Sitting of 14 July 1893

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

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY AS GARDENERS.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if the Royal Irish Constabulary are warned by Circular to keep their gardens cropped each year; whether he is aware that the new County Inspector for Louth compelled his men at Hack ball's Cross to cut and clear away a fine crop of oats (unripe) out of their garden to convert it into a drill ground; whether, since the barrack was built, many years ago, the men have always been drilled in the barrack yard; and whether, in view of the fact that the destruction and deprivation of their garden has caused great dissatisfaction amongst the men, will he explain what cause exists at present for a step which was not thought necessary by any County Inspector since the barrack was established?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne): There is a standing regulation requiring that gardens attached to Constabulary barracks be properly utilised and not allowed to go to waste. It appears that a small portion of the garden to which the question of my hon. and learned Friend refers has this season

  1561
  successfully resisted all the efforts of the police to cultivate either vegetables or oats thereon, and the County Inspector, in the interests of the men themselves, ordered that they should be drilled on this barren tract in fine weather. The remainder of the garden is, I believe, under cultivation, and the men are quite satisfied and happy.

  THE CASE OF F. W. MORSS.
  MR. GRAHAM: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that a City postman named F. W. Morss, after five years' service as telegraph messenger and two years as postman, has been disqualified on account of failing eyesight and granted a bonus of £6; and whether, considering the special nature or this enforced retirement, he will recommend the Treasury to re-consider the case, with a view to their exercising the rights conferred upon them in Clause 3 of the Superannuation Act (1887) Amendment Act, of reckoning temporary services in making up the amount of the bonus?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY, Nottingham, E.): The particulars of Morss's service and the cause of his retirement were fully represented to the Treasury before his gratuity was fixed. The case is undoubtedly a hard one; but in view of previous decisions of the Treasury, I regret that the circumstances are not such as would justify me in asking their Lordships to re-consider their decision.

  STEAM TRAWLERS ON IRISH FISHING GROUNDS.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the statement in the latest Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries that complaints are made by the fishermen of Rush, County of Dublin, of injuries done to their nets and lines 'by steam trawlers; whether similar complaints have been made by the fishermen of Howth in the same county; whether the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries have inquired into the grounds for those complaints; and, if so, with what results; and whether, if the complaints referred to are well-founded, the Fishery Inspectors or the Government propose to do any-
  1562
  thing to put a stop to the injuries referred to?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The statement referred to in the first paragraph of the question was made by the station officer of the Coastguard at Rush in a Report furnished by him to the Inspectors of Fisheries. The Inspectors inform me that they have not heard of steam trawling within the territorial limits in the neighbourhood referred to; all trawling is prohibited between November and May inside of a line extending from Howth to Dunany Point, County Louth. I am causing further inquiry to be made as to the complaints preferred in the question.

  BALBRIGGAN HARBOUR.
  MR. CLANCY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been called to the statement of the Inspecting Commander of Coastguards, quoted in the latest Report of the Inspectors of Irish Fisheries, that it is very unfortunate, for the sake of the fishermen at Balbriggan, that the harbour is allowed to remain in its present condition, boats at present being unable to get in or out until nearly high water; whether, if the state of Balbriggan Harbour is correctly described in the foregoing words, the Government propose to take any action in the matter; and what sum of money will be required to dredge the harbour?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Board of Works report that Balbriggan Harbour is under the control of the Dublin Port and Docks Board, and that there is no margin of revenue for improvements. Unless powers are acquired by those interested for increasing the dues, there is no prospect of funds being available for dredging, and this has been impressed upon both Port and Docks Board and the local residents. The Board have no recent estimate of the probable cost of dredging.
  MR. CLANCY: Am I to understand that if the people interested are willing to submit to a slight increase of the dues money will be found for dredging the harbour?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am not so sure about that. The Board of Works state that a loan of £1,700 was made in respect of this harbour in 1868. Of this amount £1,600 is still unpaid, and the interest is largely in arrear.
  MR. CLANCY: But seeing that the security for that loan is practically gone, so long as the harbour is rendered useless by the failure to dredge it, would it not be as well to spend more money in order to open the harbour again?
  MR. W. JOHNSTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not consider this a proper subject to be left for the new Irish Parliament to deal with, seeing it will have such a plethora of money?
  [The questions were not answered.]

  THE IRISH CONSTABULARY FORCE FUND.
  MR. COLLERY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether resolutions have been received from the rank and file of the Royal Irish Constabulary, praying for the distribution of the Constabulary Force Fund; and whether inquiry has been made into the demand of the subscribers to the fund; and, if so, what action the Government intend taking in the matter?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have already replied very fully to several questions addressed to me on the subject of the winding up of the benefit branch of this fund, and to these replies I am afraid I have nothing to add.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, as the Government have made provision for the gradual dissolution of the Constabulary Force, whether he will consider the propriety of making some proposal for terminating this fund before the Force ceases to exist?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I will consider the subject from the point of view suggested by the hon. Member in the course of the next few days.

  MINISTERS ON SCOTCH PAROCHIAL BOARDS.
  DR. FARQUHARSON: I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether it is legal for the minister of a rural parish in Scotland to occupy a seat on the Parochial Board of his parish, on which six other members of his parish already sit, his own qualification to sit as a member of the Board being exclusively conferred on him as a member of the Kirk Session?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR, Clackmannan, &c.): By the 22nd section of the Poor Law Act, 1845, not more than six members of the Kirk Session may be members of a Parochial Board. Accordingly, where a minister has no other qualification than that conferred upon him as a member of the Kirk Session, and there are already six members of the Session upon the Board, he is not entitled to occupy a seat there.

  THE LIMERICK AND KERRY TRAIN SERVICE.
  MR. O'KEEFFE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been drawn to the resolution passed at the present Assizes by the Grand Jury of the County of Limerick, protesting that the recent refusal of the Board of Trade to allow more than one mixed train (passengers-and goods) a day each way is likely seriously to injure the passenger train service of the Limerick and Kerry Railway Company; and if, in accordance with the request of the Grand Jury and other Local Bodies, he will relax this rule, and allow a passenger carriage to be attached to the goods trains running on the Limerick and Kerry Railway?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA, Sheffield, Brightside): My attention has been drawn to the resolution of the Limerick Grand Jury, and I have referred the case to the Railway Inspectors of the Board of Trade to advise whether it is expedient to relax the rule, having regard to the interests of public safety. On receiving their Report the matter shall have my best consideration.

  STEAMBOAT RACING ON THE THAMES.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the frequency of passenger steamboat racing on the Thames between London and the Nore; and whether he will take steps to stop the practice?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The attention of the Board of Trade has been called to the alleged frequency of the dangerous practice referred to. I understand that several prosecutions have been instituted in the matter by the Thames Conser-

  1565
  vancy, and that convictions have been obtained and fines inflicted. In one instance I have directed an inquiry by the London Local Marine Board; and if the steps now being taken prove insufficient to check a practice the danger of which I fully admit, I shall be prepared to consider the expediency of recourse to other provisions of the Merchant Shipping Acts in order to put a stop to it.

  GOVERNMENT OFFICERS AS PATENTEES.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether in or about 1872 a Circular was issued by the Lords of the Treasury, calling attention to the case of officers in the Civil, Military, or Naval Service of the Crown employed on Committees of Inquiry or otherwise to judge of plans and inventions, and stating that, in their opinion, no officer while so employed should be permitted to obtain or hold, or be directly or indirectly interested, in any Letters Patent for any articles needed for the Government, nor to accept or derive any benefit whatever from any person interested as a patentee or otherwise in such inventions, and that no claim on behalf of an officer so employed should be admitted for compensation; and whether such Circular has since been withdrawn; or, if not, whether it still represents the views of the Treasury?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERTThe Treasury has issued no Circular on the subject. In a letter addressed to the Admiralty and War Office in December, 1871, the Treasury expressed the opinion that it was inexpedient that officers interested in patents should be appointed to judge of inventions. I am not aware that this opinion has ever been modified, and, so far as I can judge, it seems a reasonable one.

  THE INDIAN BUDGET.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India when he proposes to bring forward the Indian Budget?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. G. RUSSELL, North Beds.): This is a question which would be more suitably addressed to the Leader of the House. The answer
  1566
  must depend on the course of Public Business.
  MR. HANBURY: Then may I put the question to the Prime Minister?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE, Edinburgh, Midlothian)I cannot state when the Indian Budget will be taken; but from what I have heard there will be some convenience, in consequence of the remarkable circumstances in connection with the financial and monetary history of India this year, in not having the Indian Budget earlier than usual.

  THE "VICTORIA" RELIEF FUND.
  MR. KEARLEY: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty whether he has noticed the letter in yesterday's Times, in which Miss Weston, "the sailor's friend," points out that the cost of administering the various funds in the hands of the Patriotic Commission averages 13s. 8d. per head per annum, whilst the Serpent fund, administered by the Soldiers' and Sailors' Families' Association, amounts to only 6d. per head; whether the Admiralty will have any control over the administration of the fund which is being collected at the Mansion House and elsewhere on behalf of those who perished in H.M.S. Victoria; and whether, in view of the heavy demands which must fall on this fund, the Admiralty will undertake to administer it free of all costs whatsoever?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON, Dundee): I have read the letter referred to by my hon. Friend. The Admiralty have no control over relief funds other than those of Greenwich Hospital. The Admiralty, however, are anxious to render every assistance in their power to those entrusted with the administration of the relief funds collected by public subscription. The authorities of Greenwich Hospital are already engaged in obtaining complete information as to numbers, names, and circumstances of the widows and orphans of the men who were lost in the Victoria, and this and all other available information will be readily placed at the disposal of the Trustees.

  THE IRISH MAGISTRACY.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the

  1567
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that early in March last an insane patient was detained 26 hours at Manorhamilton, County Leitrim, no second Magistrate being available to commit him; was this circumstance brought at the time under the notice of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; was the Lord Chancellor requested to appoint to the Commission of the Peace for the County of Leitrim certain gentlemen resident in the Petty Sessions district of Manorhamilton; and has the Lord Chancellor arrived at any decision regarding the names submitted to him? I wish also to ask the right hon. Gentleman is he aware that Mr. M'Ternan, of Heapstown, County Sligo, has been appointed to the Commission of the Peace for the County of Leitrim, although he does not reside in the County of Leitrim, and does not own any property in it; what qualifications does Mr. M'Ternan possess for appointment to the Magistracy; and on whose recommendation did the Lord Chancellor act in appointing him? Further, may I ask the right right hon. Gentleman how many of the lists of additional Magistrates for counties in Ireland, promised in the House of Commons on 30th May, have been published since that date; and when will the remaining lists be published?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have called for Reports regarding these three questions which were placed on the Paper to-day for the first time. Perhaps the hon. Member will be good enough to repeat them on a future date.

  RECRUITING ADVERTISEMENTS.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War who is responsible for the recruiting advertisements in local newspapers; and whether he is aware that those advertisements still state that the soldier will, amongst other advantages, be well fed and well-clothed; and, if so, whether the War Office are prepared to give a more accurate description of the facts by some indication in such advertisements of the large contribution which the soldier has to make towards both food and clothing?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Recruiting advertisements are issued under the authority of the Inspector General of Recruiting. My attention has been called to the advertisement referred to by my hon. Friend, and I am
  1568
  of opinion that it requires some modification, as certain of the phrases, although expressing what is true, are capable of being read in a misleading sense. I propose to direct that this advertisement should be in future confined to that part of it which refers intending recruits to the pamphlet on the advantages of the Army, which pamphlet gives a full statement of all the stoppages and other conditions imposed on the soldier.

  RAILWAY RATES FOR BIRDS.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that among the revised Railway Rates and Charges the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company have recently imposed a charge upon bird fanciers and others attending exhibitions for the pets they carry with them in the railway carriage; and whether he can hold out any hope to these people that, in the adjustment of rates which is taking place, they will be relieved of the charge, and restored to their former privilege of conveying free their hampers and cages when these remain in the personal charge of the passenger?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Board have no information on the subject alluded to by the hon. Member, but I will invite the observations of the Railway Company on the alleged alteration in their practice.

  POSTMEN'S WAGES.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he can now state the intentions of the Government as to raising the minimum rate of wages for adult postmen?
  MR. A. MORLEY: The whole subject was considered by the late Government in the year 1890–91, and at that time considerable advantages were given to the postmen. I am not prepared to re-open the question.

  THE AGRICULTURAL DEBATE.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will consider the advisability of suspending the Twelve o'Clock Rule for the Agricultural Debate on Friday next?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: With respect to this question, I do not at present think it desirable to suspend the Twelve o'Clock Rule.

  MR. JUSTICE GIBSON'S CHARGE.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: May I take this opportunity of asking the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he proposes to lay upon the Table the official Report of Mr. Justice Gibson's Charge to the Grand Jury at Ennis?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman not consider the propriety of laying upon the Table the Charges of the Judges in the three Counties of Clare, Limerick, and Kerry, which together form what the right hon. Gentleman has described as a dark area?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I understand that the Judge's Charge at Ennis was moved for last night in another place, and that its production was agreed to. In these circumstances, if the right hon. Gentleman opposite will move for it the document will be laid at once on the Table of the House. I cannot accede to the wish of the hon. Member for South Tyrone, and do not see what purpose would be served, by the production of all the Judicial Charges referred to.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I did not propose to make any Motion of the kind. My contention is that the right hon. Gentleman is bound to lay on the Table Mr. Justice Gibson's Charge at Ennis, as he quoted from it in the House.
  MR. J. MORLEY: The right hon. Gentleman has not quite accurately stated what happened. He said he should move for the document, and the hon. and learned Member for Louth intimated that he would oppose any such Motion. Then the right hon. Gentleman declared that he would, if the Motion were opposed, claim the document as a Return under the Rules of the House. I have been awaiting the right hon. Gentleman's call.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: The term I used was "claim," not "move." I said it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to lay the document on the Table.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to claim the production under the Rules of the House?
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I do.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have no doubt it will be laid on the Table, but I am bound to point out that it is setting a bad precedent—and an undesirable precedent in matters of this kind. I submit—although I am not going to press the point on this occasion—that to call for the production of a document which a Minister has quoted, not to fortify his argument, but simply to correct a misquotation by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, does not come under the Rule quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, and I am not sure that I should be justified in complying with his demand.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I can only say, in explanation of my action in the matter, that one of the first lessons taught me in official life was never to quote a document unless I was prepared to lay it on the Table.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I did not quote it; I referred to it merely to correct the hon. Member for South Tyrone, who has since admitted that he made a misquotation.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to give notice that if any single Charge, or extract from a single Charge, is laid upon the Table, I shall move that all the Assize Charges of the Judges be similarly laid, in order to show that, in the opinion of the Judges, the state of Ireland generally is satisfactory.
  SIR C. CAMERON: May I ask whether, when a Minister quotes not from an official Report of a Judge's Charge, but from a report that appears in the newspapers, any Member of this House is entitled to ask for an official Report which the Minister had not in his possession?
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: But in this case the Chief Secretary did quote from an official Report of the Judge's Charge.
  MR. SPEAKER: I think the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is right in saying it would be a strained interpretation of the Rule to say that, because he quoted the actual textual Charge of the Judge on a particular point, he should lay the whole document on the Table of the House. The right hon. Gentleman did consult me on this point, and I said he could lay it on the Table at once, or he might await a Motion on the subject.
  MR. J. MORLEY: After that intimation, I shall wait until the right hon. Gentleman opposite moves.
  MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I understand it has been laid on the Table in the other House. The right hon. Gentleman, having referred to the document as an official Report taken by an official note-taker, I hold it comes within the category of documents which ought to be produced without a Motion on my part.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am afraid that, after what the Speaker has been good enough to say, I must still press the right hon. Gentleman to give notice of Motion.

  FRANCE AND SIAM.
  MR. CURZON: In consequence of the important and serious Hews that has appeared in the papers this morning concerning the advance of a portion of the French Fleet up the River Menam to Bangkok, and of the alleged commencement of hostilities between French and Siam, I wish to ask the Government whether they can give the House any information on the matter? I sent notice of the question to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but I understand there are circumstances that account for his absence. I, however, venture to think that it would tend to allay public anxiety if the Prime Minister could find it possible to make a statement on the question during the course of the afternoon.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I have also given private notice that I intend to put a question on the subject. My question is whether the French men-of-war have entered the Menam River contrary to the expressed wishes of the Siamese Government, and are now anchored off Bangkok threatening hostilities?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I see no reason why the House should not be at once put in possession of the information now in the hands of the Government. The information sent to me from the Foreign Office during the last quarter of an hour is very incomplete, and, of course, I cannot go beyond it. The Foreign Office have heard that French vessels have ascended the Menam River, but are not aware that they are threatening
  1572
  hostilities. It will consequently be necessary to defer any further statement on the point until Her Majesty's Government have received the explanation which they are at present expecting from the Government of France.
  MR. CURZON: The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in answer to a question recently put to him on the matter, stated that the French Government had given an assurance that any movement of their Fleet in the direction of Bangkok would be communicated beforehand to Her Majesty's Government. I wish to know whether any such intimation has been given?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have heard nothing of any intimation of that kind; but, at the same time, the hon. Member and the House may rely upon it that any pledge given by the Minister for Foreign Affairs in France will be scrupulously kept.

