suppose he knows enough of Ireland and enough of the Representatives of Ireland in this House to judge that I believe those gentlemen—I mean the four-fifths of them who support what I call the National cause—would at once refuse to support this Bill, and that the whole mass of their constituents would follow in their train. If I am wrong in that I am most certainly wrong in my estimate of their character. Certainly, if I were an Irishman myself, I would reject the Bill containing the provision proposed by right hon. Friend. The proposal of my right hon. Friend is to leave Ireland without a Government to direct and influence the Irish Legislature. Who would ask the Legislature for money under such circumstances? Who would carry on all the operations of legislation required in Ireland? Would this all be done by the Home Office of this country? There are no persons who are authorised to do so. The Executive that would be required has no existence at this moment, and the case is, therefore, different even from that of Grattan's Parliament. Who would pay the gentlemen whom I suppose my right hon. Friend would appoint to carry on Executive duties during the six years—the set of gentlemen who would have to go to Ireland to conduct as well as they could the operations and communications of the Viceroy with the Irish Cabinet? They would be Imperial affairs. The Government of this country would send over this staff of men to carry on business in Ireland, and they would have to ask the House of Commons to pay them for six years. My right hon. Friend ought to tell us what is his view on this point.
    SIR H. JAMES: They would be paid from the same source as the Exchequer Judges.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The Exchequer Judges have duties to perform in
    860
    connection with Imperial interests. These are not Imperial interests, but Irish domestic interests. The Irish Parliament would not vote a farthing for the purpose of paying for those Imperial affairs, and no man in England would come down to this House and ask for a Vote for the purpose. I confess I am greatly astounded at my right hon. Friend's proposal. I could have understood him if he had proposed to amend the Habeas Corpus Act. He used an argument somewhat of this kind. He said—"You are going to deprive the Irish Executive of various functions. You take from them the function of managing the Constabulary for six years. You take from them the function of collecting the Revenue, and, therefore, there would be nothing for the Irish Executive to do, and you need not have one at all." Well, Sir, as respects these Executive duties, my right hon. Friend quite forgot that the Irish Legislature has, if it thinks fit to use it, the power during six years of imposing new taxes.
    SIR H. JAMES: I said so.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Then who is to manage that business but the Irish Executive? Then there is the new police, the establishment of which will be one of the earliest duties of the Irish Executive. In point of fact, it is absolutely essential for the legislative power that there should be an Executive in Ireland. The persons who are to carry on the business of Ireland, as far as domestic affairs are concerned, do not exist in Ireland at this present moment, and the Executive cannot be worked from this country. The poor people whom my right hon. Friend would have to call into existence, unless there is a private subscription of Members of Parliament to provide them with bread and butter, would have no means of living. But, however that may be, I think that the Amendment, if carried, would be absolutely fatal to the Bill, and would be an undoing of the work of the last 50 days. This is not the way to undo that work. If it is to be undone it ought to be undone by some direct vote of the House of Commons.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: My right hon. Friend at the commencement of his very interesting speech referred to my right

    861
    hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment, and while crediting him with good faith in moving the Amendment made an insinuation which, if it saved his good faith, would, at all events, leave an imputation upon his intellectual capacity. My right hon. Friend said that my right hon. and learned Friend, in moving this Amendment, followed a course which had been taken in regard to various previous Amendments and said nothing in its favour.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: For the greater part of his speech.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Well, I am bound to say that in the greater part of the speech to which we have just listened nothing has been said against the Amendment, and we have as much reason to complain of the scant attention given to our Amendments by my right hon. Friend as he has to complain of our not supporting them. My right hon. and learned Friend laid great stress on the alternative to his proposal, and pointed out that very grave and serious complications and difficulties would arise in this provisional term of six years during which you are to have a Legislature in Ireland, which is to be charged with the peace, order, and good government of that country, and which at the same time, both as regards itself and as regards the Executive, is to have no power whatever over the police, the Judges, the land, and finance. Well, Sir, to all these difficulties, of which sufficient illustrations were certainly given by my right hon. and learned Friend, the Prime Minister has not made a single word of reply. I will come to the point on which my right hon. Friend did reply. He referred to one of the illustrations given by the Mover of the Amendment, who pointed out that under certain circumstances the Lord Lieutenant, acting on the advice of his Irish Executive, would have the power of suspending habeas corpus. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) said that was only in case of actual rebellion. Of course that is so, and that was stated. But who is to be the judge of what is a state of actual rebellion? The Lord Lieutenant. Would a general refusal on the part of the people of Ulster to pay taxes to the Irish Parliament be considered a state of rebellion?
    862
    I can well conceive that an Executive Committee of the Irish Legislature would most distinctly so regard it; and if the Lord Lieutenant took the same view, he would have the right and the power to imprison every one of the political opponents of hon. Members opposite by suspending the Habeas Corpus Act. My right hon. Friend said that an adequate remedy would be a repeal of the Act of George III., and that we proposed nothing of the kind. No; but what we are doing is to propose that, at all events during the period which must be a most critical time in the history of this new Legislature, the power of suspension should not be in the hands of anyone advised by the Irish Executive. It would, under the Amendment, remain in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, but he would have to be advised by the English Executive. Then the First Lord of the Treasury brought forward his great, his oft-repeated argument that the Amendment would mean the destruction of the Bill, because the Irish Members opposite do not like it.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No, no!
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Have I misquoted the right hon. Gentleman?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Ireland would scorn it.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Let me express some surprise at that confident assertion. Grattan's Parliament, after all, as the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, had no Irish Executive. Mr. O'Connell, who was a patriotic Irishman, never asked for an Irish Executive; and Mr. Parnell, who also was a patriotic Irishman, and at a much later date, stated that the least Irishmen would accept would be Grattan's Parliament. Under these circumstances, it does not seem to me that it would be an insult to the Irish people to offer the equivalent of Grattan's Parliament. But the Prime Minister went on to make use of a most curious argument. He said that in the time of Grattan's Parliament there was practically an English Executive which abused its position and was guilty of corruption.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I did not say an English Executive. I said

    863
    an Executive composed of the ascendency party, which was, unfortunately, the British garrison in Ireland—an Executive protected and sanctioned by the English governing class.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, I accept that correction, but it comes to the same thing. The Executive, at any rate, was not responsible to Grattan's Parliament. It was practically an Executive under British influence, and, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, was supported by the ascendency party, which was the British garrison. But granting, for the sake of present argument, that that Executive misbehaved itself in those days, there is not the slightest ground for supposing that an English Executive of to-day would similarly misbehave itself. The present Chief Secretary has not, I presume, been employed in corrupting anyone. The right hon. Gentleman at present represents the British Executive in Ireland, and whatever may have been the action of the British Representatives in Grattan's Parliament, there is no reason to fear that after six years any person so employed would commit any of the crimes and offences which the right hon. Gentleman imputes to the British Executive. The right hon. Gentleman goes on to say that there must be some kind of Executive in Ireland, and he asks by whom will it be paid? I assume by the Irish Parliament. During the six years that will elapse from the passing of the Act the Judges of the Supreme Court, other than the Exchequer Judges, are to be appointed by the Imperial Parliament, and yet to be paid by the Irish Parliament.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: As much as the Irish Parliament pleases.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: That is rather a suggestive statement of the right hon. Gentleman. I did not know that it was intended to recommend this transitory situation to the Irish Members opposite by suggesting to them that their legal obligations could be satisfied by paying to these Judges some ridiculous and utterly inadequate sum; and yet, if there is any meaning in the right hon. Gentleman's interruption, that is what it comes to. I think any question of payment need not be seriously raised. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that this Executive, if appointed for the
    864
    purpose suggested, would be an intrusion, because the matters with which the Irish Executive would have to deal would be Irish matters. But for the next six years Irish police and Irish finance will remain Imperial matters, over which the Irish Legislature will have no control. We are dealing with that transitory period. Then the right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh! but although finance will remain an Imperial interest, the Irish Parliament may want to impose new taxes and raise a new police, and they have the power to do it." In answer to that I would appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have said that the country is so poor that it will be impossible to raise additional taxation from it, and that it will be impossible to raise new police. I understand that the intention is, that the police shall be local, raised and controlled by the Local Authorities, and surely the right hon. Gentleman does not contemplate a force for all Ireland—an Irish police—for the purpose, for in. stance, of keeping order in Tipperary Skibbereen, or Waterford. In my view, the Irish police will be raised, as in England, by the Irish Municipalities, and will be under local control. If that is so, there would be no Irish interests with which this Executive would have to deal. The real reason why these Amendments are met with scorn and contempt by the Government is because the Irish Members will not allow them to be inserted in the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman puts altogether beyond the question of the merits of the Amendment the fact that the Irish Members would vote against it, and that their so voting would destroy the Bill. Of course, under the circumstances, if we are to move our Amendments without any hope of their being accepted on their merits, our appeal must be made to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, he must say a word to correct the right hon. Gentleman's misrepresentation of the statement made by Mr. Parnell. The right hon. Gentleman had said that when Mr. Parnell said Ireland would not accept less than Grattan's Parliament, he meant that Ireland would accept a Parliament without an Executive responsible to it. Mr. Parnell had not in his mind at the time, and no one had in his mind save perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, any

    865
    reference whatever to an Executive. In referring to Grattan's Parliament Mr. Parnell meant to refer to the scope of the Legislative Authority, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite did not seem to know what that scope was. That scope was as wide as the Parliament of Great Britain. Grattan's Parliament was coordinate with, and independent of, the British Parliament. Grattan's Parliament—and this also answered the right hon. Gentleman with regard to O'Connell—being co-ordinate and independent, if matters had been allowed to proceed upon the old lines and affairs had not been interrupted by the unfortunate recall of Lord Fitzwilliam in 1795, the Irish Executive would have come under the control of the Irish Parliament in the same way that the English Executive had come under the control of the Imperial Parliament.
    MR. PARKER SMITHwas understood to say that one of the main arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister against the Amendment was that the Irish would not accept it; but the fact was that the Irish Members would take what they could get, and if they would refuse the Bill rather than take it with the Amendment they were more foolish than he gave them credit for being. What the Unionist Members objected to was that so large an offer had been made to the Irish Members irrespective of the interests of Great Britain, and that when the question arose of reducing the scheme to something more advantageous to the few people who happened to live on this side of the water their being told that the scheme could not be modified because the Irish Members would not accept a modification. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to Grattan's Parliament. He (Mr. Smith) would not enter into that question, but the right hon. Gentleman had quoted Fox, and had asked whether the Liberal Unionists were still Foxites. Well, they were Foxites, but Foxites before 1793. They agreed with the great body of Dissentient Liberals of that day and with Mr. Pitt and the friends of Fox, who did not find it possible to defend the action that Lord Fitzwilliam had taken. That was the policy of the Whig Party which he (Mr. Smith) and his friends
    866
    accepted. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister spoke of the impossibility of the Legislature acting without having the Executive under its control. The right hon. Gentleman spoke as if he had never known of any Legislature being in that position. But this Legislature of ours was an exception to the general rule. The right hon. Gentleman was not correct in assuming that the Executive was under the control of the Legislature in all countries, for there were many countries in the world where the two Bodies were independent of each other. For a great many reasons it would be wholesome to give a temporary period of legislative activity to Ireland before they had the full responsibility of controlling the Executive. Many powers were suspended in the Bill. Moreover, whenever any difficulty arose, some right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench said—"That is all very well, but the thing will work itself out when we come to discuss it in practice." He must say he considered it important, if all these questions were to be left to work themselves out, that there should be a fixed time during which they could peaceably and placidly work themselves out—during which it would simply be a matter of discussion between the Irish Legislature on the one side and the Imperial Legislature on the other.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 142; Noes 187.—(Division List, No. 190.)
    MR. PARKER SMITHsaid, the Amendment which stood next on the Paper in his name—namely,
    In page 3, line 11, to leave out" an Executive Committee of the Privy Council," and insert "a Cabinet,"
    raised an interesting question, but owing to the pressure of time under which the Committee now laboured he did not propose to move it.
    CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND*CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND (Colchester) rose to move, in page 3, line 11, to leave out "Executive." He said the clause was one which, to his mind, was eminently calculated to find out the weak spots of the Party opposite, and it was probably for that reason that the Prime Minister proposed that all discussion upon it should be stifled, and that practically no discussion should take place upon it at all. It was not an