  THE INDIAN CIVIL SERVICE.
  MR. PAUL: I wish to ask the Under Secretary of State for India when the Despatch from Lord Kimberley to the Government of India forwarding the Resolution of this House on the subject of Civil Service examinations will be laid on the Table, and when it will be distributed? Perhaps I may say that, although extracts from the Despatch have appeared in the papers and in a question put in this House by the hon. Member for Elgin and Nairn, the Despatch has not been obtainable at the Vote Office. I should like to know when it will be in the hands of hon. Members?
  MR. G. RUSSELL: I laid the Despatch on the Table some days since. My attention has been called to the fact that extracts have been published as stated by my hon. Friend. I have inquired into the subject. I find there is a deadlock between the India Office and the Queen's Printers, the latter averring that they were awaiting the order to go to press, and the former alleging that the order had already been given. This is not the first time a thing of that kind has occurred; strict investigation is now being made, and I hope that a satisfactory explanation will be forthcoming from the Queen's Printers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF YORK'S MARRIAGE.

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I rise, in conformity with the Notice I have given, to move—
    "That an Address of Congratulation be presented to Her Majesty on the Marriage of His Royal Highness the Duke of York, and that congratulatory Messages be addressed to Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales and Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York."
    Mr. Speaker, in replying to a question put by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, I stated that the course of precedent was not absolutely uniform in this matter. There has been some diversity. Still, I think there is no question whatever that, although the House has no financial office to perform in the way of provision for the Royal pair, yet it is quite plain that, according to the spirit of our proceedings down to the present time, notice ought to be taken in the manner and to the extent which I have embodied in the Notice I have given on the Paper, considering that the case is one in the line of the direct succession to the Crown. I wish to impress that fact, because I think that, notwithstanding some divergences to which I have referred, it is quite plain that they would not, and ought not, to affect the proceedings that I invite the House to concur in. I need not say that the practice of presenting these Addresses is one in which the House has usually—indeed, I think not only usually, but on every occasion—both cordially and, above all, unanimously concurred. I most earnestly trust, notwithstanding an intimation that has reached me, that that unanimity will be maintained upon the present occasion. We are a body of 670 gentlemen, and it is the fact that the—I will not say erratic, because that would not be respectful, but the special—course pursued even by a single Member, though I think it beyond all doubt that it would even quicken and stimulate the general feeling, and though it would detract nothing from the force of any Address that the House might adopt, yet there is one thing it would do, and that a most unfortunate thing—it would take away from the grace and dignity of the loyal
    1574
    act on the part of the House of Commons. Therefore, I earnestly trust, and I cannot help feeling a certain confidence, that even if there be an hon. Gentleman who is disposed to think proceedings of this kind unnecessary and gratuitous, yet he will bear in mind that these are not questions of purely irresponsible or individual opinion; that much is due to the Body to which we all belong; and that when that Body, with all but unanimity in the most literal sense, is distinctly set upon taking a particular course in conformity with tradition and in conformity with something more, I think, than decorum—in conformity with loyal sentiment—it would be a most unfortunate proceeding if even an individual were found to dissent, with the effect that I have described—namely, of making a real and sensible deduction from the grace of the act, while certainly rather tending to produce in the mind of the House of Commons a sentiment of regret, and possibly something more than regret, that the traditional practice had been departed from upon such slight grounds of objection and by such slight authority. Having expressed that hope, for which I trust I shall be pardoned, because I admit that it is not the usual practice of a Minister making a Motion to deprecate an Amendment to that Motion; but the circumstances are peculiar, and justify what I have said. It is evidently necessary that it should be said now, as there will be no other opportunity. Having gone so far, I will proceed to make a very few remarks in commending this Address to the favourable notice of the House. In the first place, we propose to approach Her Majesty in the usual manner with an Address to Her Majesty. The House has had, upon numerous occasions—I might call them innumerable—to approach Her Majesty with expressions of its loyalty and sympathy, sometimes in joy and sometimes in sorrow; but upon all occasions that has been done by the House of Commons, not as a mere matter of form, but with regard to the sentiments which animated the internal mind of every Party and every section of the House—it has been done with real satisfaction, and with the consciousness that such an approach to the illustrious occupant of the Throne is not only a thing becoming in itself, but is really required, first of all, by the force of tradition and pro-

    1575
    priety; and, secondly, by the internal sentiment of interest and sympathy which we feel in everything that affects the welfare of the Royal Family. Consequently, I am sure that the House will present this Address to the Sovereign with a degree of cordiality that has never been surpassed. The interest which attaches to Her Majesty's reign—Her Majesty's illustrious reign—grows with every addition to its progressive length, and that interest will never have been expressed with greater warmth and greater sincerity, as I believe, than when we send to Her Majesty on the present occasion our congratulations, and the expression of our heartiest hopes and good wishes for the event which has occurred. Then we propose acting upon precedents which are rare, but which exist—I mean they are rare, inasmuch as it is rarely that any person except the occupant of the Throne comes within the scope of proceedings such as this. We propose, likewise, to send a dutiful and respectful Message of Congratulation to their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales in regard to their son. It is impossible to dismiss altogether from recollection the time, not very distant, when the parental feelings of the Prince and Princess of Wales suffered the infliction of a very deep wound. I have no doubt that is still a subject of the lively sympathy of this House with their Royal Highnesses. Such recollections on their part are of a character that do not readily pass away, but that does not diminish our joy when we observe that there has dawned upon them an occasion of genuine hope and gladness; and, with that occasion, we desire to take the opportunity of expressing the sentiments which we feel with regard to them, desiring, with regard to the Heir Apparent and his illustrious Consort, as well as to the Sovereign, to claim some participation in whatever vitally affects their fortunes in testimony of that unity which ought to unite, and which happily does unite, the several Powers by the joint action of which this great country is governed. In particular, I would venture to say that I am sure this House will feel special satisfaction that, in going through a trial so severe as has been the trial of the Princess of Wales, we rejoice that her health and strength have been found equal to the
    1576
    occasion, for I need hardly say to the House, what every man's own internal mind will echo, that she is one with respect to whom every subject of Her Majesty, both high and low, will feel that she has given him a sort of title, not only to admire, but to love. It is also proposed by us to send a Message of dutiful respect, and of cordial goodwill, to their Royal Hignesses the Duke and Duchess of York. No Prince, I think, has ever had, so far as he is personally concerned, a brighter opening, a brighter spring allotted to his young life than has been the case with the Duke of York. Young as he is, he has established strong titles, both to the respect and to the affection of the country. We appreciate him, and regard him for the devotion with which he has applied himself to the noblest and the most national of the public professions of the country, and not for that only, but for the high excellence and intelligence which on all occasions he has exhibited, and not least of all for his singularly frank and genial and kindly disposition. We have, Sir, every assurance that he has found a Consort worthy of him in all respects. To His Royal Highness and to that Consort I ask the House by means of this Motion to convey the expression of our deep satisfaction with a marriage based, as we believe, upon those considerations by which every marriage, high and low, ought exclusively to be governed; and to carry to them the expression of our fervent desire that it may be the foundation of a durable happiness in life. The Motion with regard to Her Majesty is in these terms:—
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to congratulate Her on the Marriage of His Royal Highness the Duke of York with Her Serene Highness Princess Victoria Mary of Teck, and to assure Her Majesty of the satisfaction felt by this House at an event which is of such deep interest to Her Majesty, and which is destined, as they trust, to secure the domestic happiness of Their Royal Highnesses."
    That Address, Sir, if carried, will be presented by those Members of this House who are Members of Her Majesty's most honourable Privy Council. It is further proposed—
    "That a Message be sent to Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales to congratulate Their Royal Highnesses on the

    1577
    Marriage of His Royal Highness the Duke of York, and to assure Their Royal Highnesses of the satisfaction which this House feels at an event so gratifying to the parental affection of Their Royal Highnesses, and of such promise for the future happiness of Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York."
    Then, Sir, lastly it is proposed—
    "That a Message be sent to Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York to offer the cordial congratulations of this House on Their Royal Highnesses' Marriage, and an expression of its earnest desire that this union may supply a firm foundation for Their Royal Highnesses' domestic happiness."
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman who has just made this Motion as Leader of the House has performed his task with such admirable felicity, and has given such clear expression to the feelings with which I am sure this Motion is regarded in every part of the House, that I only rise now to second it in order to give some clear manifestation of that unanimity with which on the present occasion we are all animated. We are, I think, fortunate above many other nations in this, that on such an occasion we can forget the ceaseless strife and battle of Party controversy, and we can join together with one heart and one spirit in offering our congratulations upon an event of national interest and national importance. The right hon. Gentleman has indicated his apprehension that there may possibly be found one individual in this House who is not prepared to join—I will not say with the majority, but with the whole of the rest of this House—in conveying this Message of Congratulation to the Royal personages concerned. I hope that his fears on this occasion will not be realised. But however that may be, I can assure him that my firm conviction is that not only is there no Party in this House which will not join heartily in voting for these Resolutions, but that there is no Party in this House or in the country which does not sympathise with the course we have been asked to pursue. It is a peculiarity, I think, of our English public sentiment that we look upon the affairs of Her Majesty and of the Royal Family with something of a personal regard, something beyond the mere political appreciation of their high duties. We feel for them in their sorrows, and we sympathise with them in their joys, and it is partly as the expression of this per-
    1578
    sonal feeling that I think the House of Commons, as representing the country, is doing no less than its duty in taking the step on which we are now engaged. Sir, with that personal feeling there has always been inextricably combined a deep sense of the fact that the Sovereign is the embodiment of our traditional liberties, and that the Crown represents in a peculiar manner that Empire and that Constitution which are our proudest heritage. Therefore, Sir, it surely had been unseemly if we had allowed this occasion to pass by, this occasion on which a Prince in the direct succession to the Throne is married to a Princess of English birth and training, without our expressing to Her Majesty, to the Prince and Princess of Wales, and to the Royal couple themselves, our strong interest and our deep congratulations. Sir, we wish the Royal couple every good thing. We hope that this auspicious occasion may be for them the beginning of a long life of domestic happiness, and we believe that the events which we are now celebrating will not only conduce to their personal happiness, but will build up the security of the Crown in the affections of the people for many, many years to come. For this reason, Sir, I, speaking for my friends upon this side of the House, express our cordial acceptance of the step which the right hon. Gentleman, as Leader of the House, has most fitly determined to recommend to the House on the present occasion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to congratulate Her Majesty on the Marriage of His Royal Highness the Duke of York with Her Serene Highness Princess Victoria Mary of Teck, and to assure Her Majesty of the satisfaction felt by this House at an event which is of such deep interest to Her Majesty, and which is destined, as they trust, to secure the domestic happiness of Their Royal Highnesses.
    "That a Message be sent to Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales to congratulate Their Royal Highnesses on the Marriage of His Royal Highness the Duke of York, and to assure Their Royal Highnesses of the satisfaction which this House feels at an event so gratifying to the parental affection of Their Royal Highnesses, and such promise for the future happiness of Their Family.
    "That a Message be sent to Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York to offer the cordial congratulations of this House on Their Royal Highnesses' Marriage, and an expression of their earnest desire that this

    1579
    union may supply a firm foundation for Their Royal Highnesses' domestic happiness."—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)
    MR. W. REDMONDsaid, he desired at the outset to assure the Prime Minister that, so far as he was concerned, the unanimity which he desired in the matter should not be broken. He had no desire—and, indeed, no earthly right to object to the action which the House was asked to take on the Royal Wedding. It appeared to him that, from the point of view of the vast majority of the Members of the House, the course proposed by the Prime Minister was perfectly natural. He did not desire to say a single discourteous word of any person, much less of the distinguished personages to whom it was proposed to present an Address on the present occasion. But he felt it was a duty incumbent upon him to give expression to what he knew to be beyond all question a very strong feeling amongst certain portions of the Irish people. The Irish people, no matter what else might be said against them, were a chivalrous and sympathetic people. They were quite ready to join in sympathy upon occasions of that kind; but the House could not at the same time expect them altogether to forget that while suffering and sorrow had fallen to the lot of the Royal Family in this country, that suffering and sorrow had fallen in a bitter and great degree upon many persons in Ireland who were looked up to with respect and esteem by a large section of their fellow-countrymen. He would not be honestly doing what he thought was his duty if he did not say he thought it was, in his opinion, a great pity that this Royal Wedding had not been signalised, as similar events in other countries had been signalised, by a gracious act of amnesty. Her Majesty's Government would have been well advised if they had sent a message to the people of Ireland on this happy occasion, so full of hope—a message that the prison doors had been thrown open and the Irish political prisoners released. It would have been a gracious act, and one which would, he believed, more than anything else, have tended to good feeling between England and Ireland. Even the other day in America, at the Columbian celebrations, the Chicago Anarchists were amnestied, and men who had been engaged in dreadful acts, which led to
    1580
    loss of life of officers of the law in the execution of their duty, had the prison doors thrown open to them. He was not there to apologise for any crime whatever; but let justice be done, at any rate, between Irishmen and Englishmen. The English dynamiters at Walsall were convicted and got five, seven, and ten years' penal servitude for acts exactly similar to those for which Irishmen had been sentenced to penal servitude for life. A very short time ago he had been in Limerick, and saw in that city a scene of wretchedness and misery which would have touched the heart of the strongest man in the House. He saw the poor old mother of one of these prisoners, who had been in gaol for 10 long years, and while children who had never looked upon the face of their near and dear relative prattled round her knee, she appealed to him with tears in her eyes if nothing could be done to allow her to see her son before she died. He spoke the sentiments of the vast mass of the Irish people in this matter as the Chief Secretary must know, and he declared that there would be a feeling of bitter disappointment in Ireland, as the Royal Wedding had not been signalised by the release of the political prisoners. The Corporation of the City of Dublin had refused to vote an Address, not because they were discourteous or ungenerous, but because, as a Representative Body, they felt bound to give expression to what was a deep-seated feeling of the Irish people in regard to the political prisoners. If it were not too late he would appeal to the Prime Minister and to the generous men in the House that those wedding celebrations should not be allowed to pass by without throwing open the prison doors, and so commence a new life in Ireland.
    MR. KEIR HARDIEsaid, he regretted being under the necessity of striking a discordant note. He asked the House to believe that it was no spirit of churlishness which prompted him to do so. His sympathies were as keen as those of any Member, and just because they were so he was impelled to call attention to the fact that, whilst that House to-day had time and to spare to offer congratulations to those who stood in no need of them, it had no time to consider the case of those who mourned, the poor and the needy

    1581
    and they who have no helpers. Twice during the present Session he had asked—once the Prime Minister and once the President of the Local Government Board—if time would be given to consider the case of the thousands of men who were unemployed, in this great city, and on both occasions the answer had been that it would be impossible to interrupt the ordinary course of Public Business. But when it was found that the course of Public Business was being interrupted for the purpose of to-day's Motion he was driven to the conclusion that not the want of desire to interfere with the ordinary course of Public Business, but the want of will to do something for the suffering, was what prompted the refusal on each occasion. Now they had all been seeing and taking part in the celebrations of the past week, and he might be allowed to present the other side of the picture. The day before the Royal Wedding one of the papers published what it called the "Shocking death of a woman at Edmonton." A woman named Wills, aged 46, was found lying dead on a heap of rags in a room in which there was not a particle of furniture, and a post-mortem examination showed a total absence of food from the stomach. The same day the papers contained an affecting letter from a clerk, who had committed suicide, to his wife. It began by stating—
    "I am starving; I have no home; I am separated from you and the child; I am tired of life."
    In the midst of scenes like these, which could be duplicated and multiplied, the nation was called upon to rejoice, and the House was asked to go through the mummery of passing Addresses of Congratulation which not one-half the Members believed in their hearts were called for. ["No, no!"] Supporters of the Opposition might say "No" with a clear conscience; but others when they were outside were not so tender in their feelings of loyalty as they were in the House that day. His intention had been to move as an Amendment—
    "That there is nothing in connection with the recent Royal Marriage which calls for special notice by this House";
    but, as it would be useless to attempt to go to a Division, he would content himself with entering his protest against the time of the House being wasted as it
    1582
    had been done by moving this Address and Messages while so much remained to be done. Yesterday he headed a deputation to the Board of Guardians of West Ham, representing 3,000 men, who anxiously begged to be allowed to work; but the Guardians had no means of setting them to work. In a few days the Government would be asked to pass a measure to empower the Guardians to deal with the question; and he trusted that right hon. Gentlemen would remember that the first act of chivalry ought to be to do justice to the poor and those who, on account of their poverty, were unable to help themselves. He hoped the Government would be loyal in deed as well as in mind, and would do something to remove a cancer which was eating into the national life, undermining the loyalty of the people, and making peace, prosperity, and happiness all but impossible.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I share the regret which was expressed in anticipation by the Prime Minister that anything which could even appear to detract from the grace of our proceedings should take place to-day. I certainly should not say that any discordant note had been struck by the hon. Member for Clare. When the hon. Member for West Ham commenced his speech I hoped I might say the same with regard to him. Both these hon. Members have causes to champion with which they have long been consistently connected. I do not myself feel inclined to blame them for having thought there was an opportunity on which they might raise those causes. The hon. Member for Clare disclaimed, in language which I think the House will appreciate, any intention to oppose this Motion on its merits; or to grudge the congratulations which the House is about to offer. The hon. Member for West Ham spoke of it as "mummery." Sir, I venture to say to him that even the poor for whom he pleads, even the miserable for whom he professes to speak, would not grudge the action of the House on this occasion. The marriage of two young people under auspicious circumstances is a subject for kindly feeling and for hearty congratulation from all classes, in whatever position the couple may happen to be placed; but

    1583
    this is essentially so when, as now, the persons with whom we are concerned are in a position in which they are in the view of the whole nation, so that everything they do is matter of public knowledge and public concern. On all previous occasions the House has sympathised with the Queen and with the Royal Family in both their joys and their sorrows, and I can only say for myself and those who act with me that we cordially agree in the Resolutions proposed by the Prime Minister.
    Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to congratulate Her Majesty on the Marriage of His Royal Highness the Duke of York with Her Serene Highness Princess Victoria Mary of Teck, and to assure Her Majesty of the satisfaction felt by this House at an event which is of such deep interest to Her Majesty, and which is destined, as they trust, to secure the domestic happiness of Their Royal Highnesses.—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)
    To be presented by Privy Councillors.
    Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That a Message be sent to Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales to congratulate Their Royal Highnesses on the Marriage of His Royal Highness the Duke of York, and to assure Their Royal Highnesses of the satisfaction which this House feels at an event so gratifying to the parental affections of Their Royal Highnesses, and of such promise for the future happiness of Their Family.—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)
    Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That a Message be sent to Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York to offer the cordial congratulations of this House on Their Royal Highnesses' Marriage, and an expression of their earnest desire that this union may supply a firm foundation for Their Royal Highnesses' domestic happiness.—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone.)
    Ordered, That the said Messages be severally presented by Lord Burghley, Sir Joseph Pease, Sir John Mowbray, Mr. Whitbread, and Mr. Leveson Gower.

  WAYS AND MEANS.
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1894, the sum of £5,834,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."—(The Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
  MR. GOSCHEN: May I ask when another Vote on Account will be required? Up to what day will the Government be able to go on with the sum placed at their disposal?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The next Vote on Account will have to be taken on one day between the 27th to the last day of July.
  MR. BARTLEY: Must the Vote be taken on one day? Will this Vote be closured for the necessity of the Public Service, as the other Votes have been closured, because we have not time to discuss anything but Home Rule?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I meant some day.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The 27th will be on Thursday, the 28th Friday, and the 31st Monday.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT, Oldham): There is sufficient in hand to last up to the end of the month. It will probably be on Monday, the 31st, that the next Vote will be asked for.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Should not the Vote be reported before the day on which the present Supplies will be exhausted? You may otherwise get into a corner.
  SIR J. GOLDSMID: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman for how many weeks the Vote on Account will be taken?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: If the right hon. Gentleman will ask the question on Monday, I will try to give him a. definite reply.
  Resolution agreed to; to be reported upon Monday next.
  Committee to sit again upon Monday next.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND [PAYMENTS].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Question again proposed,
  "That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom—(a) of salaries, pensions, and gratuities to Judges, Land Commissioners, County Court Judges, and officers of the Civil Service, and other officials who are in receipt of salaries paid out of moneys voted by Parliament; and (b) of salaries, gratuities, and pensions to the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police, together with the expenditure incidental thereto, in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to amend the provision for the Government of Ireland."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
  MR. THEOBALD*MR. THEOBALD (Essex, Romford), on a point of Order, said, the Resolution spoke of "any Act." He would like to know how many Bills the Government were going to bring in? Should not the Resolution refer to only the Home Rule Bill?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Resolution was drawn in the usual form.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I take it, Sir, that the question most directly raised by the Vote you have just put from the Chair relates to the Civil Service and Irish Constabulary, and other officials in Ireland. The Government have placed in the Bill some rather complicated provisions, which provisions, however, they have since very greatly modified. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if the right hon. Gentleman would make a general statement.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Without the general consent of the Committee it would hardly be in Order to discuss the matter now.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The question I asked, Sir, related simply and solely to the question of pensions for the Irish Police and for the Civil Service, which I thought were directly raised by the words you read from the Chair. I presume it will be quite in Order to deal with these questions in Committee with the general consent.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Quite so; my observations were directed to discussion on finances generally.
  MR. SEXTONasked whether, upon this preliminary formal Motion, they could have the same Debate upon the provisions of Clauses 27, 28, 29 and 30 that they would have when they reached those clauses; and whether they could have any discussion whatever now upon those parts of the general financial scheme which were outside those clauses?
  THE CHAIRMAN: No; I think, as I said just now, that that can only be done by the general consent of the Committee. Discussion with regard to the machinery, I think, would hardly be in Order.
  MR. J. MORLEY: What I anticipated was that by consent discussion upon the general financial proposals of the Government might take place; but I think it would be a lamentable departure from usage, in connection with a Resolu-
  1586
  tion of this kind, to take a discussion upon the contents of the clauses.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he proposed to discuss the general scheme upon the first of the clauses, and he did not want to be precluded from doing so.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have not the smallest desire to offer any impediment to any discussion which the Committee may be disposed to acquiesce in.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Is it not a fact, Sir, that those clauses deal with the subject of compensation? Under those circumstances, it surely would be in Order upon this Resolution to discuss the scheme of compensation adopted by the Government. I understand that to be the effect of your answer to the hon. Member for Kerry. As regards the question of a general discussion on finance, I am disposed to agree with the Member for North Kerry that the most convenient time to take that would be on the first clause which comes under discussion. But I understand that in the event of our postponing any general discussion of their financial scheme until that time no objection will be taken, on any point of Order, to the Second Reading discussion upon the first new clause.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Certainly, Sir. If I may say so, it appears to me that Members should have an opportunity of making observations with the consent of the Committee.
  MR. GOSCHEN: In several quarters of the House it is thought that the most convenient way will be to discuss the financial plan on the new clause. Certainly, I should not attempt to interpose on the present occasion, because it would clearly be a very lop-sided discussion if the Irish Members were not to take part in it, and to express their opinions. But I think it would be for the general convenience if the Government can see their way to answer one or two questions with regard to finance. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE: No objection.] I should like to know whether we may take it that the new contribution under the new plan is £2,262,000—that is to say, one-third of the Revenue of Ireland, exclusive of Miscellaneous Receipts; from that we have to deduct £162,000 for the collection of the Inland Revenue and £65,000 for the collection of the Customs, besides a certain indefinite

  1587
  amount which is spent upon stationery and other things which are included in the general Civil Service Votes. If we may assume that to amount to about £23,000, we should have a total to deduct of about £250,000, which would mean a net contribution of £2,012,000. From that there would have to be deducted the cost of the police, which is imposed on the Imperial Exchequer, and amounts to £490,000, or, in round figures, £500,000. The result would be a contribution of £1,512,000. Then I would ask whether that represents as nearly as possible about 1–40th of the total Imperial Expenditure, or 2½ per cent?
  MR. SEXTON MR. SEXTON rose to Order. The right hon. Gentleman was now raising the sort of debate which it was held could not be raised on this Resolution.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I do not want for a moment to enter into controversy. What I wish is to elicit information which may be found useful in future Debates. I do not wish at the present time to argue the matter out with the hon. Member and the Government. It is merely to assist the general discussion that I wish to bring out the figures.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, the Resolution that day was only required to authorise the payment of new and extra charges on the people. He took it that they were the price the English people were to pay for passing this Bill. It seemed to him that it was extremely pertinent to the question to consider what the thing was for which they were to pay this price.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that it would not be in Order to raise that discussion on the Resolution.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had delivered an extremely controversial speech. The right hon. Gentleman assumed that Ireland was bound to contribute to all the Imperial charges without exception, and that he did not admit. The right hon. Gentleman also treated the charge for the Irish Police as a permanent charge.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I would like to point out to the hon. Gentleman that I made special reference to the cost of the police, in order that there might be no misunderstanding. I put entirely on one side the question of what Ireland's con-
  1588
  tribution ought to be. I took the figures of the First Lord of the Treasury, and stated that when the proper time came I should be in a position to prove that something ought to be added to them. I wish simply to know whether the figures are correct?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think it will be best, in answering the right hon. Gentleman's figures, if the House will permit me briefly to state in outline what the Government proposal is. I do not think that any official statement has yet been made in the House with reference to the character of the present plan; and it may be useful, both inside and outside the House, that the simple details of the plan should be stated. First of all, I distinguish between the present plan and former plans in which an attempt was made, by estimating the Death Duties and so on, to ascertain what particular quota ought to be paid by Ireland. The present plan is founded on no estimates of that character. The Government have endeavoured to ascertain as nearly as possible, as the basis and principle of their plan, what is at the present time the actual contribution of Ireland towards the Imperial Revenue—that is, the basis and principle upon which this plan is founded. In that we were assisted very much by the valuable Paper produced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite with reference to the financial relations of the three countries. There were circumstances, as the right hon. Gentleman is well aware, which rendered the accurate ascertainment of that fact very difficult. The figure is got at in this way—by ascertaining first of all what is the Revenue derived from Ireland, then what is the expenditure due to Ireland, and the difference between these two figures shows the actual contribution that Ireland makes to Imperial Revenue. According to the method of calculation adopted by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, it will be found, as appears in his Financial Paper to which he has referred, that the contribution of Ireland for the year 1889–90 was stated at £2,500,000, and for the year 1890–1, £2,283,000. A remarkable circumstance is that in the last year of the right hon. Gentleman's administration (1891–2) the contribution of Ireland was taken at £1,882,000. That figure has been subjected to correction since. There

  1589
  were errors in the receipts from Excise; but the expenditure was over-estimated, so that the correct figure for the year 1891–2 came out at £1,880,000, or as nearly as possible the figure given in the Return. I think I ought also to call attention to another remarkable Table in this Return of the right hon. Gentleman's, because it has a very distinct bearing on the whole of this subject. The right hon. Gentleman perceived himself that there were exceptional circumstances in regard to Ireland which did not affect the other parts of the United Kingdom, and that, therefore, the contribution of Ireland ought to be regarded with a consideration of the enormously disproportionate expenditure in Ireland due to the magnitude of the Police Force. The right hon. Gentleman said—
  "In the Tables given in the following Papers all items of Revenue have, as far as possible, been divided between the three Kingdoms according as Revenue is contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively; and all items of expenditure have, as far as possible, been divided between the three Kingdoms according as expenditure is incurred on English, Scottish, and Irish Services, without there being drawn any inferences as regards the equity of the contribution or the advantages derived from the expenditure."
  The right hon. Gentleman will perceive that there is a great distinction in respect of the equity of the contribution and the advantages derived from the expenditure between the three countries. The right hon. Gentleman went on in his Paper—
  "In the Appendix, however, with a view to facilitating the calculation which would probably be made as to how far the figures of the percentages of contribution to Imperial Services would be altered in the case of Ireland, if the excess of the cost of the police and the amount of extraordinary expenditure incurred for light railways and works of that kind were eliminated, a statement is given showing the proportionate percentages of expenditure in 1890–1 and 1891–2 on English, Scottish, and Irish Services, and the respective contributions of the three Kingdoms to Imperial Services, after so much of the cost of the police as is not met out of the rates in each of the three Kingdoms and the special Irish grants have been deducted from the expenditure charged to England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively and added to the respective Services."
  MR. GOSCHEN: The Treasury had undertaken to construct this Return on absolutely neutral grounds. There was nothing controversial in the Return. I looked upon myself, when I issued it, as bound not to put my own views in a Return, but to put the matter in a
  1590
  neutral way. I felt that hon. Members below the Gangway would be perfectly within their right in challenging the question of the police, and I thought it would be for the general convenience of the House that the calculation should be made in the way it had been. I took no personal view of the subject whatever, and I am not prepared to accept any inference, political or otherwise, that may be drawn from an entirely neutral Return.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not wish to put any interpretation of that kind on it. I only called attention to the fact that the Return showed that if we are to compare like with like, we must treat the Irish Police on a different footing and on a different basis of calculation. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, does injustice to his own officers. Upon the principle accepted in that paragraph, the contribution of Ireland is, in fact, £2,000,000 more than appears on the other Paper. You will find that in the corrected Returns, upon the basis of the principle which is set forth in the paragraph to which I have alluded, in the year 1889–90 the contribution would be £4,090,000; in the year 1890–1, £4,161,000; and in the year 1891–2, instead of being a contribution, as I have previously stated, from the other incorrect Return of £1,888,000, it would be a contribution of £3,969,000, or a contribution of £1,000,000 more than upon the other principle of calculation.
  MR. GOSCHENasked, could the right hon. Gentleman state how much was due to the expenditure on light railways, for which a grant was made in the course of that year which was a benefit given to Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman had treated the matter from the point of view of the Constabulary; he should also treat it from the point of view of the benefit given to Ireland by this expenditure.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think the right hon. Gentleman made a mistake in his figures. He said £1,000,000 more.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I said £2,000,000 more. I am not called upon to explain the right hon. Gentleman's Return; I am stating as clearly as I can what the Return states. The Return gives, first of all, the figures which I first mentioned. Then I read the paragraph which lies on the Table, and that

  1591
  paragraph states, as I have read, that it should be corrected, or might be corrected. I do not know whether this Return distinguishes between light railways and the police. I am not clear upon that point; but, at all events, upon the principle of that paragraph, if you apply those principles you will find the contribution of Ireland from that point of view would be, in fact, £2,000,000 more than it would be upon the other calculation. That, I think, is a statement of fact.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman accepts the proposition that the contribution of Ireland would be £4,000,000?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: No; what I say is that if you say that the contribution of Ireland is, as a fact, upon the balance of the Irish Expenditure and Irish Revenue, £1,858,000, the right hon. Gentleman has admitted in this paragraph that that ought not to be taken as against Ireland, as it would be against Scotland, as the share of its contribution.
  MR. GOSCHEN: I cannot allow him to say I have admitted that. I have admitted nothing of the kind.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I will assume for the moment that the right hon. Gentleman had nothing to do with this Return, and I will dissociate him from it. I have called attention to a public document and a public statement of figures made upon one basis and of figures taken upon another basis. I do not want to enter into a controversy upon the subject, but merely to make a statement upon the figures before the House. I come with these preliminary observations to what, as far as we can ascertain—we hope and believe that it is ascertainable with more accuracy now, possibly, than it was, perhaps, in former times—what is now, in the year 1892–3, the balance between Irish Revenue and Irish Expenditure; and when I speak of Irish Revenue I speak of Revenue which may be properly considered as derived from Ireland. You cannot, as a fact, take merely the Revenue that is collected in Ireland, because that requires correction in the case both of the Customs and the Excise. In reference to the Customs, a good deal of the Customs upon tea consumed in Ireland is collected in England; and, on the other hand, in the case of the Excise,
  1592
  a considerable portion of the Revenue collected in Excise in England is due to spirits consumed in Ireland; therefore, you must make a distinction in both these cases before you arrive at what is the true Irish Revenue. In respect to Excise, you can arrive pretty clearly at what is properly English Revenue collected in Ireland. With reference to the Customs, it is somewhat more difficult—the ground is not ascertained; but the error is probably not very serious. I will state from a Paper, which is already before the House, what is the true Irish Revenue. The Revenue collected in Ireland under Customs is £2,136,000. Then you have for an allowance on duties paid to Great Britain on articles consumed £266,000. That makes the total estimated true Revenue of Ireland under Customs £2,402,000. The Revenue collected from spirits in Ireland is £4,112,000. From that you have to deduct £1,872,000 for what is consumed in England, making a total estimated Irish Revenue from Excise of £2,240,000. The Revenue collected from beer is £811,000, and, deducting from that the allowance for duties paid in Ireland on beer consumed in England of £187,000, it leaves the corrected figure for beer at £624,000. The Licence Duties collected in Ireland amount to £194,000. That makes a total from Excise of £3,058,000. Then you come to Stamp Duties collected in Ireland. That is subject, probably, to some slight correction or reduction. It is difficult to ascertain what that correction or reduction is, but it is only a small amount. We have taken here the collection as the true Irish Revenue collected in Ireland. Stamp Duties collected in Ireland give £707,000; Income Tax, £552,000; Crown Lands, £65,000; Miscellaneous Irish Receipts, £138,000. These figures amount to £6,922,000, and form the true Irish Revenue upon which the calculation of the Government is founded. So much for the true Irish Revenue; now for the Irish Expenditure. The Civil Government charges are £3,123,000; the Constabulary charges, £1,459,000; and the estimated deficit on the Postal account £52,000, making a total of £4,634,000. The difference between the two figures is £2,300,000, and that is what the Government take as being the contribution of Ireland. It is a remarkable fact that