    867
    "accidental Amendment"; it did not appear on the Paper isolated and alone; on the contrary, it was a part of the general scheme that he was attempting to graft on the Bill. The object of the Amendment was that the Executive power being vested in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, the various heads of the Department should be simply a consultative Body to advise the Lord Lieutenant. He was in favour of decentralisation carried out upon as wide and generous a basis as possible, and of Local Government all round—but he meant strictly Local Government in the sense of Professor Dicey on Local Government—
    "Strictly defined powers, to be delegated to strictly constituted Local Bodies, in strictly limited areas and jurisdictions."
    But when they proposed to apply the system of decentralisation to Ireland there were three conditions which he considered it necessary to observe before he consented: the exemption of Ulster from the provisions of the Bill, the protection of the loyal minority as regarded their lives, religion, and property, in the three southern provinces; and the practical and effective supremacy of the Imperial Parliament at Westminster. Under the Bill they were going to have two Executives—the Executive of the Irish Parliament, and, under certain circumstances, the Executive formed by the Lord Lieutenant, who was empowered, acting under the instructions of Her Majesty, to veto any Bill of the Irish Parliament. Supposing there were a conflict between the two—between the Lord Lieutenant on the one hand and the Parliament on the other—the question would arise which of the two possessed the strongest Executive. His proposal was to reduce the two Executives into one. This Bill for the government of Ireland was founded, in the main, upon three Constitutions: the Constitution of the Island of Samos, according to a wrong Scotch view of American Home Rule, and the Constitution of Croatia. In the latter there existed a precedent for the course he was recommending. The Croatians had a Legislature of their own, but they sent 40 Deputies to the Legislature at Pesth. The control of Croatian affairs was divided between five administrative offices—Home, Finance, Public Worship,
    868
    Education, and Justice. He found in M. Dareste's book, Constitutions Modernes, that the whole of the Croatian Constitution was set forth, and it formed a perfectly analogous case. It was there stated—
    "At the head of the Local Government is the Ban, and the departments placed under his orders (namely, Home and Finance, Public Worship and Education, and Justice) are perfectly independent of one another within their allotted spheres of duty, and are not in any respect whatsoever subordinate to one another."
    In the United States of America at the present time the Secretaries of State were purely consultative. Their business was to advise the President, and nothing else. They had not even seats in the Legislature.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 11, to leave out the word "Executive," and insert the word "Consultative."—(Captain Naylor-Leyland.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Executive,' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. J. MORLEY: I do not know so much as the hon. and gallant Member knows of the Constitution of Croatia, but I fail to see how the attributes of the Ban affect the Amendment. The plain question raised by the Amendment is whether the Privy Council of the Lord Lieutenant is to be a mere set of dummies whom the Lord Lieutenant may choose to call in to consult or whether they are to be the responsible heads of Executive Departments? According to the Amendment there would be, on the one hand, a Legislature passing Resolutions and making laws, and, on the other, a Lord Lieutenant listening to a set of gentlemen chosen merely to talk to him. That is not part of the system of any of our Colonies; it is not the system of Germany, France, Italy, or any part of the Continent of Europe except, possibly, Croatia. The word "consultative" is unknown to our Constitution, and certainly would make a complete shipwreck of that which this Bill proposes to establish.
    MR. RENTOULsaid, the Chief Secretary told them that the system proposed in this Amendment was not the system of any of our Colonies or of any country in Europe except, perhaps, Croatia. That statement of the Chief Secretary might apply to almost every part of the Bill, because, with regard to the vast majority of the provisions of the

    869
    Bill, they were not in existence in any place on earth, and probably never would be. They were told by the Prime Minister that they proposed their Amendments, and had not the courage to make a speech upon them. [Mr. J. MORLEY: "Argument" was the word.] He thought the complaint was the other way. The illustration which the right hon. Gentleman gave was an unfortunate one for him. The illustration he cited was an Amendment about Freemasons. That Amendment was moved by himself (Mr. Rentoul). As soon as he announced his Amendment, and before he got an opportunity of delivering a speech the Amendment was ruled out of Order, as he knew it would be, because the whole ground had been covered before by an Amendment which was discussed at great length, and the objection made to that Amendment was that while all the speeches were about Freemasons, the Amendment was so wide as to cover the Liberator Building Society, the Freemasons, and other disreputable Bodies. ["No, no!"] That was as they understood the allusion at the time, although they knew the Prime Minister subsequently stated he had only mentioned the Liberator Building Society by way of illustration. The object of the present Amendment was, instead of having the Lord Lieutenant advised by Ministers in Ireland, or the heads of Departments in Ireland, whose advice he would be, from a certain point of view, bound to accept, to have the Lord Lieutenant under the control of the Imperial Parliament, he being solely responsible to the Imperial Government, so that he could not excuse himself if he did anything wrong by saying that he had followed the instructions of Ministers whose advice he was bound to take. The Lord Lieutenant, under that Bill, would be in that extraordinary capacity which none of them were able to understand or conceive how it would work out. It did seem to him, therefore, that the Amendment did raise a clear and distinct point—namely, that the Lord Lieutenant should be responsible, and could not cast the responsibility on any other shoulders. The Amendment desired that the Executive in Ireland, in the Lord Lieutenant, should be a real Executive, which could be questioned by the Government in that House, and over
    870
    which that House should have some real and valid control. In Croatia, as he understood it, there were five chief Departments; there was a head of each of these Departments, and that head had no power of control. The Chief of the Executive, when he had to decide on a question of finance, went to the Minister of Finance, got the benefit of his opinion, and acted upon that opinion or not, just as he chose; but he could not shelter himself behind the excuse that he had received an opinion from the Minister of Finance which he was bound to accept and carry out. The same was the case with regard to the United States of America; and that being so, it was not strange that this Amendment should be moved, seeing that this Home Rule Bill was largely moulded, as they all understood, on the American Constitution. It seemed that whenever any part of the American Constitution was cited by them which was not favourable to the Bill as at present drafted by those in charge of it, that was assumed to be a part of the American Constitution which should be passed over as unworthy to be accepted. If they took the main features of the Bill from the American Constitution what could be the argument against carrying out this Amendment? The Executive was left in the hands of the President of the United States of America, who might or might not seek advice from Ministers. Why should not the same thing be done in Ireland, and the Lord Lieutenant allowed to seek advice when he wanted it, and then act on his own responsibility and carry out the Executive Government of Ireland, so that that Executive Government might be carried out by an official who could be made directly responsible to that House?
    SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, his reason for rising was to offer some reply to what had been said by the Chief Secretary. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he knew of no instance of a powerful Executive officer aided by a Consultative Committee.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I said in Europe—in Western Europe.
    SIR R. TEMPLEasked, would the right hon. Gentleman be surprised to hear that in Whitehall, which was included in Western Europe, there was