  1593
  the sum of £2,300,000 constitutes almost exactly one-third of the Irish Revenue as I have given it. Therefore, in proposing to give to England out of the Irish Revenue one-third, we are, in point of fact, giving exactly what Ireland did contribute in the year 1892–3, according to the Return. If you had in the year 1892–3 given to England £2,300,000, you would have given to her one-third of the total Revenue of Ireland. That is to say, you have given to England from Ireland £500,000 more than Ireland actually paid in the preceding year 1891–2. That is the fact. I do not say the right hon. Gentleman was bound to take from Ireland in the year 1892–3, but he did, according to his calculation, receive from Ireland for the benefit of the English Exchequer £1,888,000. That is the right hon. Gentleman's own calculation of what Ireland yielded to the English Exchequer in the last year of his administration. That is an important point to dwell upon in this Debate—that, without complaint at that time, the contribution of Ireland, in the last year of the last Government, to England was £1,888,000, and from the expenditure being less in the year 1892–3 the contribution has naturally been larger, and upon the figures taken upon the same basis would have been £2,300,000. These I believe to be the exact facts. That figure that I have given of £2,300,000 is 1–27th part of the £63,000,000, which is the total Imperial Expenditure. The Government proposes to give to Ireland two-thirds of the Irish Revenue derived from the taxes and Crown Lands, which amount to £4,522,000, the whole of the Miscellaneous Receipts, which come to £138,000. That will be giving to Ireland £4,660,000. That sum will exceed the actual expenditure upon Ireland, as estimated for the year 1892–3, by a sum of £26,000.
  MR. SEXTON: It would if you only took two-thirds of the police charge. If you take the whole police charge it will be far less than the expenditure.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Yes; but I am taking it upon the proposed basis of two-thirds. If you take the whole police charge, of course what the hon. Member says is perfectly true; but if you take two-thirds, according to our proposal, then the other figures will result from it. But what we propose is,
  1594
  without endeavouring to fix the right hon. Gentleman at all with the policy or principle laid down in this précis of the Financial Paper—
  MR. GOSCHEN: It is not a policy or a principle.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Very well, I should like to use some word which would describe the Paper without arousing the susceptibilities of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. GOSCHEN: If the right hon. Gentleman had used the word "hypo thesis"
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Very well; I will use the word "hypothesis." We will treat the figures relating to the Paper number 329, for the year 1891, in the name of Mr. Jackson, as a hypothesis, and we will suppose that Mr. Jackson was an imaginary person putting forward a hypothetical case.
  MR. GOSCHEN: My right hon. Friend is really too acute. The Paper which the right hon. Gentleman has read is an Appendix at the end of the Report, which is hypothetical in calculation. The Report is not an imaginative Paper at all, but is based on the actual facts of the case; and I really think it is not fair, when one particular page is treated as this is treated, to say that the whole Return is simply a hypothetical document. It is a document by which we stand, and was prepared with the greatest possible care; and, in order that hon. Gentlemen opposite might not think there was any unfairness in the Return, the Treasury show how it would work out on the hypothesis of the police being taken. That, I assert, is an absolutely correct statement. He must not describe it as being a policy or principle; it is an Appendix.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I had accepted the right hon. Gentleman's word "hypothesis." At the top of this page is the word "Introduction." Introduction is different to Appendix. I always thought the introduction governed the whole Return; and so far from this being printed at the end of the Paper, it is apparently an introduction to a policy. I will call it, then, a hypothetical introduction to a financial Return for 1890–91. The difference between "introduction" and "hypothesis" is still a moot point, and must lie between the late Secretary

  1595
  to the Treasury and the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. But now we will go on. Upon that we propose to give to Ireland an allowance of one-third in respect of the Irish Constabulary. No doubt that is a subject which may be a matter of considerable conflict. But you have to consider several matters in that respect. First of all, we have to consider the fact that it is what is 'called a wasting charge—it is a charge which will expire after the lapse of certain years. Why does it exist? What brought it into existence? Without desiring to raise warm political controversies no man can deny this: that the Irish Constabulary has been the concomitant and the result of your system of government in Ireland. No other country but Ireland has an establishment of that enormously expensive character in relation to its resources and its revenue. I wish to use the most colourless words I can, but you are carrying on a system of government in Ireland which is different to the conditions of your government in every other part of the Empire, and to enable you to do so you have a Force of Police costing £1,500,000 to keep up. These are considerations which the House must bear in mind—that you have imposed upon England for the government of Ireland on account of your government of Ireland this great and expensive Force. When a country governs another country very much against its will, and very much without its consent, it is always an expensive government. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham will probably remember that the government of Austria in Lombardy was very expensive, and that the government of Russia in Poland was an expensive government, and is so now.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Mellor, I rise to a point of Order. I do not in the least object to this enlargement of the Financial Statement, but I ask whether, if it is to be continued in this controversial way, we shall be permitted to reply?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I wish to meet my right hon. Friend if I can. I will withdraw my allusions to him. I will treat all I have said on this subject as hypothesis.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: And run away as you did last night.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not desire, Sir, that what I wished to be a figure of speech should wound the susceptibilities of the right hon. Gentleman. I will, therefore, confine myself to this proposition: that a government carried on without the consent of the people will be an expensive government. I say that it is necessarily an expensive government, and having created or perpetuated government of that kind, you ought to take some share in the winding up of these expenses. You cannot dismiss this great semi-military force—this army which your system of government has made it necessary for you to create and keep up in Ireland; and then, though you were to create in Ireland a state of things which no longer requires a great military force to carry out the government of that country, and consequently a condition of government which is less expensive, you cannot get rid of these liabilities of the country, and it is upon that principle that we think it fair that until a condition of things arises in which you may have a Police Force more corresponding to the natural condition of things in a free country, you should bear some share in the burdens of the system you have created. That would be, as I have said, for a time only. This is dealing with the ordinary Revenue and Expenditure; and I do not admit that deduction ought to be made from the Irish funds for the cost of collecting the Customs and Inland Revenue Duties. We pay it at present, and we should continue to do so. But objection has been taken that if an extraordinary emergency were to arise, such as war, and it were found necessary to make extraordinary calls upon the United Kingdom, there-ought to be a system of finance which would make Ireland contribute a full share. If we put on a War Tax now Ireland would pay the whole tax, and the whole of it would go into the English Exchequer.
  MR. SEXTON: Has the right hon. Gentleman considered that if you increase the Excise Duties in order to pay for war, you would compel Ireland to pay an eighth of the War Tax, or three times her share?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am explaining. I have not studied that particular point, hut I would remind the hon. Member that Ireland at present pays more taxes into the Imperial Exchequer, and

  1597
  that, in this case, the tax will not be divided into thirds. Ireland would pay the whole tax, and the whole tax would go into the English Exchequer.
  MR. COURTNEY: Say the Exchequer of the United Kingdom.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Ireland will not be worse off under the proposed arrangement. I saw yesterday a letter from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Goschen) published in The Times newspaper, in which there was a fallacy which I think the right hon. Gentleman has not observed. The truth is, that his comparison was between the incorrect figures of the first plan of the Government and the correct figures of the second plan. Consequently, the right hon. Gentleman was not comparing like with like. He ought to have compared the correct figures of the first plan with the correct figures of the second plan. Well, now I have endeavoured to explain to the Committee the principles of the financial plan which the Government offer to consideration. I have said that the initial contribution of Ireland will be £2,300,000, and the Government propose to make an allowance of something short of £500,000 for the Irish Constabulary during the time of existence; but that will be a vanishing sum. The allowance of £500,000 will reduce the contribution of Ireland to £1,800,000, which was about its amount in the last year of the right hon. Gentleman's Administration, in 1891–92. In time the Government hope that, when the police of Ireland returns to its normal condition, the contribution of Ireland will be less.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The last observations of the right hon. Gentleman show the method he employs in explaining his position. The right hon. Gentleman goes back to the year 1891–92 in order to find the exact amount which he says Ireland should contribute to the English Revenue. But the right hon. Gentleman will see that he ought to consider whether the Expenditure has increased since that year, otherwise the right hon. Gentleman must think that Ireland ought to make the
  1598
  same contribution in a year of higher Expenditure as in a year of lower.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: There is one explanation which I ought to have made. When I said that the Government hoped this expenditure on the Irish Police would diminish, I ought to have said that one of the advantages contemplated was that in the future we shall be relieved from the increasing demands for English expenditure on Irish matters. During the last three years the increase of Expenditure over Revenue in Ireland has been about £100,000 a year. If we went on increasing the expenditure of England in Ireland upon light railways we would, pro tanto, increase that expenditure by £100,000.
  MR. GOSCHEN: That is not the point I was dealing with. I was speaking of the increased Expenditure all over the Empire. I appreciate the compliment the Chancellor of the Exchequer pays me in seeking to establish for everything the right hon. Gentleman does a precedent from myself. The right hon. Gentleman has now propounded the whole of his plan, and I am bound to say he has been fairer in this respect than was the Prime Minister in relation to the question of the retention of the Irish Members, when he withheld all information up to the last moment, fearing it would lead to an attack. Without dealing with the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposals with any thoroughness, as I expect they will be the subject of an exhaustive Debate later on, I will point out one or two fallacies in them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said we ought not to deduct from the contribution of Ireland the cost of collection of Customs and of Inland Revenue.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Certainly not.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Then is Ireland to contribute to the collection of the Revenue in England and in Scotland? I contend that the Imperial contribution of Ireland ought to be paid over in the gross, and I think we are perfectly entitled, therefore, to deduct the £227,000, the cost of

  1599
  collection of Customs and Inland Revenue, from the contribution which Ireland will have to pay.
  MR. SEXTONasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he would think it fair to deduct the cost of collection of revenue which, although collected in Ireland, would be treated as English revenue—he meant the duty or Excise paid in Ireland but consumed in England?
  MR. GOSCHEN: Certainly not. In the case put there ought to be an adjustment, and it would be quite unfair to charge Ireland with any portion of it. It seems to me that the particular fallacy in the proposals of the Government is that Ireland should not pay the cost of collecting her Imperial contribution. I think each country which is treated as a financial unit should pay its share of this amount, and it is reasonable and logical that Ireland should do so as well as England and Scotland. The cost of that collection would amount to £227,000, and, in addition to that, we present Ireland with £500,000 a year, and contribute to the cost of the Constabulary until it is reduced to a minimum. The total is more than £700,000 a year out of the pockets of the British taxpayer, given to Ireland so that she may start fair. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken as his basis what Ireland contributes at present, and, without saying whether it is right or wrong, he says—"We will present her with a marriage gift of £500,000 a year on the union of hearts." I have only to observe that Ireland will be richer, and England and Scotland poorer, so long as this is paid. I do not think the British taxpayer will be particularly grateful to the Government for proposing to inaugurate the new system with a bonus of such magnitude. It is a dangerous financial experiment, and can only have the effect of demoralising the Irish Exchequer from the very beginning. Because we have poured Imperial money into Ireland in the past, now the right hon. Gentleman says that the minimum contribution which Ireland had paid is to be the standing contribution which Ireland is to pay in the future.
  SIR W. HARCOURTwas understood to say that all he urged was, that it should be regarded as the standard from which they should start in the consideration of the question.
  MR. GOSCHEN: The question is, What is the standard of the contribution? While the Irish Members are perfectly within their right in trying to make the best bargain they can for Ireland, it is the duty of the Representatives of the British taxpayer to examine the matter with equal care to see whether, under this arrangement, they are not going to pay an exorbitant price for the privilege of giving Ireland Home Rule. The population of Ireland being one-eighth of the population of the United Kingdom, the sum you propose is equivalent to giving to England and Scotland an addition of £4,000,000 a year to the present Expenditure. It would be most imprudent if a British Administration were to say—"There are £4,000,000 which, besides the ordinary expenditure, you can employ in developing industry and in promoting any special objects." I accept only hypothetically the position of the Government that Ireland should pay what she is paying now. The whole subject will have to be carefully examined. Ireland is paying comparatively little at present, but Ireland will have to take the disadvantages as well as the advantages of the proposed new position. There has never been any reluctance on the part of the British public or the British Government to come to the assistance of Ireland whenever necessary, and that very fact has diminished the net contribution which Ireland pays. The basis adopted is not a fair one. We must examine whether the contribution of Ireland is not now largely reduced by special circumstances. A large portion of the items which seemed to swell the contribution to Ireland was due to light railways. A considerable sum was thus returned to Ireland, and diminished her contribution. What was the mean standard of the contribution of Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman now took about £1,500,000, which represented 1–40th, or 2½ per cent. of the total Imperial Expenditure. When they came to the Financial Clauses the House of Com-

  1601
  mons would have to examine exactly whether the British taxpayer would be content with this 2½ per cent., which would be the contribution which Ireland would make in the immediate future. That might be increased to a little more than 3 per cent. later on, when the contribution for the Police ceased; but it would always remain a long way beneath the standard of 1–13th or 1–17th which the Prime Minister laid down in 1886, when he said that the expenditure passing through the Death Duties, and not the amount collected, was the best criterion to go by. The proceeds of the Death Duties had increased far more rapidly in Great Britain than in Ireland since 1886, and, therefore, he would not pin the right hon. Gentleman to the figures he gave in 1886. They were now more favourable to Ireland. But he thought it would be found that, whilst the Irish Members were right in trying to make the best bargain they could, and in endeavouring to show that Ireland would pay her full share under the proposed arrangement, it would be the duty of the Representatives of the British taxpayer to examine the arrangement to see whether the British taxpayer was not asked to pay an exorbitant price for the privilege of giving Home Rule to Ireland.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had said what should be the standard of Ireland's contribution, and had suggested that as the Imperial expenditure in Ireland might be diminished, therefore the standard of Ireland's contribution should not be measured by the surplus now available for Imperial charges from Irish Revenue. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman what was likely to be the surplus from Irish Revenue if the Home Rule Bill was defeated, and an attempt was made to govern Ireland against the will of her people? There was a surplus of £2,000,000 now; but if the present system were maintained, in a year or two there would not be a penny.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Why not?
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the hon. Member would be good enough to determine that for himself. They would have to increase the charge for police, heavy as it was at present.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Why?
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that surely hon. Gentlemen opposite were intelligent enough to make this inference for themselves. They would have to increase the Judicial and Civil, and probably the Military, expenditure; and the alternative to the proposals of the Government simply was that there would be no surplus left at all for Imperial purposes, instead of a surplus of about £2,000,000. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that £500,000 was a demoralising surplus for the Irish people, and his austere soul was troubled by the spectacle of Ireland proceeding to misuse this surplus of £500,000. Had the right hon. Gentleman considered that Ireland would want some surplus in order to proceed to organise her own Police Force? Let it be observed that if it were not for the allowance of £500,000, which was to be made in respect of the police, there would be no surplus at all. If it were not for this temporary allowance for six years, what the right hon. Gentleman proposed would be the hard and even repulsive bargain that out of all the Revenue of Ireland she would be allowed just as much as would meet present charges, and the Imperial Parliament would take every penny besides. What sort of an arrangement would it be if they would only allow for the present expenses of Imperial Government in Ireland, and were starting a new Government into existence without a penny to discharge the expenses of the Government—would that be a tolerable arrangement? There was another fact which the right hon. Gentleman had chosen to exclude from his argument. That fact was, that when the Home Rule Bill became law the whole system of Imperial loans would be discontinued. The Imperial Government would lend no more money for public purposes, whether for public health or for the improvement of land, or for any public purpose in Ireland. The question he would put to the Committee, supposing it did what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen) wanted, and drove a Shylock bargain, allowing Ireland nothing but so much as would meet her present charges, was—how was the Irish Government to proceed to