    871
    such an instance? The Secretary of State for India was a powerful Executive officer, who controlled the destinies of 288,000,000 people. If he was not a powerful Executive officer he did not know who was, and the Secretary for India was aided by a Consultative Committee, exactly as was proposed by the Amendment. The Chief Secretary would regard any precedent from their Indian Empire as totally unworthy of consideration. [Mr. J. MORLEY: No, no!] He would ask the right hon. Gentleman, however, to remember that every precedent in their Eastern Empire was created not by any Body out there, but by that House. Every single part of the Constitution of India was composed by legislation in that House; therefore it was worthy of consideration as being inaugurated and carried out by the British Parliament. The idea of a Legislative Body which had no Executive power was entirely familiar to every statesman who had ruled the Indian Empire. In that Empire there were at least four Legislatures, every one of which legislated with great advantage to all the social and domestic concerns of 40,000,000 of inhabitants on the average for each—
    MR. J. MORLEY: Elected Bodies on a household franchise.
    SIR E. TEMPLEreplied, they were not Elected Bodies on a household franchise, but they were in part Elected Bodies. If the right hon. Gentleman had studied the Journals of that House during the last Session, he would know they were now partly elected under Rules which, after much discussion, were passed by the House of Commons; but he presumed the right hon. Gentleman was so much absorbed with purely British that he did not condescend to study Indian affairs. He (Sir R. Temple) himself for years sat as a member of the Viceroy's Council, which had no Executive power. He had presided over two Legislative Councils which had no Executive power. The Chief Secretary spoke of the impracticability of having an independent officer who had got an independent Legislature on his flank. But that was just the position of the Viceroy of India and the Governors of the various Presidencies. The Viceroy or the Governor of a Presidency could not
    872
    impose taxation without the assent of the Legislative Council, therefore there was that sort of position of a great Executive officer with a Legislative Council in his flank which was entirely independent, which could not be made to vote to order, and which was in part elective. The object of that Amendment, like a good many others which had been pressed within the last two days, and which they should continue to press during the two days before the guillotine should descend, was to minimise if possible, and at least to mitigate, the objections to Home Rule by establishing
    an independent Executive. If they must have a Home Rule Parliament in Dublin let them at least have an Imperial Executive. They desired to make the Lord Lieutenant wholly and absolutely independent of the Irish Legislature. He would, of course, in most cases act in harmony and unison with the Legislature; but if he was asked to do anything which he considered un-Constitutional, at least let him have the power to refer to Westminster for orders or directions. The necessity for such reference would very seldom arise, because the Irish Legislature, knowing he had this power in reserve, would take care, on the whole, to act lawfully and constitutionally.
    GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYsaid, the Chief Secretary had stated that this Amendment was designed to wreck the Bill, but the Amendment was not moved in that spirit. The Bill had wrecked itself. The object of that and other Amendments was to show what would be palatable to English Members if they were both to have a Bill of this sort at all. He believed the Bill would never become law, but many of the Amendments might very well be considered in the event of another Home Rule Bill being framed, and their adoption would, at any rate, render such a Bill more acceptable to the country. They would never pass a Bill like the present, which went directly against such a large minority as there was in that House. The Government, however, would not consider any Amendment from the minority, because they were obliged to consult the wishes of their allies below the Gangway, and to act according as those gentlemen desired.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is in error. The Government are not obliged to consult us, nor are they obliged to obey our wishes. [Opposition cries of "Oh, oh!"] The hon. Gentleman who sits at the far end of the Bench, who was lately the Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Sir E. Ashmead-Bartlett), if he had paid more attention to the Debates than he has paid, and if he had adorned the House more frequently during the progress of the Debates than he does by his casual visits during which he favours us with many interruptions, would be aware, as he appears not to be, that we have cordially accepted some Amendments to the Bill; and, in the second place, that the Government against our wishes and against our strength in the Division Lobby have inserted in the Bill Amendments of which we did not approve. That is a sufficient reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The Government have the same freedom with regard to the Irish Members as to consultation and obedience as in regard to any other Members, and the proof is that we have not always succeeded in pressing upon the Government our wishes with regard to Amendments.
    MR. RENTOUL: That is part of the game.
    MR. SEXTON: The hon. and learned Gentleman says that is part of the game. As an Ulster Unionist Member he is well acquainted with games. We know that there is a certain game—the game of mock treason which is being played under the advice of the learned Gentleman and others for the last few months, and which, in spite of the craft of its learned devisers, is too shallow to need exposure. The hon. and gallant Gentleman has just said that the rejection of this Amendment will secure that the country will condemn the Bill. Now I should be quite willing that this Amendment should go before the country, and should be studied to-morrow by every elector in the United Kingdom as a proof of the un-Constitutional and hypocritical spirit which dominates the opposition to this Bill. The Amendment is one of those—and there are many of them—already determined by the Second Reading of this Bill. [Cries of "No, no!"] Unquestionably, and before the Bill was brought in already determined
    874
    by the electors. [Opposition cries of "Oh, oh!"] I suppose it is not denied that there is a majority on our side. Well, the question submitted to the electors a million times in the course of the last seven years in every leading article in newspapers, and in every speech at every election, was whether or not there should be in Ireland a Legislature; and not only a Legislature, but an Executive dependent upon that Legislature. That is the essential fundamental part of the principle. We should not have agreed to accept any Constitution for Ireland if you only gave us a Legislature because we know from the experience of Grattan's Parliament that a Legislature, without an Executive dependent upon it contains within itself the seeds of decay, and that in fact no machinery for making good laws, however effectual it may be, can secure the prosperity, happiness, or liberty of a people unless the administration of the laws made by the Legislature is within the sphere of its jurisdiction. That is part of the fundamental principle; and now what is the modest proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman drawn from the illustrious example of Croatia, in regard to which, however, I notice that he did not say that the plan of Croatia acted without any regard to the advice of Ministers, nor yet did he say that the Ministers are not responsible in some sense to the Local Legislature? It is very curious that the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who made an interesting speech, disclosing a close i study of the question, carefully omitted to | say any one thing relevant to the Amendment, or attempted to justify his Amendment to the House; because he was bound to show, in order to prove the analogy, either that the plan of Croatia pays no regard to the opinion of Ministers, or that they are not selected out of those who command the confidence of the Local Diet or that the Ministers do not lose office when they lose the confidence of the Local Diet. If he had been able to show any of these three things he would have established some analogy. But he was silent on those points; he did not attempt to prove that analogy, and that analogy was not made. The scheme of the Bill is that in Irish affairs which come within the domain of the Irish

    875
    Legislature the Lord Lieutenant shall call to office in Ireland such persons as command the confidence of the Irish Assembly.
    MR. RENTOUL: Where is that?
    MR. SEXTON: That is the scheme of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman must be aware that, in framing a Constitution for Ireland or for any other part of the British Empire, it is not attempted to draw the details of the Constitution in precise language, but the scheme of such Constitutions throughout the British Empire is that the Governor or Lord Lieutenant selects for office persons who command the confidence of the Local Legislature; that he acts upon their advice; and that he, being in the position of a Constitutional Monarch, the Ministers are responsible to the Legislature for such advice, and for the action following upon it. That is what establishes the control of the Legislature in the sphere of administration. What does the hon. and gallant Gentleman propose? What the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes, and what the other hon. and gallant Gentleman says should be brought about if the Bill is to be acceptable to the country, and not looked upon with contempt, is that the Lord Lieutenant should be able to take any persons in the country he chooses to put in office. Where he is to get them or on what principle of selection he is to find them I do not know.
    CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND: From the heads of offices.
    MR. SEXTON: How are they chosen?
    CAPTAIN NAYLOR-LEYLAND: By Parliament.
    MR. SEXTON: The heads of offices are chosen by Parliament, and this is the theory of the hon. and gallant Gentleman: that the Parliament elected by the people, having chosen certain officers from the different heads of offices, these persons may then advise the Lord Lieutenant, and their advice may not be taken. Is not that bringing the Legislature into contempt? The people choose the Legislature; the people choose the persons to hold office; and then, even in regard to the administration of their own officers whom they are to appoint and control, this advice is to have no effect.
    MR. RENTOUL: The Lord Lieutenant need not accept their advice.
    MR. SEXTON: The acute Ulster gentleman who discovers a new game so readily thinks he has made a new point, and he says the Lord Lieutenant would not be bound to act upon their advice, I describe that as saying that their advice would have no effect, because whenever their advice had an effect it would not be because it was their advice, but because the Lord Lieutenant in his personal discretion was pleased to act upon it. Therefore, it would be his discretion and not their advice that would be the operative force. I say, then, that in a scheme which has been before the country for the last seven years, so far as the main principle is concerned—[Opposition cries of "Oh, oh!"] Have not the electors been asked for the last seven years whether they were willing to give Ireland a Legislature or an Executive? The Committee have already determined that in regard to affairs of Imperial administration the Lord Lieutenant should be subject to instruction from British Ministers. The hon. and gallant Gentleman now wishes the Committee to resolve that in matters of Irish administration the Lord Lieutenant should act on his own discretion. I say that that proposal is incompatible with the scheme which has been determined by the House and by the electors, for it is a proposal to confine to a personal despotism the whole administration of Ireland.
    COMMANDER BETHELL(who was indistinctly heard in the Reporters' Gallery) said, he must express his surprise at the statement of the hon. Member for Kerry that this scheme had been before the country for seven years. If his hon. and gallant Friend went to a Division he should support him, for he felt that no Amendment to this Bill could do any harm if none could do any good.
    SIR J. GORSTsaid, he would like to say a few words on the Amendment, as (he question to be put from the Chair was that the word "Executive" stand part of the clause; and this, he thought, was the proper time to make a final representation to the Government, and ask them to consider whether the Executive Council proposed by the Bill would really be able to conduct the affairs of Ireland to the satisfaction to the people of either Ireland

    877
    or the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Kerry said the Bill had been before the country for seven years.
    MR. SEXTON: I said the principle.
    SIR J. GORST: Yes; the principle only. The country had been asked to agree to an Irish Legislature, but it had no plan before it. "General principle" sounded very plausible; but how were they to carry that into effect? It was only when this Bill was produced that they had a plan. He had studied the Bill with the very greatest care, and had tried to look upon it as a scheme for the government of Ireland; but he did not see how it could work. If the Bill had given to Ireland a Constitution like those of Canada or Australia, this clause might have been passed with some expectation that, as far as the Government of Ireland was concerned, the scheme would work. But could anyone believe that it would work in practice? He had listened to speeches of the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. J. Bryce) and the Chief Secretary (Mr. J. Morley); but he had imagination enough to put aside theoretical disquisitions from the Treasury Bench, and to look at the question from a vulgar, practical, common-sense standpoint—as he always did in politics. That being so, he would remind the Committee that a Colonial Governor received advice from Colonial Ministers and acted upon it; but the Lord Lieutenant was not intended to reign merely. He was partly to follow the advice of Ministers chosen by the Irish Legislature and partly to follow instructions from a Secretary of State in London. There was no example of such a form of government working well.
    MR. SEXTON: Canada.
    SIR J. GORST: The affairs of a Colony were under the direction of its Ministers, and the interference of a Governor was a very rare thing, and had regard only to external and Imperial affairs.
    MR. J. MORLEY: Canada.
    SIR J. GORSTsaid, it was a very natural error the Chief Secretary fell into when he mentioned Canada. The Solicitor General (Sir J. Rigby) made a like mistake. The Colonial Minister had the direction of affairs, as he had said, and the Governor rarely interfered, and then only in external or, as they would be called, Imperial matters. But that did not correspond with the Consti-
    878
    tution which the Bill provided for Ireland. The Viceroy was to interfere at every turn with the details of local administration. What Colonial Administration would go on for a month if the Governor were to interfere with the collection and the control of the taxes? Many questions would arise on the borderland between the spheres of influence of the Irish Ministers and of the Lord Lieutenant; and who was to determine on which side of the line the decision should be given? Who was to say, "This is not within the province of the Irish Legislature"? If the Lord Lieutenant were an ordinary man—and he probably would be—he would fall more and more into the hands of his Irish advisers from a desire to keep things quiet. Supported by the majority of the Legislature, the Irish Ministers would encroach more and more upon the functions of the Viceroy, and gradually all the restrictions in the Bill would be swept away, until the Viceroy would be reduced to the position held by the like official in the Colonies. Was this what the House of Commons meant? Were they to understand that the Viceroy was to be a real power? He recollected some brave words of the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. H. H. Fowler) on the Second Reading of the Bill; and he should like to know whether the Government were content that when this Bill passed the Viceroy should be subject to the majority of the Irish Legislature? If they took the other side—supposing they had a strong Lord Lieutenant, and a strong Secretary of State in England to instruct and prevent the Viceroy yielding to the wishes of the Irish Legislature—what would happen in that case? Would there not be a conflict between the Cabinet in Ireland and the Imperial Representatives? He was not putting an imaginary case. He was speaking from experience, for he had seen the Government and Ministers of a Colony in bitter controversy in such circumstances. They had been told one of the objects of the Bill was to remove the Irish Question from the British Parliament, and leave it free to deal with British subjects. Did they think they could keep the Irish Question out of the Imperial Parliament if such conflicts as he indicated should arise? Bitter controversies would surely be roused under the operation of the Act,

    879
    and the Lord Lieutenant would find himself absolutely powerless to give effect to his own will and to discharge the duty imposed upon him. He might be unsuccessful in his appeal to the Government, but he asked independent Members to reflect that the double Government proposed was a system which had always broken down wherever it had been tried. That was his experience; and if the Government persisted in trying this system it must inevitably end in confusion. He thought it only right to speak on this Amendment in order to warn the Government of the disastrous and reckless character of the experiment they proposed to try.
    MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the clause was an attempt to set up in Ireland the Cabal, or what we called the Cabinet, and the Lord Lieutenant, acting in the different capacities, would constantly be at variance with himself. He did not see how this part of the scheme could prove workable; and, indeed, it seemed to him that the proposal of the Government was the most absurd of all the absurdities of this absurd Bill.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 215; Noes 167.—(Division List, No. 191.)
    SIR H. JAMESsaid, he wished to move to omit the words—
    "being of such numbers and comprising persons holding such offices as Her Majesty may think fit, or as may be directed by Irish Act,"
    in Sub-section 2, for the purpose of inserting—
    "such persons as Her Majesty may from time to time think fit and direct."
    The scheme of the Bill was crude and unworkable, and he hoped the Government would enter upon the discussion with some desire to meet the objections to be urged against it. According to the proposal of the Bill, no persons were to be selected, but certain offices were to be fixed upon; and that having been done, the holders of those offices were to form the Executive Committee. The offices were not named, but they were to be designated in two ways: either by Her Majesty or by an Irish Act of Parliament. His Amendment proposed that, instead of selecting offices and making the holders the members of the Executive Committee, persons should be chosen, and that the choice should be by the Crown and not
    880
    by an Irish Act of Parliament. If the offices were to be chosen by an Irish Act, and the office-holders were to form the Executive Committee, then it was by Irish Act that they selected the Executive Committee. In dealing with the first question, he would ask which was the more convenient way of selecting the Committee? Was it by declaring, according to hard-and-fast lines, that it should consist of the holders of certain offices, or by choosing the individuals according to merit? There might be moments of great difficulty when they might wish to call into counsel persons of experience, and yet, under the Bill, they would be unable to do so, because such persons would not be holders of offices. In the case of a rebellion, for instance, they might desire to call in an experienced military officer to aid the Government, and yet they would not be able to do so through his not being the holder of any office designated under this clause. In this country they had had persons made Members of the Government without holding a portfolio, and it had been found useful that such an arrangement should be made. What in Ireland would be the advantage of the office-holding qualification? Why not adopt the system which prevailed in the Imperial Parliament? They were deviating from the system under which the Crown had the best opportunity of service from the most experienced and faithful servants. If they suggested such a scheme for Great Britain as that proposed in the Bill it would be laughed at as a ridiculous novelty. Why, then, should this new system be introduced in Ireland under circumstances, so far as he knew, not requiring any alteration of the Constitution—why adopt a process of selection which might prove most destructive to the best interests of the country? His second objection was in regard to the naming of the offices. How was that to be done? In two ways: by the Queen and by Irish Act of Parliament. Was this really a workable scheme, and was it Constitutional? He regarded it as a perfect insult to the Crown, which might be prevented from choosing its own advisers—a position he should have thought untenable by anyone who had followed the Constitution of this country. The Bill said that the offices, the holders of which were to form the Executive Committee, were to be selected by the Crown

    881
    or by Irish Act. Were these to be concurrent methods of choice, or were they to be opposing methods? It might be said that the Irish Legislature had no power in opposition to the Crown, because the Crown could veto an Act of the Irish Legislature. If that was so, why give the Irish Legislature this power? If they meant the Crown to have, as of course it ought to have, the choice of its own advisers, why put it in conflict with the Irish Legislature? If they meant the Irish Legislature to have the choice as against the Crown, why put the Crown in opposition to that Legislature? How would this work out in practice—who was to make the first choice directly this Bill passed? He supposed the Crown. The Crown might designate, say, six offices; the Legislature would come into existence, and might designate eight other offices. What position would the Crown be in? Was the Lord Lieutenant to exercise the veto? He would do that on the advice of his Executive. Was the Act to prevail? If so, the day after it passed into law the Crown might come in and designate 10 offices, and under these circumstances who ultimately was to succeed? But surely this provision, so far as it related to an Irish Act, was useless, as the Crown could exercise the veto; and unless the Government wished to produce friction between the Crown and the Irish Legislature, these two methods of choice were valueless. He would ask the Prime Minister where there was a precedent for the proposal that the Crown should have advisers which were not selected by itself? To his mind, there did not appear to be an argument either of utility or precedent or Constitutional right for the proposal of the Bill, and he should listen with interest to hear how the Government would support the position they had taken up.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 13. to leave out all from the word "being" to the end of Sub-section (2), in order to insert the words "such persons as Her Majesty may from time to time think fit and direct."—(Sir H. James.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'such numbers, and comprising persons holding such offices,' stand part of the Clause."
    SIR J. RIGBYsaid, that the Amendment meant that the Irish Legislature had nothing to say to the appointment of
    882
    Irish Ministers, but that they were to be appointed in accordance with the advice of the Imperial Government. Upon that point he had not heard a word from the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had argued upon an entire misconception of the meaning of the clause which he proposed to amend, and which provided that there should be an Executive of such numbers and holding such offices as Her Majesty might think fit—that was to say, as the Imperial Government might think fit, or as might be directed by Irish Act. The right hon. Gentleman asked the Committee to suppose that the Government were deliberately putting forward two alternatives which might come into conflict. Well, he (Sir J. Rigby) wished to call attention to the absurdity of that. Was it not obvious that the intention was to leave the last word to the Irish Parliament and to give to Her Majesty's Government only that provisional direction as to the numbers and the offices that would be necessary to start the Executive Council? The Irish Parliament or Legislature contained as one of its branches Her Majesty; and when Her Majesty had agreed to an Irish Act fixing the numbers of the Executive Council and fixing the offices to be held it would be out of all reason to construe this Bill as saying that Her Majesty was in no way bound, and that they were setting up two conflicting authorities, which there were no means of reconciling when there was the simple, obvious, commonsense construction that it was Her Majesty in default of an Irish Act, and that it was the Irish Act itself which would be the definite authority to decide the question.
    SIR H. JAMESwished to say a word in reply, having regard to the dogmatic tone of the Solicitor General. He did not object to the hon. and learned Gentleman laying down the law, but he would ask him to repress his physical energy. [Cries of "Order!" and "Chair!"] He meant what he said. They were arguing a Constitutional question, and he really thought the Solicitor General exceeded the tone in which that argument need to be conducted. That was his view. He should regret if he had in any way hurt the feelings of anyone, but the hon. and learned Gentleman had assumed an authoritative tone which did not accord with the spirit in which he

    883
    (Sir H. James) had sought to introduce the subject. All he wished to point out was that the view laid down by the Solicitor General was not the view which was expressed in the clause. As the clause stood there would be two conflicting authorities—the Crown on the one hand, and the Irish Legislature. It might be the intention of the framers of the clause that the Crown should start this procedure in the first instance, and that always afterwards the Irish Legislature should perform the function; but that was not so expressed. As the clause stood there was a pure alternative, which could be exercised at any time—either Party might take action. If the statement they had heard was the view of the Government, could it not be made clear by altering the wording of the clause?
    THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHENdesired to say a word or two on this Amendment, because he had an Amendment lower down on the Paper which, if this proposal was carried, would be unnecessary, but which, if this proposal was negatived, would be out of Order. He noticed that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had met the Amendment by the stock argument that the Amendment showed rooted distrust of the proposed Irish Legislature. [Cries of "No!"] Yes; he said the Amendment was without reason, and that it was ridiculous to say that the Irish Legislature was to have nothing to say to the appointment of the Irish Executive Council. Was the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the fact that in every civilised country the power of appointing the Cabinet was withheld from Parliament? In America so strongly did they feel upon the point that Members of the Cabinet were not even allowed to be Members of either House of Legislature. Under the British North America Act the same prohibition was imposed. The clause to which he referred said—
    "There shall be a Council to aid and advise the Government of Canada to be styled the Queen's Privy Council of Canada, and the persons who are to be Members cf that Council shall be from time to time chosen and summoned by the Governor General and sworn in as Privy Councillors and Members thereof, and may be from time to time removed by the Governor General."
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked no more than this by his Amendment. Had the Solicitor General read
    884
    the words of the Bill of 1886, from which the words of which complaint was made were specifically removed? The clause as drawn embodied a complete innovation, because it proposed to give to the Irish Legislature a power which was enjoyed under no Constitution in the civilised world. They had a right to complain that the small safeguards which they had imagined they would have, under this Bill—such, for instance, that the Irish Cabinet should not be appointed without the advice of the British Ministry—were entirely omitted from the Bill. Though he did not imagine that the Irish Government would have the power of vetoing appointments made by Her Majesty on the advice of the British Ministry, still it seemed to him that they might render these appointments absolutely nugatory and void, because, supposing a number of gentlemen were appointed by the British Ministry whose views were opposed to those of the Nationalists, the Irish Legislature could appoint a sufficient number of their supporters to render the votes of the others nugatory. And although the Irish Legislature might not be able to discard Protestants, as such, seeing that Clause 4 would prevent disabilities being imposed on account of religious belief, it would clearly be in their power to exclude Orangemen and Freemasons from the Cabinet. The Prime Minister, in a speech he had delivered in July, 1889, had declared that Ministers were not only servants of the people but servants of the Crown. It was now, however, not only possible, but probable, that Members of the Privy Council in Ireland would cease to be servants of the Crown, and for the first time in the history of Constitutional Government would be simply the servants of a section of the people appointed for Party purposes.
    MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, he failed to see the necessity for the warmth of the Solicitor General, because the Amendment was directed to the improvement of the clause to the extent of explaining in intelligible language what was supposed to be the object and desire of the Government—namely, that there should be an Executive Committee of the Privy Council, or Cabinet, selected by the Queen and having the confidence of the Irish Legislature. The clause as it stood in the Bill was not what the Solicitor General represented it to be. It provided that