  1603
  organise the establishment of a public works loan service or any loan service in Ireland in place of the Imperial loan system which would cease immediately the Home Rule Bill became law? It was manifestly obvious, if the public service was to continue in Ireland, that the Irish Government must be provided with some surplus from which loans might be made. The right hon. Gentleman, in referring to the plan of 1886, had, with his customary ingenuity, managed to exclude a governing fact of the case. He said that the Prime Minister, in 1886, proposed that Ireland should pay 1–15th of the Imperial charges.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, he did not say that. He had said that the Prime Minister laid down 1–15th as a fair standard, and had based his calculation on the Income Tax and Death Duty Returns.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, neither the Death Duties nor the Income Tax afforded any tolerable test. The Income Tax in Ireland was collected from a limited class, and the Death Duty was even a worse test. What the Prime Minister said was that 1–15th would not be applicable as a standard unless this 1–15th more were deducted, not from the Revenue contributed by Ireland, but from the whole Revenue collected in Ireland. In the plan of 1886 the Prime Minister proposed to take from Ireland a nominal contribution of £3,600,000. But that contribution was not to be taken as now from the Revenue contributed by Ireland, but from the Revenue collected in Ireland, which reduced the £3,600,000 by £1,800,000, from which a further deduction had to be made on account of cost of collection. The right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to convey that the plan of 1886 was less favourable to Ireland than the present one, and he had endeavoured also to lead the Committee to think that the Prime Minister thought in 1886 that 1–15th was a fair standard for Ireland to pay; whereas the Prime Minister, though he accepted that as a nominal basis, held that the figure 1–15th could not be admitted or thought of for a moment unless it were to be levied upon the net Revenue; and
  1604
  the right hon. Gentleman himself actually said in 1886 that, although the contribution would be nominally 1–15th, in reality it would be 1–26th. Yet the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had the hardihood to rise and endeavour to lead the Committee to believe that 1–15th and not 1–26th was the proposal of the Prime Minister.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, the Committee had heard a significant statement from the Member for North Kerry as to the cost of military and police if this Bill did not pass. The interpretation of that statement was, that there would be an increase of crime and outrage in Ireland if the Bill did not pass.
  MR. SEXTON: It was not so significant as Lord Salisbury's speech at Belfast.
  MR. GOSCHENdid not know to what particular passage the hon. Member alluded; but, at all events, the hon. Member did not deny the significance of his statement. Members who believed in the angelic transformation of the Irish Party would perhaps take notice of the fact that it was so long as they had their way that this angelic character was to continue. They said to the English people, "At your peril do not pass this Bill, or you will have a heavy bill to pay." He did not think that was the kind of argument that would tell with the British people. That was his answer to the first point in the hon. Member's speech. Then the hon. Member, in regard to the balance of the £500,000, had declared that the increased cost of government under the new organisation would have to be met. He (Mr. Goschen) did not know whether the hon. Member remembered the remarkable speech delivered by the Prime Minister to the Belfast deputation, in which he pointed out that there would be a perfect plethora of money after the Home Rule Bill had passed? The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the Irish people would be able to diminish the cost of their administration immensely. As the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Kerry had been in confidential relations, no doubt this view of a plethora of

  1605
  money had been communicated to the hon. Member, who in all probability would have an important part to play in regard to Irish finance if the Home Rule Bill passed. He (Mr. Goschen) would leave it to the Prime Minister to show the hon. Member that, quite apart from the surplus, it would be in the power of the new Irish administrators to cut down the bloated expenditure which the hated Saxon was now causing. That was his answer to the hon. Member's second point, and partly, also, to his third point. The hon. Member for Kerry had said that the Irish Administration would miss British credit. He (Mr. Goschen) honestly thought they were likely to miss it very much. It was their proposal to cut the ties between the rich country and the poor; and if the ties were cut Ireland could not be entitled to the advantage of British credit. It would tax even the ingenuity of the hon. Member for North Kerry to show how she could be. That was his answer to the hon. Member's third point. In regard to the fourth, in 1886 the Prime Minister did two things: he laid down a standard and he fixed the contribution. The standard he laid down was 1–14th or 1–15th, and he said that the Death Duties were the best criterion that could be found for estimating what a country should pay. The right hon. Gentleman did not press a general case, neither did he (Mr. Goschen). He wished now to point out that it would be necessary, when they came to fix the contribution of Ireland, to see what standard and basis should be taken. He himself was perfectly open to argument on the point. He should not like to see Ireland treated at all ungenerously; but, at the same time, the British taxpayer must not be robbed. The task before the Committee was to consider, quite apart from Ireland's present contribution, her particular circumstances, and what share she should properly pay towards the Imperial funds.
  MR. CLANCYsaid, he did not intend to discuss this question at length generally, but he only wished to make a few remarks upon one or two points. The hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) had referred to the probability of there being no Irish sur-
  1606
  plus if the Home Rule Bill did not pass, and he (Mr. Clancy) thought the hon. Member was perfectly correct in what he said. Apart from the question of military and police expenditure—and he would invite the attention of hon. Members to this—he ventured to prophecy that in 10 years from the present day, if Home Rule were not granted in the meantime, there would not be a penny of surplus for Ireland. What was the policy of the Party of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goschen)—what was the alternative policy they proposed? Why an expenditure of British money. Their policy was to bribe Ireland out of its national rights. That was the policy proposed by the present Leader of the Opposition when he was in power. The right hon. Gentleman had actually offered to expend £600,000 on the drainage of two Irish rivers alone, and he (Mr. Clancy) was sorry to say that it was the action of several Irish Members which, rightly or wrongly, prevented him from carrying out his purpose. He (Mr. Clancy) was only sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had not repeated his proposal; and if the right hon. Gentleman should return to power in the next Parliament, he could assure him that he (Mr. Clancy) would support any proposal of the kind he might make. The fact of the matter was this: that no country was ever governed against its will with profit to those who tried to so govern it, and Ireland was no exception to the rule. Every Party in Ireland would have to be paid before it consented to be governed against its will. The loyal minority would not keep loyal unless it was paid. At present—though he was sometimes inclined to doubt whether it was loyal or whether it was a minority, judging from the way it described itself—the loyal minority was provided for by Judgeships, Crown Prosecutorships, and various offices in the State; formerly, however, they used to be provided for in the Church. If Home Rule continued to be denied to Ireland that loyal minority itself would consume the surplus which Great Britain at the present moment derived from Ireland. As for the majority in Ireland—the disloyal majority as it was called—he begged to assure the Committee that he, as one of that disloyal majority, would do his best, if the loyal minority did not consume

  1607
  the surplus itself, to try to take his share out of it, and reduce it to a minus quantity. There was not a single public project which would not have to be aided by this Parliament; every little harbour, every little public work, everything which under Home Rule would be paid for by local effort would, in the absence of Home Rule, have to be done by the Imperial Parliament. He declared to the Committee that if Home Rule was denied, and if there was, in the next Parliament, a Conservative or Unionist Government in power, there was not a single work in his constituency, not a single harbour or sea-wall which required to be dredged or built—there was not a single work which required to be done which he would not press on the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and they would see how long the right hon. Gentleman would continue to have his surplus for Ireland. The surplus was going down steadily, and it would continue to go down if Home Rule was denied, and, for his part, he should not have the least scruple to see it disappear altogether. He now came to the second point, on which he would like to make a remark or two. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had spoken of Great Britain making a marriage gift to Ireland, and he also referred to the unfortunate condition of the British taxpayer. He (Mr. Clancy) had also heard, during the last few months, various references to the way in which the poor British taxpayer was to be robbed under this scheme for the purpose of giving Home Rule to Ireland. When he heard that statement made, and when he recollected the financial treatment of Ireland by this Parliament since the year 1800, he could not restrain his indignation. Here was the right hon. Gentleman, who presumably knew the history of this question as well as he (Mr. Clancy) did, and perhaps a gread deal better, who knew that this Parliament had robbed Ireland of nearly £300,000,000 during the last 93 years—he had expressed this opinion elsewhere, and he had proved it, and as yet had never seen any answer given to the allegation; here was a gentleman, who was acquainted with these facts, and who now, because Great Britain made not an allowance on account of
  1608
  Irish Police but a part payment of the debt she owed to Ireland, came down here and commiserated with the unfortunate British taxpayer, who for the last 93 years had been robbing the Irish taxpayer. He called that the height of hypocrisy, and he was perfectly certain that if the matter was explained to him the British taxpayer would not share the right hon. Gentleman's views, views which he (Mr. Clancy) had observed were chiefly entertained and expressed by gentlemen who had banking concerns in this country and held their meetings chiefly in Dublin. He did not rise to discuss the question generally, but only to express an opinion upon two points: (1) that Great Britain owed more to Ireland than she would probably ever pay even under the Unionist policy of bribing the Irish people out of their rights; and (2), that if Ireland continued to be kept out of its national rights there would not in 10 years' time be a surplus of a single penny available for the unfortunate British taxpayer.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the Chief Secretary had described the Motion before the House as a mere matter of form, but he thought the right hon. Gentleman would find from the Debate which had taken place that it was anything but a matter of form. He (Mr. Russell) did not rise for the purpose of discussing the whole question, and certainly he did not rise for the purpose of expressing sympathy in any way with the British taxpayer, who could take care of himself. He rose for a different purpose. The hon. Member for North Kerry, in the speech he had just delivered, had stated that if the Bill did not pass there would be no surplus at all from Ireland. Now he (Mr. Russell) had asked across the floor of the House the question "Why?" The hon. Member had replied that he (Mr. Russell) could draw his own inference. Well, the inference he drew was this: The hon. Member seemed to him to assert that if the Bill did not pass extra police and extra soldiers would be required in Ireland—that, in fact, he and his Party were now sitting on the safety valve of crime, and could lift it if they desired to do so. If the hon. Member had not meant that

  1609
  he meant nothing. Whenever an Ulster Member rose and made anything like a statement as to what Ulster would do if the Bill passed, it was at once denounced as a threat. But there was no protest from hon. Members as to the distinct threat announced by the hon. Member for North Kerry, that if the Bill did not pass. if the Imperial Parliament did not ultimately sanction this Bill, extra police and extra soldiers would be required in Ireland. What for? The hon. Member meant that he and his friends would cease to restrain the forces they were engaged in restraining at the present moment. Now, that was a very serious statement to be made in the House of Commons. But he (Mr. Russell) was going to make another statement. The hon. Member for Kerry said there would be no surplus from Ireland if the Bill passed. He would tell the hon. Member that if the Bill did pass the Irish Revenue would not be what he expected it to be, for he would not get one farthing from Ulster. One statement was just as good as another, and he would back the determination of the Ulster people against the flabby criminal instincts of the other Party.
  SIR J. LUBBOCKwished to point out that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer founded part of his argument on the assumption that if this Bill were to pass British contributions for Irish purposes would entirely cease. He (Sir J. Lubbock) confessed that he was not so satisfied on that point. He wished he were. The Irish contribution would be fixed; but as long as we had 80 Members from Ireland in the House, what security had we that by their great eloquence they would not be able to obtain grants and subsidies from us in the future as they had in the past? He feared that the view of the Government would not be realised. The hon. Member for Kerry had pleaded the interests of Ireland with his usual ability, and those on that side of the House made no complaint against him for doing so, for he was, of course, quite in his right; but why did he apply the term "Shylock" to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who was equally right to defend the British taxpayers? There was hardly anything more irritating be-
  1610
  tween the different parts of the United Kingdom than the discussion of pecuniary payments, and he would appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the House, while putting their views forward frankly, to abstain as much as possible from irritating expressions. The hon. Member for Dublin County had told the Committee in one breath that England had robbed Ireland of £300,000,000, and in the next breath that she had governed Ireland by a system of bribery. He would submit to the fairness of the hon. Member whether his two statements were consistent with one another. It was from the briber that money was extracted, and not from the person bribed. He had risen, however, not for the purpose of going into the general question, but to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or, in his absence, perhaps the Chief Secretary would respond. The Irish contribution towards Imperial Expenditure was to be one-third of her Revenue. Now, the total Imperial Expenditure was, as stated by the right hon. Gentleman, £63,000,000, of which Great Britain under the Bill would contribute over £61,500,000. The Revenue of Great Britain, as shown in the Returns of July 3, was, in round figures, £83,000,000, out of which she was to contribute over £60,000,000, or more than two-thirds. The question he wished to ask was upon what principle, now that we were to have separate Exchequers, Great Britain should be called on to contribute two-thirds and Ireland only one-third of their respective resources?
  MR. J. E. REDMOND: I do not propose to enter into the general discussion—a more fitting time will come for that when we reach the Financial Clauses, and I am only tempted to rise to say a few words in consequence of the speech of the hon. Member for South Tyrone. The hon. Member for South Tyrone is, I think, one of the ablest and most ingenious men in this House. I have heard him speak on a variety of subjects; I have heard him speak on University education, on questions of Constitutional Law, and upon various other questions, and I have always found him, on every one of these questions, to bring in the question of

  1611
  crime and outrage in Ireland. During the discussion that preceded his speech, my hon. Friend (Mr. Clancy) and myself were discussing the possibility of his being able to introduce into the dry question of finance in Ireland his pet subject; and I ventured to prophecy to my friend that somehow or other he would succeed in bringing it in. An hon. Gentleman near me says that the hon. Member for North Kerry brought in the question of crime and outrage. I will say to him that is not so. I really think that no fair-minded man who listened to the Member for North Kerry would say anything of the kind. The hon. Member said your surplus would disappear if you did not pass Home Rule. I will say, and I will show you in a moment, that that surplus can and will disappear without any expenditure being necessitated by increase of crime or outrage. I regret that this matter has been brought into discussion, and I regret that the right hon. Baronet who spoke last, and who on all occasions is one of the most mild-mannered and easy debaters in this House—I regret that his advice, that we should avoid in this matter topics and words of irritation, had not been adopted by his friend and Colleague. I only rose to point out that this surplus which England has derived from Ireland will inevitably disappear if Home Rule is not passed, and if the present system of Government goes on quite irrespective of increased expenditure being necessitated by disturbances in the country. I will recall to the recollection of the Committee the enormous, and steady, and regular increase which has gone on for the last half century and more in the expenditure of what has been called Imperial money in Ireland. I have the figures before me. I am quoting from the speech of the Prime Minister, and I presume the figures will not be questioned—at any rate, they have not been questioned. Speaking in introducing the Home Rule Bill this year the Prime Minister said—
  "Irish grants upon the average of 1833 to 1837 were £762,000 a year. Irish grants on the average of 1888 tol892 were £4,042,000 per year; that is to say, in 55 years there has been an increase of £3,300,000, or a regular increment of £66,000 a year."
  And then, to meet the argument of those who might say that he was going back and not dealing with the present state of things, he said—
  1612
  "The experience of seven years between 1886 and 1893 is as follows:—In 1886 the Civil charges without Constabulary were £3,094,000; in 1893 Civil charges were £3,892,000. The Civil charges in Ireland have increased these last seven years by the aggregate of £800,000, and that gives the annual increment in these on the modern days not of £60,000 a year, but of £113,000 a year."
  If you go on with your system of government—your wasteful and extravagant system of government, as you must admit it to be—in the same manner as in the past; if you reject the Home Rule Bill, a simple sum of arithmetic will show you that in a brief number of years your present surplus will entirely disappear, without any provision whatever being made for increased disturbances or increased expenditure upon police or military. I only rise to make that point, and to say that the argument of the hon. Member for North Kerry is a perfectly sound argument, and that the interpretation put upon it by the hon. Member for North Tyrone, that if Home Rule were defeated it would bring crime and outrage, was an unjust interpretation, and one which I do not think will commend itself to the mind of any fair-minded opponent of ours in this House.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I did not intend at this point to enter into any general discussion of the proceedings of the Government, but there are two questions I should like to put to them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told us that the basis of the Government scheme is that Ireland is to be paid in future what she is paying to-day. I am not going to criticise that statement, but I may point out to the Committee that it is an entirely novel departure. In the Bill of 1886 the Prime Minister said the Government were going to proceed upon the taxable capacity of Ireland, and he stated that in his opinion 1–15th would be a fair and even an equitable proportion. On the First Reading of the present Bill the right hon. Gentleman practically proposed to deal with the matter on the same principle. He adopted the lump sum principle of paying, but in arriving at the lump sum he proceeded on the same principle as in 1886. Now, I want to point out to the Government that in

  1613
  changing their system and in giving up the idea of a quota, which I confess has almost appeared to me to be the only fair method of dealing with the subject, they have made a change of extraordinary magnitude, and a change which involves a difference in the contribution of Ireland of something like £1,000,000 or £2,000,000.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: Both plans of this year, according to my recollection, were founded upon actual payment.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Well, for the purpose of the question I want to put to the Government, it really does not very much matter whether in February, 1893, they adhered to the principle of 1886. At all events, they have abandoned that principle now, and the difference between the principle of 1886 and the principle now adopted involves a difference in the contribution of from £1,000,000 to £2,000,000 sterling. Under their present plan the contribution of Ireland is to be £ 1,800,000, whilst under the plan of 1886 the Irish contribution would have been something like £4,000,000. The Prime Minister in 1886 proposed to make as a free gift to the Irish people a contribution of £1,400,000, which was the amount paid in Ireland on goods consumed in Great Britain. That was accepted by the then Leader of the Irish Party as a gift, and, in referring to it, he said that it was this concession on the part of the Government which made him accept the handing over of the collection of the Customs to the British Authority. I admit that the figures since adduced go to show that in later years the taxable capacity of Ireland is less than at the time the quota principle was laid down; but even taking the taxable capacity as shown by the latest figures, it still remains true that the difference in the contribution will be reckoned by more than £1,000,000. The question I want to put to the Government is, why have they altered the principle on which they have proceeded? What is the reason which has caused them to entirely change their idea of the contribution which Ireland ought to pay to the Imperial Exchequer? Of course, the importance of this to the British taxpayer will be perfectly evident—it is
  1614
  a matter of great importance to him whether he is to receive £1,000,000 or £2,000,000 a year more or less from Ireland. I should have said that the principle upon which the Government have proceeded is that it is necessary for their purposes that Ireland should be started with a surplus of £500,000, and that somehow or other, at the cost of the British taxpayer, that surplus is to be found. At all events, it is estimated that Ireland at the very outset of the new arrangement will have a surplus of £500,000 a year; but we have it on the authority of the last speaker, and on the authority of the Government, that the system of expenditure in Ireland is now most wasteful and extravagant. If that be so, under the better system they are going to create there will be very large savings. The Civil charges are put by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at something over £3,000,000. How much of that expenditure is wasteful and extravagant? May we take it that at least £500,000 will be saved by more economical and wiser administration, such as the right hon. Gentleman anticipates from an Irish Government? In that case the surplus will be at once raised from £500,000 to £1,000,000. But that is not all. The right hon. Gentleman assumes that the expenditure on the police, a portion of which is now to be put upon the British Exchequer, will be what he calls "vanishing expenditure," and that, probably with in a very few years, it will cease altogether as far as any central Constabulary is concerned. Well, of course, in that case the Irish Parliament will have to pass legislation authorising the creation of local police as in this country; but the expenditure for the local police is properly a local matter, and the outside that may be expected is, that the Irish Parliament may make some contribution towards the cost. If the cost first imposed by the Constabulary on the Irish Government is £1,000,000 a year, we must assume, from the arguments that have been used, that in the course of a very few years that expenditure will be reduced by at least £500,000. That will make an addition of another £500,000 to the Irish surplus. The result, therefore, is that you will start the Irish Parliament with a surplus of £500,000, which in the course of a very few years will, with wise

  1615
  and economical administration, become a surplus of £1,500,000, or, in other words, a surplus the equivalent of which in our Budget will be £20,000,000 a year. I do not wonder that, under these circumstances, the Prime Minister has said that the Irish Parliament will have a plethora of money. I would point out, however, to the Government that under these circumstances it is clearly unfair to the Scotch and English taxpayer that any additional expenditure should be put upon their shoulders. If I am right in these figures I am confident that the Government have been a great deal too liberal with money which, after all, is not theirs. They have been so anxious to please hon. Gentlemen opposite that they have been unfair and unjust to the English and Scotch taxpayers.
  MR. BRODRICKsaid, that with reference to the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that the decision of the principle of quota was likely to be very serious to Great Britain, he wished to ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer had considered the effect of the figures which had been produced with regard to the Revenue during the first quarter of this year? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had estimated for a reduction of the Revenue this year of £645,000; but the reduction, according to the Return for the first quarter, had reached £864,000 for that quarter alone, so that if anything like the same proportion were maintained throughout the year the total reduction during the year would be about £3,000,000. In that case, whilst the Imperial charges would continue to be exactly the same, the contribution of Ireland would be less by £200,000 than had been estimated. This would mean that the proportion of the Imperial charges that would be paid by Ireland would be not even l–40th, but something like l–45th, instead of the l–15th which the Prime Minister had said was the proper proportion.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSinquired whether it was the case that Ireland's contribution was to be l-40th of the Imperial expenses?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have already answered that. As to the question put by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Brodrick), I think if he will consult the late Chancellor of the Exchequer he will be informed that it is not very safe to calculate the Revenue of the year on the proceeds of the first quarter. Certainly, I shall not attempt to do that. At the same time, I may say that I received to-day the Return of Customs, and I am glad to find that the proceeds are better than they were during a similar period last year. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) refers to a statement of the Prime Minister's in 1886 with reference to a contribution of l–15th; but the final statement of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone) in 1886 was that under his plan Ireland would contribute l–26th. Under the present plan Ireland will contribute l–27th. As regards my right hon. Friend's second point, as to the grant in aid of the Irish Constabulary, the argument is that the Irish can economise so much upon the present extravagant system of government that they will have a sufficient surplus of their own. My right hon. Friend asked why they should not save £500,000 upon the Constabulary and £500,000 on something else. Well, but you have taken care—and the Government in this Bill have taken care—that they shall not economise in this way at present. There are provisions in the Schedule about maintaining the present Civil Service and their salaries. You necessarily continue your system of government for several years, and the result will be to prevent economy being secured. You say they must take over your establishments at your cost. It is, therefore, obvious that the economies of the early years will be very small, if not next to nothing. Again, you are making such provision with respect to the Constabulary that the economies of the Irish Government with regard to the Constabulary must be very slow. We have provided in this Bill that the whole financial arrangement shall be revised in six years. For the first year or two you must give them something back, because it is impossible for them to provide themselves from the sources which the right

  1617
  hon. Gentleman suggests. It is quite true that we hope they will be able in the end to make a purse for themselves; and as they make a purse for themselves our contributions will vanish altogether, and we shall get only a normal contribution from Ireland. What we are disposed to think is that the English people will not demand from Ireland a greater contribution than she is in a position to make, and that they will give her such assistance as she may require in consequence of having to carry on the expensive establishments you have left to her.
  SIR J. LUBBOCKasked for some answer to the question he had put.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: What was the question?
  SIR J. LUBBOCKsaid, he wished to know on what principle the taxpayers of England were to pay two-thirds of their Revenue towards Imperial charges, whilst Ireland was only to pay one-third of her Revenue?
  SIR W. HARCOURTwas understood to say that he did not understand the question.
  MR. GOSCHEN: Would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to place a Return on the Table showing how he arrives at his l–27ths? It is always more satisfactory to have figures of this kind in a Return than in a Parliamentary Report. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether the l–27th represents the contribution apart from the provision of the police or not? If it does, the right hon. Gentleman may find my calculation of l–40th correct.
  SIR W. HARCOURTwas understood to say that he would present the Return asked for.
  SIR J. GORSTsaid, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not understand the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for London University (Sir J. Lubbock) he was the only man in the House who could not. The question was, why the proper proportion of Imperial Expenditure to be contributed by Great
  1618
  Britain to the Imperial resources was two-thirds, whilst the proper proportion to be contributed by Ireland was only one-third?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman says everyone in the Committee understands it except myself. Well, I think it is unfortunate to put the question to the only man who does not understand it.
  SIR J. GORST: I say that every man in the Committee except the right hon. Gentleman understands the question. I do not think a single man in the Committee understands the answer.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he was informed that whilst he was absent for a moment from the House the hon. Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) made some reply to the speech he had made in the course of the Debate. The Committee would remember that he (Mr. Sexton) had stated that if Home Rule were refused to the people of Ireland in consequence of the threats of insurrection, disaffection, and disorder uttered by a minority of the Irish people, the effect of such refusal would be that any surplus now obtained for Imperial purposes from the Revenue of Ireland would probably disappear. He thought it pretty evident that if Home Rule were refused to Ireland, in consequence of the threats he had referred to, the result would be to engender political discontent and disaffection; and he had stated that, as had been proved by experience in the past, when one country governed by another was kept in a state of profound political discontent the administration of affairs in that country was more expensive than it otherwise would be. No one could deny that if Home Rule were refused to Ireland the discontent would be such that it would be impossible to get a penny of Imperial surplus out of that country. The hon. Member had been pleased to say that his meaning was that, if Home Rule were refused, the Nationalist Members would take their hands off the throttle-valve of crime.
  An hon. MEMBER: Safety-valve.
  MR. SEXTON: The safety-valve of crime, thereby implying that they had the control of the commission of crime, and that, consequently, if Home Rule were refused, they would no longer exercise that control, but would lend themselves as abettors to the perpetration of crime. Well, he presumed that that language was in Order, or it would not have passed without notice. Had he been present when the remarks were uttered, however, he would certainly have interposed some observations. It was difficult to see how orderly debate was to be maintained if hon. Members were to be allowed to impute to other hon. Members that they had the control of the commission of crime. He did not know where there was any safety-valve on the commission of crime in Ireland; and if there were one, he could only say that he and his Colleagues had never had their hands upon it. The hon. Member for South Tyrone ought to have more intelligence than to suggest anything of the kind. Complaints had recently been made of the commission of crime in Kerry, Limerick, and Clare; and surely If Irish Members had any control whatever over such matters they would for political reasons have exercised it, and have prevented the crime being committed. But, in fact, they never had had control over crime; they had from the first striven to suppress it; they had advised the House to pass legislation calculated to put an end to it; and if crime had been produced, it was because the Land Act and the Arrears Act had been too long delayed, and because Parliament had been too tardy in its action. The hon. Member had spoken of the criminal instincts of the Irish race. His reply was that the people of Ireland were not a people with criminal instincts; they were as averse to crime as any other people in the world; and if Home Rule were now refused, a race which had struggled for it for so many years would show that it was able still to struggle for its political rights, not by indulgence in criminal instincts, but by manly and honourable pressure for independence. The imputation cast upon them by the hon. Member was an unfounded imputation, and he repelled it and cast it back with contempt.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The statement made by the hon. Member for Kerry—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! This matter has proceeded quite far enough.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I claim to speak as a matter of personal explanation.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is entitled to make a personal explanation.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I rise merely to say the Committee will remember that the hon. Member for Kerry made a statement to the effect that if this Bill were defeated there would be no surplus. I asked him across the floor of the House, and several other Members repeated the question, "Why," and the reply was, "You can draw your own inference." He then went on to point out that the expense for the police and military would be increased. I am sorry—and I said so—that the hon. Member was out of the House when I rose, because I wished him to know what was the inference I drew from his statement. If he does not remember, I do remember that his Leader at one time absolutely bargained—
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order! That is not a personal explanation, and it is altogether out of Order.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESsaid, he had to put one or two questions to the Chancellor of the Exchequer as to Ireland's exact contribution. He understood him to say that the total revenue of Ireland was £6,972,000, that one-third of that would be £2,300,000, and that that sum would be diminished by £500,000, thus leaving £1,800,000 as Ireland's contribution. [Sir W. HARCOURT: Yes.] Then there were only two blunders the right hon. Gentleman could possibly make, and he had made them both. He had omitted to take into consideration the Miscellaneous Revenue, of which one-third was not to be taken, and the proportion would, therefore, be not £2,300,000, but £2,260,000.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I stated that.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES MR. GIBSON BOWLES, continuing, said that, according to the right hon. Gentleman, the amount to be contributed to this country—always using the figures 1892–93—in regard to the police was £500,000; as a fact, it was £486,000.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I stated that.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLESasked, what they were to do with a Chancellor of the Exchequer who first told them the figures were correct and immediately afterwards altered them? The net result of the inaccuracies he had pointed out was, that Ireland's contribution would be only £1,776,000, a very small difference perhaps in the eyes of some people; but, nevertheless, a sum of over £20,000, equal to the salaries of four Chancellors of the Exchequer, which England would receive below the estimate. But that was not all. He found in a Parliamentary Return that the arrears outstanding on loans to Ireland amounted to £12,225,000, and in addition to that there were further loans under the Purchase Acts of £5,412,000, making a total of £17,637,000 hard solid cash advanced by England to Ireland. In addition to that, the liabilities of England under the Irish Church Fund amounted to £6,600,000, and there was a balance to advance under the 1885 Act of £4,588,000; total £11,188,000. Now what provision was to be made for the repayment of the £17,600,000 of hard solid cash already advanced, and for the relief of England from the liability to pay another £11,188,000? They were entitled to have their capital back. They were now going out of partnership with Ireland, and surely the British taxpayer was entitled to require a satisfactory arrangement on these points. They had been called Shylocks. Well, he was not ashamed of that title. He had read that interesting play by the late Mr. William Shakespeare, and the only one among the whole lot of characters for whom he had the slightest respect was Shylock; the rest were either cheats, jades, or fraudulent bankrupts.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, order!
  MR. DARLING: I desire to say one word—
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Please let me finish. I wish only to say that a proposal of this kind seems to treat us exactly as Shylock was treated. It robs us of our shekels, our daughter, and our character at the same time.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The discussion has taken a very wide range under the guidance of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, so that I may be almost out of Order in attempting to bring it back to the point we ought strictly to be discussing. It is now too late to deal generally with the question of the treatment of the Civil servants and Constabulary. The right hon. Gentleman will know that by reason of the disciplinary rules of the Force the Constabulary have no opportunity of making their case public in the ordinary way. They cannot fill the newspapers with correspondence, and have no spokesman in this House except the right hon. Gentleman, who, I am sure, desires to do them justice. I gather from the ordinary sources of information that both the Civil Service and the Constabulary have laid their views before him, and I think it would be a great assistance to the Committee in discussing the Bill if the Chief Secretary would allow the Civil servants and the Constabulary to present their claim direct to the House, instead of transmitting it through the right hon. Gentleman, who is himself responsible for the measure which these officials perhaps do not think adequately meets the necessities of their case. I think that request is not an unfair one.
  MR. J. MORLEY: It is not an unreasonable request. It is true that I have had the advantage of hearing from representatives of the Civil servants and of the Royal Irish Constabulary the defects which they find in the Government scheme, and I feel, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, that it is perhaps not quite fair to prevent the criticism of the members of the Irish Civil Service and the Constabulary being accessible to the House. My own intention had been, when we discussed these clauses, to state frankly the objections which have been laid before me but I will think it over be-

  1623
  tween now and Monday as to whether there cannot be some more formal opening made for gentlemen of the Civil Service, and also for the Constabulary Force, which is a more delicate matter. I hope the Committee will now allow us to take this preliminary Resolution.
  MR. DARLINGsaid, the reason why Great Britain paid two-thirds of her Revenue while Ireland was to pay only one-third was that—as explained a day or two since by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—it was the compensation Great Britain had to pay to Ireland for having the goodness to manage her own affairs.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The proportion Ireland has to pay under our scheme, according to our contention, is exactly the proportion that she pays now. Therefore, whatever objection there is to our scheme equally applies to the scheme which has been in operation in past years.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom,—

  (a) of salaries, pensions, and gratuities to Judges, Land Commissioners, County Court Judges, and officers of the Civil Service, and other officials who are in receipt of salaries paid out of moneys voted by Parliament; and

  (b) of salaries, gratuities, and pensions to the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police, together with the expenditure incidental thereto,

  in pursuance of any Act of the present Session to amend the provision for the Government of Ireland.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  FRANCE AND SIAM.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The Prime Minister stated at the beginning of business to-day that if any further information was received with regard to Siam it should be communicated to the House. It will probably be convenient to communicate now the following information from the Foreign Office:—
  "From the Reports received from Her Majesty's Minister at Bangkok and from the Commander of the British gunboat at present stationed there it appears that two French gunboats forced their way yesterday evening up the river against the opposition of the Siamese
  1624
  authorities, and, as we are informed, against the desire of the French Minister, and anchored off the French Legation.
  "Her Majesty's Government are disposed to believe that this action was taken by the French naval officers without the authority of their Government, as it does not appear to be in accordance with the repeated assurances received from the French Minister for Foreign Affairs that Her Majesty's Government should receive previous notice of any fresh action which might be decided upon.
  "But they must await the explanations which they will no doubt receive from Paris, and further reports as to the development of events at Bangkok, before they can form or express any definite opinion on what has occurred."
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I suppose the Government will, if possible, give further information on Monday?
  SIR W. HARCOURT SIR W. HARCOURT signified assent.

  IRISH EDUCATION ACT (1892) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 341.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne)THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY, Newcastle-upon-Tyne), in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, its object was to remedy a defect in the Bill passed by the late Government in 1892. Under Section 17, which provides for the acquisition of sites, difficulty has occurred in regard to the provision for giving notice respecting the sites to be taken, and this Bill amends that section. At the wish of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, I have placed a Memorandum upon the Bill, stating what the clause does or does not do.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, who was the chief author of the Act of 1892, has approved the Bill, I have no objection to offer.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

  HOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES ACT (1890) AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 398.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT, Oldham)explained that the Bill supplied an omission in the Act of 1890, which did not apply to Town Commissioners in Ireland. There was no power for them to borrow, and it only gave to Town Commissioners the power they had before the Act of 1890 was passed.
    Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next.

  LABOURERS (IRELAND) ACT (EXTENSION TO FISHERMEN) BILL.—(No. 350.)