    885
    this Cabinet should consist of persons holding such offices as Her Majesty might think fit or as might "be directed by Irish Act." The suggestion was that, in the first instance, the Crown would make the appointments, and that afterwards an Irish Act would be passed to regulate the appointments, and to make provisions as to future appointments. But why did not the clause state that? The clause as it stood gave alternatives, but did not say which of them was to be acted upon. It seemed to him that in a matter of a purely business character like this it was quite unnecessary to infuse heat and temper into the discussion. The Executive Committee would be none the less responsible to the Irish Legislature because it was appointed by the Sovereign. The British Cabinet was appointed by the Sovereign, but there was no Legislative provision which required that it should be appointed either by the Sovereign or by Act of Parliament. In the Bill of 1886 it was not thought necessary to provide any alternative of this kind. That Bill provided simply that the Executive Committee should be appointed by the Sovereign. Of course, the Executive, by whomsoever appointed, must, in order to continue in Office, have the confidence of the Irish Legislative Body, and there was therefore nothing whatever in the suggestion that it was intended to appoint a Ministry irrespective of the wishes of the Irish Legislature. The object of the Amendment was merely to make the clause clear and intelligible.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It is extremely interesting to study the various methods by which different Members of the Government seem to escape from a difficulty when brought to their notice on this Bill. The Prime Minister is a master of the prophetic method, whilst the learned Solicitor General invariably loses his temper—[Cries of"Order!" and "Withdraw!"] I will withdraw. I will not say that he invariably loses his temper, but that he usually loses his temper. The admirable vigour with which the learned Gentleman attacks us on these occasions—
    MR. T. M. HEALY: He is insulted constantly.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The hon. and learned Member for Louth, who never insults anybody, says that I invariably insult the Solicitor General.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: No, not you; but your Party.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUE: At all events, I never cried, "Divide, divide!" when the Solicitor General got up, a course which was taken the other night by a good many of the gentlemen who now appear so anxious for the Solicitor General's credit. However, I have said nothing, I am sure, that the Solicitor General has any great objection to. I doubt whether he thinks it advisable to treat a Court of Law as he treats the House of Commons. I am sure that, when he is in the Courts, he uses a little more argument and a little less heat than he thinks it advisable to employ when he is dealing with us. The Solicitor General has undertaken to defend the drafting of Sub-section 2, and especially the drafting of the last two lines, which run thus—
    "Being of such numbers, and comprising persons holding such offices as Her Majesty may think fit, or as may be directed by Irish Act."
    It appears to me that those words are open to every species of objection. The learned Gentleman has not dealt with all the objections, but he has dealt with one of them. It is this: that the subsection admits of two possible alternatives—namely, either that Her Majesty should decide as to the numbers and offices of the Executive Committee, or that the decision should be by means of an Irish Act. The Solicitor General, with all the fervour which, I suppose, is characteristic of the Chancery Bar, tells us that it must be obvious to anybody that the two alternatives are distinguished in point of time, and that it is plainly, on the face of the sub-section, intended that, first, Her Majesty shall appoint the officers, and that, when the machinery is thus set going, Her Majesty shall fall into the background, and the duty shall be carried out thenceforward by the Irish Parliament. Well, that may be good sense, but it is not in accordance with the grammatical reading of the sub-section. The word "or" in the English language, whatever it may mean at the Chancery Bar, does not mean "and afterwards." It really is playing with the Committee to ask us to accept this drafting as carrying out the views of the Government, when "or" is not intended by the Government at all. That is the first, but not the only, objection to the drafting of the subsection. As the clause reads now, it will be in the power of the Irish Legis-

    887
    lature not only to fix by Statute what are the offices, the holders of which are to be in the Cabinet, but who those holders are to be. I have accused the Government of many things, but I have never accused them of anything so idiotic as that. I quite acquit them of meaning such a thing, but I say they have drafted the Bill in that way. If they doubt it, let them read the sentence without the words "as Her Majesty may think fit, or." I believe it would be possible, under the words as they stand, for an Irish Act to declare that the occupant of the Roman Catholic See of Dublin or the Lord Mayor of Dublin for the time being should be a Member of the Cabinet. I know that is not the intention of the Government, but it is possible under the clause. There is a further objection to the clause on the point of substance. This was alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir H. James); but the Solicitor General, in the heat of his enthusiasm, never referred to it. Under this Parliament—on which, I suppose, you intend to model your new Parliament in College Green—offices are not fixed by Statute. It is in the power of Her Majesty, if she thinks fit, to ask anybody to be one of Her Cabinet, holding any office whatever or no office whatever. I cannot conceive why Her Majesty should be prevented from doing that under this Bill. Otherwise it will be necessary that every Member of the Cabinet should hold a particular office. It has been constantly found convenient in this country to vary the numbers of the Cabinet, and even to have Members of the Cabinet holding no office at all, and that may be found desirable also in Ireland.
    SIR J. RIGBY: I can assure you, Mr. Mellor, that it is with very great regret that I have again to address the Committee on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) seemed to take a great deal of pleasure in attempting to make my position more difficult. [Mr. A. J. BALFOUR: NO.] lean appeal to all who have known me to say whether there was the slightest symptom of loss of temper on my part when I spoke. It is true that I felt the occasion deserved some strong language, but it would be idle to suppose that anything that had been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Sir H. James) had angered me, and I am
    888
    sure he recognises that the accusation is unfounded. What I said in the main was that the Amendment appeared to be entirely misapprehended by those who spoke upon it, because it was said to provide that Her Majesty—that is to say, the Imperial Government—should have the nomination to all the offices in the Executive Committee. There is nothing of that kind in the clause; nothing like it—nothing approaching it. The provision is simply that Her Majesty shall fix the numbers and settle the offices, the holding of which will qualify for membership of the Executive Committee. That is the plain meaning of the clause. The words are "being of such numbers and"—now mark. [Laughter] I have been taunted with the way in which I address this Assembly, and it has been suggested that I do not address the Judges in the same way. The reason is that the Judges take pains to consider things for themselves. They do not assume a state of ignorance they do not possess, and, at least, they possess themselves of the elementary questions that are to be raised. It is provided that
    "There shall be an Executive Committee …. of such numbers and comprising persons—"
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: Such persons.
    SIR J. RIGBY: No; comprising persons holding such offices as Her Majesty may think fit. Now Her Majesty may say that the Executive Committee shall consist of six persons, the holders of certain offices; or she may say that it shall consist of six, of whom two shall be the Lord Chancellor, for instance, and the Treasurer, and then will come in the words "or as may be directed by Irish Act." There is nothing contradictory in that. It has been suggested that it is intended that there shall be two conflicting ways of fixing the numbers and the offices, the holders of which shall be entitled to be Members of the Executive Committee. That is an absurd assumption, and I say it in all good temper. It would reduce the Act to an absurdity. If there are two methods of construction, and the one represents something that is reasonable, while the other represents an absurdity, it is the former that would be adopted by a judicial tribunal, and I do not think that any lawyer in this House will venture to deny that.
    MR. MATTHEWS: I hope my hon. Friend will allow me to congratulate him on the new tone he has adopted. He suggests that there are two constructions of the clause—one intelligible and reasonable, and the other absurd; and I concur with him that where there are two constructions—the one reasonable and the other not, it is the reasonable construction which ought to be adopted. But the misfortune is that the clause will not bear a reasonable construction. The reading is this: the Queen is to direct what offices are to confer upon the holders thereof membership of the Executive Committee until the Irish Act otherwise directs. It would be different if it were proposed that the Executive Council should consist of such a number of members and holding such offices "until otherwise directed;" but there are no such words in the sub-section. Is Her Majesty to have the choice of the persons? If not, who is to have it? It seems to me that the Solicitor General has only avoided one difficulty to fall into another.
    MR. COURTNEY: Doubtless, it is good policy to import good sense into an Act of Parliament, and equally, no doubt, if the natural interpretation of the Act means nonsense, the Courts will endeavour to put good sense into it. But never before have I heard it advanced in Parliament that if Parliament does put nonsense into an Act the Court are bound to put it right hereafter. The primâ facie construction of the words is the one to be taken, and the meaning of such a construction cannot be entertained against a nonsensical meaning.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: He said nothing of the kind.
    MR. COURTNEY: I take it that there are two concurrent methods of action, and it is not said which shall be first and which last. Apparently, they are concurrent and equal. There are two methods of providing who shall be the Executive Committee, and I should say that the last method employed is the one which will be relied on. There is another difficulty in the construction of the words—they do not provide for any selection of the particular persons to be appointed. Supposing that six persons are selected, and two—the Lord Chancellor and the Treasurer—are appointed to hold offices, who is to select the other four office-holders? The clause is silent
    890
    as to how this is to be done. Is it to be done by the Lord Lieutenant, by Her Majesty, or by the Irish Legislature? The Bill of 1886, in contrast with the present measure, contained the words which are practically proposed in the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, for that provided that the Executive Government of Ireland should continue vested in Her Majesty and be carried on by the Lord Lieutenant with aid from such offices and such counsel as Her Majesty might from time to time see fit to direct. But this Act does not arrange for that; and as the Committee is left in some confusion, I hope that the Government will make their meaning more clear.
    SIR R. WEBSTER: I am sure my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General will not think that I consider any powerful observations of his are induced by bad temper; but I must say that the more emphatically he enforces his remarks, the more emphasis he imports into the discussion, the less clear he makes his meaning. There are two points to which I wish to direct the attention of the Committee: I wish to ask whether or not it is intended that the Irish Legislature shall have an equal power with Her Majesty in making the appointment both as to numbers and the persons who are to hold the offices? Judging from the language of the clause, I believe that the Courts will construe this section to mean the conferring of equal power on the Irish Legislature to make the appointments, and the suggestion that the action of the Irish Legislature is to come after the action of the Crown will not be accepted. I think the word "or" here means that there are two ways in which the numbers may be fixed and the persons or offices designated, and no one could in anticipation say that the word "or" is to mean "and afterwards." It is, therefore incumbent on the Government to make it clear whether there are or are not to be two methods of selection—one by Her Majesty and the other by Irish Act. I also want to know whether it is intended that the persons who may from time to time hold any office can be appointed to be Members of the Cabinet of Ireland, as, for example, the Lord Mayor or High Sheriff of Dublin by virtue of his office, and without regard being had to fitness or capacity? It is of importance that the Committee should know whether it is

    891
    the intention of the Government that, the offices being named or designated by Her Majesty or by Irish Act, any holder of such offices shall ex officio become a Member of the Cabinet. It seems to me that the language of the clause is fairly open to the objections which have been raised—namely, that the Irish Act is put as a simple alternative to the action of Her Majesty, and that if persons may not be named offices may be named, while equal powers are given to Her Majesty and the Irish Legislature. Surely this is a case in which the language should be plain and simple and free from all ambiguities.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I do not complain of discourtesy on the part of the Leader of the Opposition, though I confess that I listened with great regret to the first moiety of the right hon. Gentleman's speech on the Amendment. It appeared to me to tend to lower the standard of Parliamentary debate, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will think so himself on reflection. The intervention of the late Attorney General was very refreshing, and has tended much to clear the atmosphere. I recognise with concern that here we have great legal authorities in conflict. It is not for ignorant persons like myself to make any remarks on the besetting sins of lawyers. But the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down recognised with great fairness that it is the duty of the Government, in consultation with their own official advisers, to put a construction upon the language of the clause, and that unless reasons sufficiently strong to shake our conviction are shown why we should put a different construction upon it to adhere to that language. At the same time, the hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly justified in asking the Government what the meaning they attach to that language is. I will tell him. In our view the purpose of the clause is—and you may say it is unnecessary, unwise, and not contemplated in Acts of this description—to provide for the construction of the Executive Committee, and not to provide for the persons who are to fill the offices associated with the Committee. In our view there will be no difficulty whatever as to the choice of these persons. The Sovereign will be entitled to appoint the subordinate officers of the State, however high those officers, may be, and the Viceroy
    892
    will exercise the powers of the Sovereign. The Act is to be put into force by the responsible officers of the Government, subject to the control of the Sovereign. That is the first observation I have to make. The second is that the persons holding this high station may be expected and anticipated to act upon principles which common sense indicates as applicable to the situation. Ireland will require to have an Executive Government or Ministry for the purpose of putting this Act into execution. There must be some power to call it into existence, and surely there is no absurdity in saying that that power shall be exercised by the Crown or by the Irish Legislature, meaning thereby the Irish Legislature acting in harmony with the Representative of the Crown. We object to the Amendment as going beyond our plan, and we think, further, that it would be dangerous to seek to confer on the Crown by Statute powers which it already possesses by prerogative, by tradition, and by unquestioned practice. I regret that any difference of opinion should prevail as to our meaning. Further consideration may, perhaps, throw additional light on this subject, but certainly at present we must refuse to accept the Amendment.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have listened with the greatest interest to the remarks of the First Lord of the Treasury, and I confess that he does not appear to me thoroughly to appreciate the point which we want to bring to his knowledge. He said that action is to be left to the prerogative of the Crown. But surely he can scarcely maintain that the prerogative of the Crown is untouched by the Bill when the Bill provides that the Irish Cabinet may be constituted by an Act of the Irish Legislature. So far as the British Cabinet is concerned, there is no Statute which says that certain offices entitle the holders thereof to be Members of the British Cabinet. There the prerogative of the Crown is entirely untouched. I am totally unable to understand how it is made out that this Amendment leaves the prerogative of mercy untouched. I want to put one question to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister; it is a case which he will probably think is an extreme case, but it is a case that may arise. Her Majesty is entitled to say the number of persons—and to name them—who shall constitute the Cabinet. Sup-

    893
    pose Her Majesty should say "Six persons, including the Commander of the Forces and two Exchequer Judges shall be Members of this Cabinet." Suppose she should act under the direction of a British Ministry—a Ministry hostile to this Bill, and put on the Cabinet the officials I have suggested, or some English officials, if you like—what would the Irish Parliament say to such a proceeding? Then, under this Bill, it would be perfectly within its function if it should legislate against the will of the Crown. Pace the opinion of the Solicitor General, there would be a conflict of authority. Who is to say which is right? In no case where double powers of this kind are conferred can you say that a conflict of authority would be avoided. That conflict of authority remains therefore, though it is your desire to avoid it. My right hon. Friend has other objections; he objects on the principle of the Bill. I do not understand why he objects.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I explained.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not catch the explanation. This is not a hostile Amendment. It is an Amendment intended to make the clause clear. Her Majesty will have the same right as the Irish Parliament will have. The question is: Is it the intention of the Government to leave the prerogative of the Crown unimpaired, and, if it is, why should they object to the terms of the Amendment? I will not say it is impossible—it is probable, and highly probable—that Her Majesty, that the Crown, would be guided by the Irish Legislature, with the same result that obtained here, where the Ministers are not appointed by this House but by the Crown; but in almost every case the opinion of this House is a leading factor in the decision of the Crown. I do not see why the Government should deliberately leave out the plain phrase—why they should leave the matter vague and unsettled. They might consent, I think, to make their own meaning perfectly clear, and it ought to be possible to introduce words to effect that purpose.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid, he had explained the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. Indeed, he had explained it twice. The purpose of the clause had nothing to do with the appointment of persons. The words proposed would weaken the meaning of
    894
    the clause, and weaken the prerogative of the Crown which came down to them by tradition.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he would accept the objection of the right hon. Gentleman, and he would ask whether he would object to omit the words "by Irish Act"? That would leave untouched the tradition of the Crown, but would prevent the conflict of authority, and would also prevent the introduction of a new controversial doctrine—that the Members of the Cabinet were to be appointed by the Legislature.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid, they had important reasons why that should be done by the Legislature. With regard to conflict of authority, they did not anticipate that anything of the sort would arise. He did not see that it could.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, on a point of Order, he would like to ask this: the right hon. Gentleman had suggested to leave out certain words; there were other Amendments, however, to be dealt with later on that point, and he wished to know would the omission of these words prevent the discussion of them? Unfortunately, they had had a ruling by the Chairman of Committees which he thought would prevent the Amendments being discussed. The Question to be put was, as he understood, if the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was before them, would be to the effect that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the sub-section. That was, he thought, an unfortunate position.
    SIR J. GOLDSMID (occupying the Chair temporarily, during Mr. Mellor's absence)ruled that that was not the case. The Question had been put by the Chairman of Committees so as to allow subsequent Amendments.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he would ask what would be the meaning of the sub-section if the words were left out?
    SIR J. GOLDSMID: That is not for the Chairman of Committees to decide.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 262; Noes 229.—(Division List, No. 192.)
    SIR H. JAMEShad the next Amendment on the Paper standing in his name, but said it would be covered by the Amendment next standing in Order, and he would not move it.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR MR. GERALD BALFOUR (Leeds, Central) moved, in page 3, line 13, after "offices," insert "under the Crown." He said he would not detain the Committee beyond a moment or two.
    MR. J. MORLEY: We accept the Amendment.
    MR. GERALD BALFOUR: Very well.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 13, after the word "offices," to insert the words "under the Crown."—(Mr. Gerald Balfour.)
    Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.
    THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHEN moved, in page 3, line 14, leave out "or as may be directed by Irish Act." He did not wish to repeat any argument or to detain the Committee, but he hoped the Government would agree to accept the Amendment. If the words were left in the Bill he thought the Irish Parliament would have very extensive powers in respect of the constitution of the Irish Cabinet—powers that would not work very well in accordance with the Imperial supremacy which the Government had declared it to be their intention to establish. He did not think the Irish Parliament ought to have these extraordinary powers. Such powers were not possessed by other Constitutions of this nature.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 3, line 14, to leave out the words "or as may be directed by Irish Act."—(The Marquess of Carmarthen.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, the noble Lord had used what was practically the only argument against the wording; but he would point out that in every Home Rule Constitution in the world—in every statutory Constitution—these powers were given. He claimed that the Irish Legislature should have power to pass Bills for the purpose of changing the constitution of the Cabinet. They had other instances in their own Empire of this power of amendment. If the words were left out the Irish Legislature would not have such power, which would be exercised, of course, subject to Her Majesty's assent.
    MR. D. PLUNKETsaid, he thought the Committee was
    896
    entitled to an explanation from the Government—
    It being Midnight, the Deputy Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.—(No. 371.)
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Order confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; to be read a second time upon Tuesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 406.]
  NONCONFORMIST MARRIAGES (ATTENDANCE OF REGISTRARS).
  Ordered, That the Appendix to the Evidence taken before the Royal Commission on the Laws of Marriage, 1867, be referred to the Select Committee on Nonconformist Marriages (Attendance of Registrars.)—(Sir John Kennaway.)

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  SIR JOHN MOWBRAYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure:—Sir Henry Roscoe; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Alpheus Morton.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES (re-committed) BILL.—(No. 395.)
  Order for Committee read, and discharged.
  Bill committed to a Select Committee.

  REDEMPTION OF RENT (IRELAND) ACT (1891) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 390.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

NEW PEERS.
John Campbell White, of Overtoun in the County of Dumbarton, Esquire, having been created Baron Overtoun of Overtoun in the County of Dumbarton—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
Francis Archibald Douglas, Esquire, (commonly called Viscount Drumlanrig), having been created Baron Kelhead of Kelhead in the County of Dumfries—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

ARMENIAN PRISONERS.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYdesired to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs an important question with reference to the Armenian Christians lately tried at Angora and imprisoned. He was perpetually receiving letters and applications of all kinds from people with regard to those prisoners. Many of them were known to be highly respectable; some of them were clergy, and others were well-known school teachers. One had been educated in Europe, and generally a high opinion was entertained of many of them. They had been tried and sentenced to death, or to long periods of imprisonment. There was also another group of prisoners, among whom were two Archbishops, the Archbishops of Marash and of Zeitoun, and one Bishop, the Bishop of Moush—men of high character—who had been imprisoned for a long time, apparently, without trial. He wished to ask the noble Earl whether he could give the House any information which would allay the wide-felt anxiety respecting these prisoners who had been recently tried at Angora?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Earl of ROSEBERY): My Lords, I have great pleasure in answering the question of the most rev. Prelate. But if he finds his
  782
  correspondence largely increased by the recent trials at Angora, what must mine be? I have received an enormous number of inquiries showing the deep and well-founded solicitude on the part of the Christian inhabitants of this country on behalf of their fellow-Christians in Armenia. It has been repeatedly urged upon Her Majesty's Government, publicly and privately, that we should intervene in some way to obtain from the Sultan the unconditional release of those persons recently under accusation, without waiting for the formality of a trial. In my opinion, that was a course which it was absolutely impossible for Her Majesty's Government to adopt. You have no right, without knowing the evidence, to presume the absolute innocence of any person whatever. You have, in my opinion, no right, except under circumstances which I can hardly imagine, to interfere with the course of justice in another country. But I think you have this right—a right that we have, to some extent, founded on Treaty obligations—that when we are convinced that accused persons are not receiving their full measure of justice, and when we are convinced that the trial to which they have been subjected is not a real, au honest, and a genuine, but an illusory trial, it is then not merely opportune, but it is almost the duty of Her Majesty's Government to make some representation. We have therefore awaited the result of the trial at Angora in the full hope, and with some belief, that the trial would be fairly conducted; but I am bound to say that all the evidence which has come to us from our impartial officials in Asia Minor, in the neighbourhood of Angora, make it perfectly clear that the trial was not a fair trial, that the evidence of the prisoners did not receive sufficient weight, even where it was admitted, and that, therefore, it was open to Her Majesty's Government to make the strong representations they did in favour of the release of the accused persons, more especially of Messrs. Thoumaïan and Kayayan. The case of Messrs. Thoumaïan and Kayayan rests on a somewhat different footing from that of the other prisoners. In the first place, it is only with regard to these two prisoners that we have the detailed and specific information which we should wish to have about them all. In the next place, they are men of education and

  783
  learning, occupying positions of trust, and known to many in this country and Europe for their Evangelical exertions in the cause of religion. A special interest, therefore, has been felt in their case. I have the happiness to assure the most rev. Prelate that, since I entered this House to-day, I have received information that though the Court of Cassation has confirmed the sentences on Messrs. Thoumaïan and Kayayan, they will be immediately pardoned and sent out of the country. That, I think, is a considerable concession to have obtained under the circumstances. With regard to the 15 or 17 other prisoners, I can assure the most rev. Prelate that no exertion on the part of Her Majesty's Government will be wanting to see that they also receive the justice which is their due, and also if, as we believe, the evidence will show that their trial was as futile and illusory as that of Messrs. Thoumaïan and Kayayan, we shall make the same representations on their behalf. With regard to the case of the Bishop, to which reference has been made, we have no information. The Court of Cassation has confirmed the sentence on one of the Archbishops; but we have not heard definitely of the confirmation of the sentence on the other Archbishop. An official representation has been made at the Porte on behalf of these prisoners; but I am sorry to say it has not met with the same success as in the other cases, and perhaps we had not the same strong grounds for making them. However, what I have been able to state will, I hope, not be unsatisfactory.