    COMMITTEE.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
    SIR T. ESMONDEsaid, he had endeavoured to meet the objections which had been brought against this Bill from various quarters. At the desire of the Irish Office he had put down a new clause, so that there could be no mistake about the definition of "fisherman." The object of the Bill was to enable fishermen to obtain the benefits of the Labourers Acts, and to get houses and small cottages.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I think we ought to have the advice of the Irish Secretary upon this subject, but the right hon. Gentleman is not present now. There certainly ought not to be an extension without the Committee being fully acquainted with all the circumstances of such a proceeding.
    SIR J. T. HIBBERTsaid, the Government would accept the Bill subject to an Amendment which he intended to propose on behalf of the Government. The Irish Office and the Treasury both accepted the Bill on that understanding.
    MR. JAMES LOWTHERsaid, he was not opposed to bounties; but, representing as he did a fishing constituency, he thought his constituents had some reason to complain of the facilities accorded to Irish fishermen which were denied to them. If the facilities were equally accorded to English and Scotch fishermen he should have no objection.
    It being ten minutes before Seven of the clock, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

  TRAMWAYS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Schwann, Bill to facilitate the working of Tramways by Local Authorities, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Schwann, Mr. Addison, Mr. Neville, Mr. Charles Fenwick, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), and Mr. J. H. Wilson.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 418.]

  CONGESTED DISTRICTS BOARD (IRELAND) (No. 3) BILL.—(No. 405.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  FERTILISERS AND FEEDING STUFFS [REMUNERATION].
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of remuneration to any Chief Analyst, who may be appointed under the provisions of any Act of the present Session to amend the Law with respect to the sale of Agricultural Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs.—(Mr. Herbert Gardner.)
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

  CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES
  SIR JOHN MOWBRAYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Joint Committee on Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges:—Sir John Kennaway; and had appointed in substitution: Sir Richard Temple.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
  SIR JOHN MOWBRAYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture

  1627
  and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures, the following Fifteen Members, in respect of the Fertilisers and Feeding Stuffs Bill:—The Lord Advocate, Mr. Benson, Mr. Chaplin, Mr. Alexander Cross, Dr. Farquharson, Mr. Fellowes, Sir Walter Foster, Mr. Hosier, Mr. Jeffreys, Mr. Lambert, Mr. Mains, Mr. Jasper More, Mr. John Morley, Mr. Halley Stewart, and Sir Mark Stewart.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FEOM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—Barbed Wire Fences Bill, North Railway Bill, with Amendments.
  That they have passed a Bill, intituled "An Act to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Education Department under 'The Elementary Education Act, 1870,' to enable the School Board for London to put in force the Lands Clauses Acts." [Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London) (No. 2) Bill [Lords].

  EDUCATION PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION (LONDON) (No. 2) BILL [Lords].
  Read the first time; Referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 419.]

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL (DETAILS OF FINANCE).
  Copy ordered—
  "Of Return showing the details of the Irish Revenue and Irish Expenditure for 1892-3, as given in Parliamentary Paper, No. 280, of Session 1893,"—(Sir J. T. Hibbert.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 335.]

  BOILER EXPLOSIONS ACTS, 1882 AND 1890.
  Copy presented,—of Report to the Board of Trade upon the working of the Boiler Explosions Acts, 1882 and 1890, with Appendices [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  MERCANTILE MARINE (COLOUR TESTS).
  Copy presented,—of Report to the Board of Trade upon the Colour Tests
  1628
  used in the examination of Candidates for Masters' and Mates' Certificates of Competency and others in the British Mercantile Marine, with Appendix [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1876 (VESSELS DETAINED).
  Copy presented,—of Return of all Ships ordered by the Board of Trade or its officers to be provisionally detained as unsafe, together with Summaries [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC ACT, 1888.
  Copy presented,—of Report by the Board of Trade of Proceedings under Section 31 of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (GREAT BRITAIN).
  Copy presented,—of Thirty-sixth Annual Report of the Inspector, being for the year 1892 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  PRISONS (ENGLAND AND WALES).
  Copy presented,—of Rule made by the Secretary of State with reference to the disinfection of Prisoners' clothing in cases where Prisoners are allowed to wear their own clothing in Prison [by Act]; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 333.]
  ARMY (MEN AVAILABLE FOR INDIAN SERVICE).
  Return presented,—relative thereto [Address, 22nd March: Mr. Arnold-Forster]; to lie upon the Table.

  FINANCIAL RELATIONS, 1892–3 (ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, AND IRELAND).
  Copy ordered, "of Return showing for the year ended the 31st day of March, 1893: (1) the amount contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively to the Revenue collected by Im-

  1629
  perial Officers; (2) the expenditure on English, Scottish, and Irish Services met out of such Revenue; and (3) the balances of Revenue contributed by England, Scotland, and Ireland respectively which are available for Imperial Expenditure."—(Sir John Hibbert.)
  Copy presented accordingly; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 334.]

EVENING SITTING.
  ORDERS OF THE DAY.

    SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

    COURT MARTIAL LAW.—RESOLUTION.
    MR. NAPIERsaid, that being successful in securing a place in the ballot he begged to move the Resolution standing in his name. He proposed to call attention to the provision of the law relating to Courts Martial, and to move—
    "That the difference now existing between the procedures respectively obtaining before General and District Courts Martial, whereby in trials before District Courts the prisoner's counsel is not permitted to put questions to witnesses or to address the Court on behalf of the prisoner, whereas at General Courts such counsel is permitted both those privileges, bears hardly upon the soldier and should be removed; and, further, that the Law should in future afford the same facilities to counsel for the prisoner at District Courts as are now enjoyed by such counsel at General Courts."
    He was afraid he must apologise to the House for bringing before it a matter which must necessarily be somewhat technical; but he was happy to say that he had in his friend, the hon. Member for East Down (Mr. Rentoul), a colleague who could supply any deficiencies, and who had been kind enough to say he would second the Resolution. But the matter he proposed to bring before the House was really one of exceeding simplicity, for the facts would not really be in dispute. He did not pause to lay before the House any historical disquisition on the growth of the powers, either of the Courts Martial or of prisoner's repre-
    1630
    sentatives at the Courts Martial; the historical aspect of the case would, no doubt, be interesting, but he desired to come to the point at once, and he proposed to bring to the mind of the House the year 1881. At that time the late Mr. Ward Hunt, who was not altogether untouched by the sweet reasonableness which came from an early acquaintance with principles of law, desired to infuse into a military procedure the principles that applied in Civil Courts. It seemed to strike Mr. Ward Hunt that that system of procedure which had been firmly built up through many centuries in the Civil Courts was the best means of attaining truth and arriving at the ends of justice in trials of criminal matters; and believing that soldiers tried before Courts Martial had very much the same interests, the same dangers, and the same difficulties to face as were presented to criminals tried in Civil Courts, he not unnaturally arrived at the conclusion that that procedure, which had been tested by long years of practice in the Civil Courts, was by experience shown to be the best at arriving at the truth in administering justice. He therefore provided—and he was assisted by hon. Gentlemen who still occupied places in that House—that in the General Courts at least the same procedure should apply—namely, the system of examination, as it prevailed in the ordinary Civil Courts; that there should be a cross-examination for testing the veracity and aiding the memory of witnesses; and that reasonable latitude should be allowed for addressing arguments to the Court. That was undoubtedly an innovation, because under the old system that prevailed in the Courts Martial the trials were exceedingly difficult for the soldier, as the Court recognised no one but the prisoner. A prisoner might be endowed with ability, with daring, and with a spirit of independence, and if he were he might run some chance of being able to lay his case properly before the Court; but, on the other hand, if he were overawed at the presence of the officers, or from the danger in which he stood, or from some infirmity of speech or intellect, he was decidedly at great disadvantage. Before 1881 the Courts only recognised the power of the prisoner to be represented by what was called his friend, but he could not examine witnesses; he could

    1631
    not address the Court on questions of law, or the construction of the rules of procedure, or the evidence adduced at the trial. Under this old procedure the friend was obliged to draft questions for the prisoner to put to the witness, and draft a speech or address, which necessarily had to be contrived before the case came on rather than being based on the evidence as it appeared at the trial. He had often heard it stated that they had too many lawyers in the House; but he hoped the audience he now had the honour to address did not contain any substantial number of that maligned profession. To any lawyer who had ever had the honour and duty of conducting a case in a Court of Justice it was only sufficient to state the facts to show how impossible it was to carry on a trial with any success or any modicum of chance to the prisoner under such conditions. That was the condition of affairs when, in 1881, Mr. Ward Hunt—
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling, &c.): It was Mr. Childers.
    MR. NAPIERunderstood it was Mr. Ward Hunt, but in 1881 a change was brought about. There were two kinds of Courts Martial—the General and the District. The General Court Martial was a Court of superior authority and character, and composed of officers of higher rank and power to deal with crimes of a more serious character. But there was this peculiarity about it—that it was the only Court at which an officer could be tried. If an officer or soldier was tried by General Court Martial he was entitled to employ a member of the Bar for his defence, and his counsel was entitled to all the privileges of counsel in any Court in the Kingdom; he was entitled to examine witnesses direct, to cross-examine witnesses for the prosecution, address the Court on questions of law, the construction of the rules of procedure, and the relevancy or irrelevancy of evidence. Under such conditions a trial could be carried on with a feeling of satisfaction, and a knowledge that no facts would be withheld from the Court, that the prisoner would have the fullest benefit of the laws of his country for the purpose of preventing injustice. There the officer and soldier was on the same plane—upon an equality with every
    1632
    other citizen. But when they came to cages tried before the District Court Martial, where the soldier was compelled to take his trial, they found a very different state of things. A soldier might spend his money in the employment of counsel to defend him, but when he came into Court his counsel was almost valueless, for the reason that the rules of procedure prevented him—even though a barrister well trained in the law—from puttings single question to any witness; he was unable to test by cross-examination the evidence against his client, and, above all, was prevented from addressing the Court on the evidence that had come out. He had heard officers say it was well to keep lawyers and their technicalities out of a Court Martial; but could they show him a case in which an officer who had been labouring under a serious charge against his honour, his probity, or his conduct who had not, in the moment of danger, gone to a member of the Bar and sought that learned and professional assistance they were all anxious to gain? He might cite the case of the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who, in the course of his picturesque career in life, was not unknown both in Court and in camp; but he was bound to say the hon. Member's principal triumphs had been gained in the Court. They knew that the hon. Member was armed with great learning, with self-possession, with extreme imperturbability, unlikely to be moved or overcome by an undue sense of the majesty of the tribunal before which he appeared; but he could hardly remember any case in which the hon. Member had not been ready and glad to appeal to the distinguished members of the legal profession.
    An hon. MEMBER: He argued one case.
    MR. NAPIERsaid, that undoubtedly the hon. Member argued one case, but it was such a good case that he knew he could win it. If it was necessary for a man of intelligence and cultivation to appeal to the ranks of the Bar for assistance and protection in Courts of Justice, how much more must it be necessary for the poor soldier who, very often, was unable to understand the charge against him, and who stood in fear and in awe of the officers who were to try

    1633
    him? He could assure the House he had often seen men of great courage, of strong independent character, who, when brought before the District Court Martial, had quailed under the circumstances in which they found themselves; and he had felt that it was bitterly hard that these men might not have the same assistance that the commonest criminal obtained in the Court of Quarter Sessions. The officer tried before a General Court Martial was entitled to the same assistance that was afforded to a civilian in any of our Criminal Courts, but the common soldier had not the same privileges, and therefore he was hardly used. From his own experience he could cite cases in which the strict enforcement of the rules of procedure had rendered a full, fair, and complete inquiry impossible. He wished, however, to say that he knew from experience that the officers who constituted the Court behaved with great generosity, humanity, and consideration for the prisoner who was being tried; they had a great desire to do justice, but it was impossible, under the rules of procedure, for them always to carry out their desire. Though a counsel might prompt the questions to be put to the witnesses, it was impossible to conduct a case properly through the mouth of an illiterate and often a half-intimidated prisoner. Under such circumstances the whole case broke down, the Court became impatient, and the prisoner gave it up in despair. His case was that if the officer was to have these privileges the men ought to have them also; the soldier ought to be upon an equality with his officer before the eye of the law. The soldier was upon an equality with his officer in the face of the enemy, and often desired to be before him; on the field of honour they held an equal place, each anxious to be first; and he submitted to the House that they could not do better, in the interests of justice, than to place the soldier in the same position as his officer in the face of the law. These were very serious cases for the soldier, because the District Courts Martial were empowered to inflict a sentence of no less than two years' imprisonment, the punishment often carrying degradation from rank which had been hardly won by long years of service and stripes of honour, together with loss of pension depending
    1634
    upon them. He had seen cases where men who, after painfully toiling up to positions of honour, and having secured to themselves pensions for their declining years, had, by sudden temptations induced by bribery and corruption, given way at the last moment, and lost almost everything. He did not wish to press the matter too far, but from his own experience he could show cases where the system worked badly, not only in the interest of the soldier, but in the interest of the State, where cross-examination would have exposed instances of fraud, bribery, and corruption of a widespread character in relation to stores, and which it would have been to the benefit of the State to have had probed to the bottom. As in our Civil Courts he believed that no harm could come of publicity, he was in favour of Court Martial procedure being as free as the procedure in Assize Courts. If that were the case he believed that great good would come both to the State and the Army. True justice and policy required they should, as far as possible, remove the inequalities—he had almost said the indignities—that attached to the soldier; do not put him on a lower level than the citizens of this country; let him feel that he had the respect of the State; and that when brought before the majesty of the law at least he was there upon an equality with his officer and fellow-citizen.
    MR. RENTOULsaid, his hon. and learned Friend had put his case so fully and so clearly that there remained very little for anyone else to say in support of the Motion. His hon. and learned Friend, though not a military man, took a deep interest in military matters, which was only natural, as he bore a name distinguished in military history; therefore it was that this matter had appealed to him and caused him to give deep thought and attention to a matter outside the ordinary range of his practice and position as a barrister. He (Mr. Rentoul) felt sure the House desired that Her Majesty's soldiers should not be placed in a worse position than other subjects of the Queen—that they should have the same protection and the same means afforded them of

    1635
    defending themselves, and the same opportunity of having their difficulties and their grievances tested. Let him for a moment look at the circumstances under which a civilian who committed a crime found himself and the circumstances under which a soldier found himself who committed a parallel crime. In regard to the civilian, there were three Courts for the trial of prisoners—the Petty Sessions, the Quarter Sessions, and the Assizes, corresponding somewhat with the three Courts Martial—the General, the District, and the Regimental Court Martial. Only a few nights ago they heard from the Solicitor General for England (Sir J. Rigby) that our system of criminal procedure was so defective as to be almost disgraceful. If that was so, one only needed to look at the system of criminal procedure as it existed in Courts Martial in order to see something that was infinitely worse from every conceivable point of view. When a civilian committed an offence, when he was guilty of any crime he was brought before the Petty Sessions; and unless his case was dealt with summarily, or was a case that could be dealt with summarily after investigation, he was committed for trial. No matter whether he was committed for trial to the Quarter Sessions or the Assizes, there was another tribunal he went through before he was put on his trial—namely, the Grand Jury; so that first he had the chance of the charge being dismissed at Petty Sessions, then the chance of having the bill thrown out by the Grand Jury before he finally came to those who were really his Judges, the Judge and Petty Jury, by whom he was to be tried; whereas the soldier came at once, committed by the summary word of his commanding officer, before the tribunal which tried him, so that he had no chance of escaping being tried for the offence. That being so, his chances of not coming to trial at all, of escaping trial, were somewhat considerable. There were three kinds of Courts Martial—the Court Martial General, which was composed of at least nine officers if it were held in the United Kingdom, India, Malta, or Gibraltar, but of five officers if held elsewhere; the District Court Martial, which was formerly composed of five officers, but now of three, under the Act
    1636
    of this year; and the Regimental Court Martial, which was composed of three officers. The composition of the tribunal was a very important point. The officers who happened to form a District Court Martial might have held their commissions for only two years, and consequently it was quite possible that some of those who sat as Judges might be only 18 or 19 years of age. No such thing could possibly happen with regard to the trial of a civilian. But the soldier who came before the District Court Martial might, as a maximum punishment, be imprisoned for two years, or might have a sentence very serious and terrible in its consequences imposed upon him, and when he appeared before this tribunal he was compelled to defend himself. He wanted the House to look at the difficult position in which a prisoner before a District Court Martial stood. In the first place, his Judges, or some of them, were likely to be his own superior officers. He fancied any of the Members of that House, if they were to be tried for any offence, would feel much more cool and collected if tried by Judges with whom they were not acquainted than by Judges whom they had served under, and whose good opinion they were most anxious to retain. So much for the Judges. But who was the prosecutor? As a general rule, he was the adjutant of the regiment, or some other officer who was an amateur prosecutor and inexperienced, and would, therefore, probably prosecute with extreme vigour. The prisoner was left without legal aid, and had often to cross-examine witnesses, many of whom might be his superiors in rank in the regiment to which he belonged. So anxious was the soldier to avoid the difficulty of conducting his own case that he very often feed counsel to sit beside him; but as the counsel could only prompt the prisoner in regard to examination and cross-examination, this often led to a misunderstanding on his part, and he would, in such cases, be infinitely better off without counsel.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at twenty minutes before Ten o'clock till Monday next.