STATUTORY RULES PROCEDURE BILL. (No. 187.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  LORD MACNAGHTENsaid, he wished to propose, at the suggestion of noble and learned Lords, that this Bill should be re-committed pro formâ, in order that Amendments might be made which would bring it into conformity with the Bill of 1891.
  Bill reported without Amendment; Amendments made: Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House; and to be printed as amended. (No. 187.)

COUNTY OF THE CITY OF GLASGOW BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD PLAYFAIR LORD PLAYFAIR, in moving the Second Reading, said, there was only one other town in Scotland—Edinburgh—which was a county of a city, though in England there were many such cases. The County of Lanark, in which Glasgow was situated, had a population of 1,100,000, of which that city contained 660,000. The Lords Lieutenant of Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire, both being interested in the matter, were quite satisfied that Glasgow should be converted into a county of a city. Two Petitions had been presented against the Bill in that House; but it met with no opposition in the other House of Parliament, where it went before a Hybrid Committee and was passed unanimously in one day. Practically, he believed, notwithstanding the two formal Petitions against the Bill, there would be no opposition in their Lordships' House.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Playfair.)
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he thought before the Bill was read a second time some explanation was desirable. He had no objection to the City of Glasgow being made a county, and there were, indeed, strong reasons for wishing to put the Local Government of Glasgow, with its large urban population, great business, interests, and wealth, on a more satisfactory footing. He thought this ought to be effected by a private Bill, such as was brought in six or seven years ago, of which he moved and carried the Second Reading after a Division, but which failed upon being referred to a Committee of the House. The decision of that Committee caused considerable dissatisfaction and disappointment. This should have been a Private Bill, as great interests were concerned which should have a full opportunity of being heard. There had been a great deal of secrecy with regard to the present measure, and no means had been taken to make known in Glasgow what was really proposed. It was, in his view, a sham and a fraud to call this Bill a measure for making

  785
  Glasgow a county. It did nothing of the kind. It pretended to do so, but it did not effect that purpose. The points made in the Memorial of the Glasgow Town Council, upon which this Bill was said to be founded, had reference to the extension of the city to the whole urban area of which it was the centre, completing the incorporation of the city and bringing the civil and criminal jurisdiction under one Sheriff, and were not carried out in the Bill, which also omitted all mention of the Sheriff's Court, where there had been a great block of business for years past, owing to the Sheriff having to do the business of the whole of Lanarkshire. It was futile to attempt to pass a Bill for Glasgow which did not deal with the scandal of mercantile men being unable to get their cases tried. There ought to be a separate Sheriff for the whole urban area of Glasgow properly defined. As a county it ought also to have control of police, main drainage, and roads and bridges; but not one of these matters were mentioned in the Bill. The 5th clause in the Bill could not, surely, be seriously intended. It was a most extraordinary clause. The Secretary for Scotland was to be allowed to make whatever Orders he pleased for bringing the Act into operation, and thereby modify any enactment in this or any other Act, whether general, local, or personal. Did anybody ever hear of such a power as that being given to any Government Department? NO safeguard was provided—no attempt whatever was made—to fetter the Secretary of Scotland, in his roving Commission, to enact anything he pleased affecting Glasgow. It was hardly credible that such a clause would be put forward, and that their Lordships would be seriously asked to adopt it. The Bill did not follow the precedent of Edinburgh, as had been urged in its favour, for the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Glasgow was to be nominated by the Secretary for Scotland. Other things done by the Bill were, on the face of them, done in a wrong way. One was the provision dealing with the appointment of Justices of the Peace. They were told that the precedent of Edinburgh was being followed; but it was certainly not so as regarded the Lord Provost, who, in this, the second city in the Empire, would be superseded by the Lord Lieu-
  786
  tenant. Some further explanation would be required if that was intended. He had no objection to a new Commission of the Peace being formed for Glasgow; but there was no reason why the Justices of Lanark and Renfrew should be placed in a worse position than those of any other county in Scotland: for if that clause were passed, they would be prevented performing the simplest act, such as taking a declaration, or having an affidavit sworn before them in Glasgow. Many of the most prominent men in Glasgow lived in those counties; and if put upon the new Commission of the Peace they would be unable to do the simplest acts which might be done by any other Justices of the Peace in Scotland. That could not have been intended; but, if so, a Bill so drafted should hardly have been brought before that House. It should have been a Private Bill, which would have been carefully examined with the aid of counsel and witnesses, so that all interests might have been heard. If these defects were not cured, and the Bill made a complete measure, so far from being a wise and good step to take, it would stand in the way of reforms for which Glasgow had been long and justly crying out. On those grounds he hoped the Bill would not be allowed to pass as it stood. As it bad passed the other House of Parliament, he had, out of courtesy to that House, not given notice to reject it on Second Reading. But, though dealing with matters of private concern, it had been brought in as a Public Bill, and he hoped that steps would be taken to have the Bill thoroughly investigated, in order that those who felt themselves aggrieved by the method adopted might have the opportunity of putting their case before a fair and impartial tribunal.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)said, this measure was in the anomalous position of being a Hybrid Bill; and, therefore, not only would it go through that House, but, if opposed, and he was informed that it was opposed by two Petitioners, it would be referred to an ordinary Opposed Bill Committee next week, and after it had passed through that ordeal it would return to their Lordships' House. In his opinion, Clause 5 would have to be carefully examined;

  787
  for though it might sufficiently protect Local Authorities, it did not, as drawn, sufficiently protect private individuals.
  LORD WATSONsaid, he entirely concurred in the criticisms made on the 5th clause; hut he hoped their Lordships would pass the Bill with the Amendments they considered necessary, so that Glasgow might become a county as well as a city. The question of boundaries was one of difficulty. However advantageous it might be to include a much larger area within the county of the City of Glasgow than the Bill proposed, that course was not a plain one, but might, in some cases, give rise to well-founded opposition; and he was not prepared to say that the Bill erred in respect of the boundaries it laid down. As for its alleged incompleteness in making Glasgow a county, the difficulties had, he thought, been overrated. They had the example of Edinburgh, and Glasgow would not cease to be a burgh because it became a county. In Edinburgh the county was rarely spoken of; it was always the burgh and the burgh administration. Glasgow was at present equipped with sufficient powers for her own government, and within her own boundaries this Bill would not add much to them. In one respect only, as regarded the Commission of the Peace, it would make a difference. On the erection of the city into a county it must necessarily have its own Commission of the Peace, and the change would, he hoped, be beneficial. A burning question, though not necessarily connected with the subject of the Bill, was the administration of justice, not in regard to the lower, but in the higher Courts, and arrangements for judicial business might have been added to the Bill. In appeals to the Sheriff Principal delays of six or eight months are said to occur in trifling cases, sometimes only upon questions of procedure, rather too long a time in these modern days for cases to be hanging over. But the two questions of the constitution of the Courts and the constitution of the county were quite separable. He should have preferred that there should have been a statutory enactment by the three Estates, providing that the Lord Provost of Glasgow for the time being shall be the Lord Lieutenant of the County of the City. Edinburgh had been created a county of a city by Royal
  788
  Charter at a time when the Constitutional power was entirely vested in the Sovereign; and instead of a series of appointments issuing on the recommendation of the Secretary for Scotland, the Bill ought to provide that the office shall pass from one Lord Provost to his successor in office immediately upon his election. That had been the system, from time immemorial in Edinburgh, and there was no reason why it should not work satisfactorily in Glasgow. Even though it were not in the form he desired, he would rather see the Bill pass subject to those alterations.
  LORD HAMILTON LORD HAMILTON, as this Bill affected his county, felt bound to say it entirely met with his approval. As regarded the Judicial Authorities of Glasgow, there was nothing in the Bill which would prevent the necessary reforms being carried out in the direction of two authorities being created. There was nothing in this Bill to prevent the creation of one Sheriff's Court for the county and one for the city.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he agreed with the criticisms which had been made. If this, being a Hybrid Opposed Bill, would, in the ordinary course, go before the Opposed Bills Committee, it would, no doubt, be considerably altered, for from the remarks which had been made it was clearly not a perfect measure. That being the case, would it not be better for the Government to withdraw it and bring in in its stead a complete Bill? It was desirable to give to the Corporation of Glasgow full powers over this area; but if their Lordships proposed to alter the Bill it would be unfair to private persons to put them to the expense of appearing before a Select Committee with reference to a measure which they agreed was not a perfect one.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): I think the proposal of the noble Earl would make matters much worse. This Bill has passed the House of Commons, and it has been before a Committee there. It would be a most unusual course to adopt the suggestion of the noble Earl to withdraw that which has already been got into shape, and to introduce a new one for objectors to appear and oppose it. Such a course would not only be unusual, but would do great injustice. I will not go into