TOOK THE OATH.
The Lord Oriel (V. Massereene.)
MARRIAGE OF HIS ROYAL HIGHNESS THE DUKE OF YORK.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, I rise, pursuant to notice, to move that a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, congratulating her upon the marriage of the Duke of York. I think perhaps upon no former occasion have testimonies of loyalty and affection towards the Sovereign poured in with greater heartiness or in greater number than on the present occasion. ["Hear, hear."] It is almost unnecessary for me to express the feeling of loyalty which is so universally felt towards the Sovereign as inspired by her long and beneficent reign, during which the country has enjoyed unexampled peace and prosperity. I have also to move a Message of Congratulation to their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales. All your Lordships will feel, I am sure, the greatest pleasure that this bright and cheering event should have taken place in the domestic life of the Prince and Princess of Wales. They have the full and entire sympathy of the whole country, and I am certain that upon an occasion like this it will give to this House the greatest satisfaction to offer to them its congratulations. Lastly, there will be a Message to the Duke and Duchess of York, and I need only say that this House will re-echo the unanimous desire that this union may be the beginning of a long life of happiness and prosperity to both of them. I cannot sit down without adding one word to say that the whole nation must have felt deeply the touching words which Her Majesty was pleased to address to the country. That heartfelt sympathy which she has always exhibited for all her subjects, whether high or low, has, I am certain, awakened in their hearts a feeling which goes even beyond the loyalty which we all owe to the Sovereign.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to second the Motion of the noble Earl. I am sure it will be received unanimously both in this House and in the other, because it represents the unanimous and enthusiastic feeling of the people of this country. There never was a marriage more heartily received by the people, nor one celebrated under better auspices of future happiness, or attended with more earnest prayers. The profession to which the Duke of York belongs is the darling profession of the country, with which most of our glories and traditions in the past are associated, and on which in the case of trouble our existence would depend. It is no small addition to the popularity which His Royal Highness has won by his own personal qualities that he belongs to a profession so deeply cherished by the nation. For Her Royal Highness the Duchess of York there is the deepest sympathy and affection. In addition to the personal charms by which she has won the respect and affection of all with whom she has come in contact, there is also that natural feeling which arises from the fact that she is well-known among us, that she was born in this country, and that she comes of a lineage of which this country is proud. To tender to Her Majesty our most sincere and earnest congratulations on this happy event in her family life, and re-echo with the sincerest sympathy those noble words in which she has addressed the nation, to which the noble Earl has referred in graceful terms; but above all we congratulate her, and we congratulate the nation, that in this marriage we have a hope that Her Majesty will be succeeded by descendants in her direct line who will carry to a distant posterity the recollection of a reign never equalled in the prosperity and blessings which it has shed over the people of this Empire.
  Moved—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty to congratulate Her Majesty on the marriage of His Royal Highness the Duke of York with Her Serene Highness Princess Victoria Mary of Teck, and to assure Her Majesty of the satisfaction felt by this House at an event which is of such deep interest to Her Majesty, and which is destined, as they trust, to secure the domestic happiness of Their Royal Highnesses."—(The Lord President, E. Kimberley.)
  On Question, agreed to nemine dissentiente.
  Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.
  Moved—
  "That a Message be sent to Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales to congratulate Their Royal Highnesses on the marriage of His Royal Highness the Duke of York; and to assure Their Royal Highnesses of the satisfaction which this House feels at an event so gratifying to the parental affections of Their Royal Highnesses, and of such promise for the future happiness of their family."—(The Lord President, E. Kimberley.)
  On Question, agreed to nemine dissentiente.
  Ordered, That the said Message be sent to Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales, and that the Duke of Grafton and the Duke of Rutland do attend Their Royal Highnesses with the said Message.
  Moved—
  "That a Message be sent to Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York to offer the cordial congratulations of this House on Their Royal Highnesses' marriage, an I an expression of their earnest desire that this union may supply a firmer foundation for Their Royal Highnesses' domestic happiness."—(The Lord President, E. Kimberley.)
  On Question, agreed to nemine dissentiente.
  Ordered, That the said Message be sent to Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of York, and that the Duke of Grafton and the Duke of Rutland do attend Their Royal Highnesses with the said Message.

  SALMON FISHERY PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  LORD PLAYFAIRmoved, That the Order made on the 13th day of March last,
  "That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 27th day of June next,"
  be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2a. He said, the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees had examined into the matter, and it was unnecessary, therefore, for him to say anything further.
  THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)said, he had examined into the case, and had no objection to offer to the Motion.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

DISTRESS AMONG THE CLERGY.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYasked the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Earl Stanhope, as an Ecclesiastical Commissioner, whether, having regard to the wide-spreading distress amongst the clergy of the Church of England, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners might be recommended to extend the usefulness of their funds by requiring more than an equivalent benefaction to obtain their grants without regard to population; and that, instead of extending their grants to benefices of £300 per annum, the augmentation standard for the next few years, at all events, should be reduced to £200; and, further, as few men of private means now enter the Church, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners should in future restrain the clergy from building or buying parsonage-houses of great cost, and that, if possible, a building limit of some £1,400 should be prescribed? He said he should have thought that with the £100 of tithes below £75 it would not have been necessary to prove that the clergy were in distress, or to justify the words in the Notice respecting the poverty of the clergy; but not only had it been disputed that fewer men of means entered the Church now than formerly, but it had also been stated, by the right rev. Prelate who presided over Chester, that the clergy of the Church of England were self-supporting, and that their private means exceeded their stipends. In the four dioceses of Norwich, Ely, Peterborough, and St. Albans there were 1,336 clergymen whose stipends were under £200 a year net, and of those 223 had no residences. In 1863 the Schedule of Lord Westbury's Act had embraced most of the small benefices in the gift of the Lord Chancellor, and nearly all those had been augmented by that Act. Now there were 433 more, of benefices belonging to the Lord Chan-

  1553
  cellor, under £200 a year net, and 35 under £100 a year, 59 of them without houses, all clamouring to be added to the Schedule of Lord Westbury's Act of 1863. He would say with regard to the houses that clergymen living in towns who had not residences were better without them, for clergymen could better suit themselves by hiring houses convenient to the size of their families, whether large or small. It was not easy to prove either that more or that fewer men of means now entered the Church, but the general belief was that there were fewer. The numbers of those who went to Oxford and Cambridge, and of those who went to the smaller and less expensive Colleges, showed that men of means had diminished. In 1861 350 went to the two Universities, and 173 to the Colleges, such as St. Bees and Lampeter. In 1891 there were 437 University men and 315 non-University men, and the percentage of University men had altered from 67 to 58 per cent., although the total of candidates for ordination had increased. Notwithstanding that, the right rev. Prelate who presided over Chester had asserted in a Pastoral Letter, read in the churches of his diocese, on the 11th of June last, that—
  "The Income Tax Returns are said by a competent authority to show that, in the shape of private means, they (the clergy) bring to the service of the Church considerably more than they receive in the shape of stipend."
  This statement had been taken from Crockford's Clergy List of 1891, and the person said to have been a competent authority was certainly in his lifetime hostile to the Church. Crockford's preface stated that the clergy paid Income Tax upon a total of £9,000,000, and that, as their stipends only amounted to £3,000,000, that proved they were in receipt of £6,000,000 from private means. After Mr. Gladstone's failure, through quoting ill-digested and misapplied Income Tax figures, one might have expected that the right rev. Prelate would have been warned, and would have taken the warning, not to tread on such dangerous ground. An Inland Revenue authority had written to him as follows:—
  "It is not known in the least what competent authority is referred to by the Bishop, or how the Income Tax Returns can possibly show what it is stated they do. Nothing is known at Somerset House of the private means of the
  1554
  clergy, except from claims of exemption or abatement, or for life insurance, and they are not tabulated. My own opinion is that, so far as Income Tax is concerned, it must be the opinion of an incompetent authority founded on figures which are not correctly understood. And I think the statement is likely to do a great deal of harm, if it should lead the clergy and others to infer the possibility of Income Tax Returns, which are of an essentially confidential nature, being made use of for purposes which they were not intended to serve, and for which they ought not to be used."
  It was not clear what object the right rev. Prelate could have had in supporting the editor of Crockford and his unknown authority for the excess of the private means of the clergy over their stipends, since this assertion had been made in the middle of an appeal for contributions to four clerical charities. He asked the First Ecclesiastical Commissioner to require more than an equivalent benefaction to obtain their grants, because for some years Queen Anne's Bounty had not been able to make grants equal to the benefactions, and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners had been more lavish than Queen Anne's Bounty in building houses larger than were required. He also asked them for the present to restrict their grants to benefices of £200 instead of £300, since the poorer benefices had a prior claim to be augmented; and further to limit the building of houses to £1,400. As an illustration of the poverty of the clergy and of the effect of overbuilding their houses, he might cite the case of a rector who appeared by the Clergy List to have £800 a year, but who now received £619. His obligatory expenses reduced this to £201. He had to pay last year £127 to Queen Anne's Bounty for the mortgage on his house. This house was larger than he required, and cowhouse and stables had to be built, though he could not afford to keep either horse or cow. If certain so-called voluntary expenses, such as Church Rate, school treats, and prizes, which a rector was obliged to incur, were deducted from the balance of his income, this would be further reduced to £167. The rector in question kept two curates, and was not married. Those who said that residences built for the clergy were in excess of what was required could urge the cost entailed thereby upon the incumbents of poor livings, for rates, taxes, and repairs, and for keeping up stables which could not be

  1555
  used. There was a case lately where £1,400 had been spent by the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for a house where the benefice was only worth £85 a year; and stables had been built, and more rooms than the incumbent wanted. It had been built away from the road in a wet field, and two winters ago the cellars were full of water. It had been said that this clergyman had private means; and he had asked him how much. He replied, £28. How far would that go for a horse and gig? The Commissioners' Office, however, was not to blame for this site; for the Bishop's Secretary had given the Bishop's approval of the site. Nobody expected the Bishops to visit these sites themselves; but it seemed that the Archdeacons were to blame if a bad site was selected, and the expenditure not restricted. On the other side it was argued that without good houses men of means would not take these poor livings, and also that a roomy house would enable the incumbent to take private pupils. It was not reasonable, however, to expect that men of means would bury them-selves in small, out-of-the-way, rural parishes; for it was in such parishes that these poor livings were mostly to be found, and there were but few incumbents who were fit to take pupils: and since competitive examinations, the crammers got all the pupils. He could only see two remedies for the poverty of the small benefices. One was that, wherever practicable, those benefices not exceeding £100 a year should be united to an adjoining benefice. He believed that some right rev. Prelates complained that lay patrons would not assist to promote this consolidation. As this measure was for the benefit of the Church, it would only be right that the Bishops should yield a point and meet their lay patrons more than half way. If they were to offer them two presentations out of three in the case of the uniting of a benefice, the lay patrons would not be likely to refuse their consent. He was afraid that the fault of the Prelates was that of the proverbial Dutchman—"giving too little and asking too much." The other remedy he suggested was that the Lord Chancellor should add a new Schedule to the Act of 1863, and that the right rev. Prelates should take powers under the
  1556
  same Act to dispose when they thought fit of their poorer benefices. The proviso, "if they thought fit," would leave them free to make any conditions they pleased in the conveyances: for instance, that if the property were broken up and sold, which had given the landowner an interest in the well-being of the parish, and which had induced the right rev. Prelate to part with the patronage, it should revert to him. Conditions might also be made that the advowsons should not be parted with without their consent. In short, there was no limit to the conditions which might be imposed for the benefit of the Church to prevent the livings falling into bad hands. With regard to right rev. Prelates not being able to make arrangements with lay patrons, he might mention that in his own case, at the request of the former Bishop of Bangor, he had joined with him in uniting two parishes, but had not received an equivalent number of presentations to the values of the livings. If he had stood out for his rights, he supposed he would have been called impracticable.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he had the fullest sympathy with the feelings which had prompted the noble Lord's question, for no doubt many of the clergy were now in distressed circumstances, and it was very important that the funds in the Commissioners' hand should be extended as far and as widely as possible. He regretted that circumstances had prevented the right rev. Prelate, who presided over the diocese of Chester, from being in his place, and, therefore, as to that part of the noble Lord's question he could not give any reply. In every diocese in England, as far as he was aware, the present distressed state of the clergy was receiving anxious and serious consideration. The noble Lord had asked three questions—first, as to whether the Commissioners, of whom he (Earl Stanhope) himself was one, did not always require larger benefactions than the grants which they offered. That had been long considered, and, indeed, was acted upon some years ago, but it had been found that it did not work well, and that it was detrimental, because discouraging to those who were disposed to offer benefactions to the Church. The Commissioners were very much disinclined to alter a system which was well-known to the public, and

  1557
  which had worked so well. At the same time, he might tell the noble Lord that really larger benefactions were frequently received, though not asked for, to meet the maximum grant of £700 from the Commissioners. The question of distribution was considered every year by a Committee of the Board specially appointed to consider the subject of benefactions. The whole subject of the making grants to meet the benefactions offered was carefully considered and weighed by the Committee; but it had not been thought advisable, even if it had been possible, to make any alteration this year, the circulars and public notices having already gone out. With regard to the second question, as to restricting grants to benefices of £200 instead of £300, that was a matter which concerned the same Committee. He might, however, state that it was only in very populous places indeed where they had property that the Commissioners had raised the income of an incumbent to £300 a year. Any living with a population not exceeding 500 would receive only a maximum of £200 per annum. It would be impossible to lay down a hard and fast line to govern all cases. Each case must be considered on its own merits, and each case was dealt with in the discretion of the Committee. With regard to the noble Lord's third question, he quite sympathised with the noble Lord's desire that excessive sums should not be expended upon parsonage-houses, but the Ecclesiastical Commissioners at present were not allowed by Statute to vote more than £1,500 for building each parsonage-house, exclusive of the site. No doubt the £1,500 had been exceeded, not by the Commissioners but by private subscriptions. Then in cases where persons interested in the Church had given a handsome house, and the Bishop of the diocese had approved of it as a suitable parsonage-house for the incumbent, the Commissioners had no control in the matter, and they were not disposed to look a gift horse in the mouth. It was notorious that a good parsonage-house, in the South of England certainly, was a great attraction in obtaining a suitable incumbent. Expensive parsonage-houses were often exceedingly difficult for clergymen in poor circumstances to maintain, and the Commissioners did all they could to discourage
  1558
  extravagance in building, but at the same time they had to assure themselves that a suitable house was provided.

  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR) BILL.—(No. 191.)
  Commons Amendments considered (according to Order).
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, in explanation of the Amendment made in the other House, that it was in the same spirit, though not perhaps quite so complete as they had proposed. The operation of the Bill when it left their Lordships' House was restricted to those railway servants who were directly or indirectly engaged in the traffic of the lines; but the Commons had inserted an Amendment excluding from its operation only those railway servants who were engaged in clerical work and in the Companies' workshops. As the Commons' Amendments were approved by the Government, he begged to move that they should be agreed to.
  Moved, "That the Commons' Amendments be agreed to."—(The Lord Playfair.)
  LORD BALFOURsaid, it was permissible to the Members of their Lordships' House who had put in the previous Amendment to think that the words now suggested, and agreed upon, he believed, mainly by negotiation, were not so satisfactory; but under the circumstances he did not propose to offer any objection to the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, he had thought it desirable to ascertain what was the view taken of the matter by the railway authorities, and he had been informed that, although the railway authorities would have preferred the Bill in the form in which it left their Lordships' House, they had no desire that their Lordships should enter into a conflict with the other House upon the subject, and they, therefore, were willing to accept the Commons' Amendments to the Bill. He desired, however, to congratulate their Lordships upon the change in the Bill, because unquestionably as it left the House of Commons it was inserting the thin end of the wedge of the State prescribing the hours of labour for grown men. Their Lordships could not

  1559
  be too careful in refusing, as far as in them lay, to commit themselves to such a principle as that. A man who, for the sake of advancing himself in life or for the good of his family, desired to work 9 or 10 hours a day, if the law of liberty was to prevail in this laud or wherever public liberty was not abolished, should not be prohibited from so doing. He, therefore, thought they had done good service to the State, and he hoped that whenever a measure came before the House affecting the liberties of grown men their Lordships would put down their foot firmly, as they had done on this occasion.
  Motion agreed to.
  Commons Amendments agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (POOR LAW) BILL.
  Report from the Select Committee, That it is not expedient to proceed further with the Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 13th day of March last,
  "That no Private Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Friday, the 16th day of June next,"
  be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed.

  GAS ORDERS CONFIRMATION (NEWENT, &c.) BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons agreed to
  LAW OF COMMONS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the law relating to commons—Was presented by the Lord Thring; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 200.)

  METROPOLITAN POLICE PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  Moved, That the Order made on the 13th day of March last
  "That no Bill brought from the House of Commons confirming any Provisional Order or Provisional Certificate shall be read a second time after Tuesday, the 27th day of June next,"
  be dispensed with, and that the Bill be read 2a; agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 176.)
  House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Select Committee, made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received on Monday next.
  House adjourned at five minutes past Five o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.