  789
  the details of the Bill. The points which have been raised by previous speakers are fitted for Committee, but not for discussion on the Second Reading stage. I should not have risen at all but for the suggestion of the noble Lord (Lord Balfour), that this ought to be a Private Bill. I can only say that if ever a Bill of this kind appears as a private measure I shall protest against it. A Bill which proposes to create a Commission of the Peace and to make judicial arrangements ought never to be a Private Bill. I have constantly set my face against such a measure being dealt with otherwise than as a Public Bill. I am myself most strongly of opinion that if a Bill of this sort is to be introduced at all, it ought be as this is, in the form of a public measure.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he entirely agreed that the proposal of the noble Earl opposite would be impossible under the circumstances. As he had himself appointed the Commission to inquire into the boundaries of Glasgow silence on his part might be misunderstood. He had long desired that the districts surrounding Glasgow should be included with the city in one county; and, therefore, he was glad that the Bill had not been refused a Second Reading. But he was not sure that the time had come when Govan, Partick, and all the large burghs around, would be ready to be amalgamated with the City of Glasgow. The Bill seemed, on the whole, to carry out the desires of the Municipality of Glasgow, their wish being, no doubt, that their city should be placed in exactly the same position as Edinburgh, the Lord Provost of which was invariably Lord Lieutenant. How that first came about he had been unable to trace. If that state of things (Could be brought about in the case of Glasgow without interfering with Her Majesty's prerogative, it would be a much more satisfactory way of dealing with the question. It would be exceedingly inconvenient to have two authorities; one the Lord Provost as the magisterial head, and the other the Lord Lieutenant as the head of the county and city. He would like to see the Bill referred to a Select Committee of that House, when its whole minutiae might be more fully considered. He entirely concurred in the principle of the measure.
  LORD SHANDsaid, he hoped that the Bill would be subjected by the Committee to very careful consideration and searching examination, and that if the Bill came back from Committee in anything like its present shape their Lordships would have no difficulty in rejecting it. The only other instance in Scotland of a county of a city was in Edinburgh, and that he understood was created under a very old Charter of the time of the Stuarts. If Glasgow was to be created a county of a city by Act of Parliament, similar claims would probably be made by Dundee, Aberdeen, Perth, and other large cities of growing importance. The House and Committee should, therefore, have it before them that the provisions of this Bill would be used as a precedent. It had been stated that this Bill had passed through its stages in the House of Commons in one day. One would think it had passed through in the shortest possible time, because Clause 5 alone was enough to excite amazement: for by its terms the Secretary of Scotland would have power by a stroke of the pen to destroy the enactments of Acts of Parliament. He hoped the analogous case of Edinburgh would be carefully inquired into and followed, and especially that, as in Edinburgh, the Lord Provost should ex-officio be Lord Lieutenant. As regarded the judicial business, he concurred in every word Lord Balfour had said. He agreed with Lord Watson that it would be difficult to graft an improvement on the Bill in reference to the Sheriff Courts; but sooner or later—and the sooner the better—that matter must be taken up. The delay in the administration of justice in Glasgow was a scandal, arising simply from the fact that the Government only provided one Judge to deal with the cases. That would be remedied by having a Sheriff for the City of Glasgow and another for the County. He hoped the Committee would thoroughly investigate the subject before the Bill was reported to the House, for if it came back in its present shape, or anything like it, he should have no difficulty in supporting a Motion refusing to pass it into an Act at all.
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, he was afraid this discussion had partly arisen

  791
  from his fault in having purposely made his remarks as few as possible, as he was not aware that anyone wished to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. There were many precedents in England for making counties of cities, though only one existed in Scotland—Edinburgh. The Marquess of Lothian was really the author of this Bill, not, of course, of its details, but it was his Commission which recommended that Glasgow should be made a county of the city. As regarded Govan and other neighbouring districts not being ready for amalgamation, it had been found in England that in the case of large towns, if the step were delayed of making them counties of cities until all the little neighbouring places around joined, it would never be taken at all. If they wished to come in arrangements could be made. As the Bill must go before a Committee he did not think that it was necessary for him to say more with regard to it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked whether, as this was a Hybrid Bill, it would be sent to a Hybrid Committee?
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)said, that the Hybrid Committee was an unknown body in that House, and he had never heard of one being appointed.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he thought, in the circumstances, an opportunity was afforded for inaugurating a new procedure.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, the Bill would go to an ordinary Bill Committee, and then come back to the House, and go through the stages of a Public Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, there was one stage through which it would not go; that was where it was thought expedient to refer the Bill to a public Committee. Therefore, this might be an opportunity for adopting a new procedure, and it might be well if their Lordships copied the procedure of the other House.
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, the difficulty was that two Petitions had been presented in their Lordships' House against the Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYaid, then they could be heard.
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, the matter would be considered.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, the Bill would have to go before the Standing Committee, which would have the opportunity of considering the clauses.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANsaid, he thought counsel should be heard upon the clauses of the Bill, which would be impossible in the Standing Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, it was understood that the noble Lord would take the matter into consideration.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed: The Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

BARBED WIRE FENCES BILL. (No. 131.)

  THIRD READING.
  Read 3a (according to Order) with the Amendments.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid, he had some Amendments to propose, in reference to the introduction of the term "nuisance," which, being unknown as a legal term in Scotland, had necessitated a definition. He had consulted the Scotch Office in the matter, and he saw no other way out of the difficulty.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That difficulty was not pointed out at the time the change was made in the Bill. I cannot help thinking it would have been much better to have adopted an expression which would have applied to all three countries.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid, the difficulty in doing that was that it would reverse the deliberate decision of the House. Lord Balfour having pointed out the difficulty as regarded Scotland, they had referred to the Scotch Office on the matter.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not, of course, wish to press the matter; but, as to reversing what was done on Report, if on consideration of new circumstances on Third Reading the House considered this the better course, it became a question only of what it was wiser and better to do. The noble and learned Lord my predecessor in office thought it better to simply leave the word "nuisance" generally; but now it appears you have to define it as regards

  793
  Scotland, where it would, of itself, have no meaning. But, as we want the law to be the same throughout the Kingdom, had we not better leave it to be interpreted in England, and for Scotland put in these words as a definition of "nuisance "which will be applicable to all three countries?
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, in the Public Health Act of 1878 a definition of "nuisance" was given in reference to sanitary matters which would not apply to this Bill. It was, therefore, desirable to have the definition for Ireland also.
  LORD MONKSWELLmoved the Amendments.
  Amendment moved,
  In Clause 2, page 1, line 19, after ("Sheriff Substitute") to insert ("and the expression 'nuisance to a highway' as applied to barbed wire means barbed wire dangerous to persons or animals lawfully using a highway").—(The Lord Monkswell.)
  Further Debate adjourned to Tuesday next.

ADULTERATED BUTTER.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  THE DUKE OF ST. ALBANSasked Her Majesty's Government whether the Danish Government had proposed a Conference with a view of framing a Convention to deal with the International trade in adulterated butter; and whether there was any objection to lay the Papers on the Table? He said, he wished to protest against the doctrine that had been laid down by the noble Lord who represented the Board of Trade in their Lordships' House that a free country could not interfere with the importation of adulterated food stuff, though consigned as "pure," provided it was healthy and pleasant. He denied that the demand for restricting the importation of adulterated better was one for protection under an alias, and that commercial freedom could possibly mean that butter be imported from Hamburg adulterated with 20 per cent. of water. Irish farmers had been convicted at Cork in August last for sending butter so adulterated to market. It was unfair to the honest British farmer and to the honest foreign producer that they should be handicapped in the present competition by the profit arising out of fraudulent adulteration of
  794
  foreign butter. It was unjust to the consumers that they should be exposed to the risk of paying for real butter and obtaining a fraudulent substitute. It was unjust to the retailers that they should be liable to be convicted for innocently selling such adulterated butter as genuine. Under these circumstances, he trusted that Her Majesty's Government would favourably consider the proposal which had been made by the Danish Government that an International Convention should be appointed for the purpose of checking this fraudulent trade.
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: My Lords, as far as the question relates to my Department, my part in this matter is a very simple one—namely, to explain that a proposal for the appointment of an International Convention was made by the Danish Government—but owing to the doubts expressed by the Board of Agriculture, the Board of Trade, and the Local Government Board, Her Majesty's Government did not embrace the proposal with any great alacrity. As regards publishing the Correspondence, inasmuch as negotiations on the subject are still proceeding between the two Governments, it would not be right for me to lay the Papers asked for upon the Table of the House. The noble Lord behind me will answer the question as far as it concerns the Board of Agriculture.
  THE EARL OF FEVERSHAMsaid, it was, no doubt, too true that very little could be done for British agriculture by any Body or any Government. He was quite aware of that. But still there were some steps the Board of Agriculture could take to help the suffering agricultural interest, and the noble Duke opposite had pointed out one of them. He hoped the Board of Agriculture would look into the matter, and see whether something could not be done to check this fraudulent trade in adulterated food commodities.
  LORD RIBBLESDALE: The noble Earl opposite has opened the larger question, whether the Board of Agriculture is prepared to move in the direction of interfering in the sale of articles which are not what they are represented to be. As regards the question asked by the noble Duke, the Board of Agriculture have considered that question from the point of view of the producer and not of the consumer or dis-

  795
  tributor. I think that the consumer and distributor are in capable hands under the Board of Trade. The Board observe that there undoubtedly exists amongst the home producers of butter a feeling that the existing legislation is insufficient to prevent the sale of margarine, or admixtures of butter and margarine, as butter, and complaint has frequently been made that the Local Authorities, with whom the execution of the Margarine Act rests, are not sufficiently active in the enforcement even of the existing requirements of the law. Certain Members of Parliament have recently formulated the views which have thus been expressed in the Margarine Act, 1887, and Sale of Food and Drugs Act (1875) Amendment Bill; but neither in regard to any of the proposals contained in that Bill, nor in connection with the various representations which the Board have received on the subject, has it been alleged that Parliament is unable to afford a full measure of security against the misrepresentation complained of, if a sufficient case for further legislation were made out. The proposal of the Danish Government for an International Convention appears to the Board to be made mainly in view of the scientific difficulty of detecting the presence of margarine in butter. The Board of Agriculture think the end in view can be much better secured by Parliament than by the philosophic and scientific inquiry recommended. If, however, the Danish Government would submit, as suggested by the Board of Trade, practical suggestions, the Board would be very glad to receive them, and to consider, in conjunction with the other Departments interested, whether it would be of advantage that any such proposals should be adopted in this country with benefit to the various interests concerned.
  LORD BELPERsaid, he was very glad to hear the statement of the noble Lord, but feared that no legislation would be of avail unless Her Majesty's Government were prepared to enforce it against adulterated butter entering this country from abroad. The only way of dealing with the matter was by getting at the manufacturer himself, if possible, and taking steps at the port of entry. No analysis or inquiry at present was ever made unless information was given to the Board of Trade or Customs that a cargo
  796
  of adulterated stuff was to arrive, and that information, of course, it was very difficult to give. He hoped the Customs and Board of Trade would take steps for having this so-called "butter" analysed, in order that the manufacturers might not continue to feel that they were left entirely without interference at the port of entry. He hoped the noble Duke's question would cause steps to be taken in the right direction.

LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS NAMES BILL.
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.—(No. 133.)
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 64.)
Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment: and to be read 3a on Monday next.
PRISON (OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION) (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 152.)
Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Friday next.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES ACT (1875) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 147.)
Reported from the Standing Committee without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Tuesday next.
WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.—(No. 177.)
House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without Amendment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Friday next.
LOCAL, GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 4) BILL. (No. 115.)
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Friday next.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 8) BILL. (No. 169.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 9) BILL. (No. 170.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) BILL.—(No. 168.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 94.)
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

WILD BIRDS PROTECTION BILL. (No. 83.)
Amendments reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Friday next.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Seven o'clock, to Friday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.