Sitting of 20 July 1893

QUESTIONS.

  KILKENNY TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he is aware that great inconvenience and loss is caused to the citizens of Kilkenny, especially the merchants and trading classes generally, by reason of the fact that the telegraph office in that city is closed at 8 o'clock p.m., while the offices in Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Water-ford, and Belfast, with all of which places Kilkenny has important business relations, are open all night; and whether he will arrange to have the Kilkenny office open for the despatch and receipt of messages all night, or at least to midnight; and whether, in view of the fact that members of the staff are engaged until midnight, and that an extension of hours would convenience the public and increase the income of the Department without much, if any, additional cost, he will accede to this request?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): In regard to the matter referred to in the question, Kilkenny is treated in the same way as other towns of the same size and importance. If, however, arrangements can be made, without additional cost, to despatch telegrams up to 11 o'clock, the hour up to which the staff are on duty for postal work, I shall be happy to give instructions accordingly.

  CORVÉE LABOUR IN EGYPT.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in the scheme in which he had referred on June 20 for the abolition in certain districts of the corvée labour, annually employed in watching and repairing the Kilo banks, the labourers would be requisitioned, and forced to work; whether the wages paid for this forced labour would be the current market rate (about P. T. 4, ten pence), and whether rations and tools would be supplied by the Government; whether it is now proposed to pay the peasants throughout Egypt for the cotton and dhurra stalks laid on the Nile banks to protect them from the action of the waves; and, if so, whether this material would be paid for at the market rate; and whether it was correctly stated in The Egyptian Gazette, of June 20, that a special tax would probably have to be levied upon the laud, so that the poor villager might receive payment for his labour which is at present utilised, without any remuneration, for the benefit of his richer neighbour?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OP STATE FOE FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): The reply to which the hon. Member refers was given on the 15th, and not on the 20th ultimo. Forced labour, as a means of guarding against accidents during the Nile flood, still exists in Egypt, and it has not been possible yet to devise any other system. According to a scheme submitted by the Egyptian Ministry of Public Works to the Egyptian Government, and still under consideration, the wages would be at a lower rate than the current market rate, and would be fixed at a sum sufficient to enable the men to support themselves. There does not appear to be any question of the Government supplying tools at present. The material is now partly supplied by the Government and partly by the labourers. It is not proposed to alter this system at present. I have not seen The Egyptian Gazette referred to; but although the additional costs which the proposed changes must entail can be met this year from funds in the hands of the Public Works Department, it is possible that in the future a fresh tax of some kind may have to be levied to cover the increased expenditure.

  BALLACHULISH PIER
  MR. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if the proprietor of the Ballachulish Pier has obtained a prescriptive right by the undisputed possession for 30 years, the public also having had the right of undisputed and unrestricted access for the same period, have not also obtained a prescriptive right, of which they cannot now be deprived; whether he is aware that the fence now erected is within high water mark, and consequently upon the foreshore, which belongs to the Crown; and whether he will order its removal?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. BURT,): The question whether the public have obtained a prescriptive right in the matter of Ballachulish Pier is a legal one, which I am not competent to decide. The second and third paragraphs of the hon. Member's question were answered on the 26th of last month. The fence is, as I am assured, not on foreshore, but on private property above high water mark; and the Board of Trade have no power to order its removal.

  LIMERICK POSTAL AND TELEGRAPH STAFF.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Postmaster General why the revision in the Limerick postal and telegraph staffs, which was promised two years ago, has not yet been granted?
  MR. A. MORLEY: As I informed the hon. Member on the 27th March last, there was no such promise made as stated in the question. The question is still under consideration.

  DREDGING TN THE MEDWAY.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether, although dredging has been carried on in the Medway for a considerable time, it has been found impracticable to move the Benbow, when coaled, from Sheerness to Chatham; and whether, under these circumstances, he will suspend dredging operations which have failed to form a channel, and of which the chief result is the destruction of the Kent and Essex fishing grounds from the mud and rubbish thus discharged on them?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALLY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): It is true that at present it is not safe to take the heavier battleships of the present day down the Channel of the Medway at all high tides at their full draught. The improvement of such a channel sufficiently for this purpose is not an operation which can be carried out in a brief space of time. As it is, however, manifestly necessary that the channel should be so improved in order to obtain the full value of the great Dockyard at Chatham, it is intended to proceed uninterruptedly with the work, which is now in a forward state.

  ALLEGED OUTRAGES IN ARMENIA.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is able to confirm the statement, contained in The Daily News of the 14th instant, that the Mutessarif of Cæsarea sent 300 police and bashi-bazouks in February to arrest men who were supposed to be in hiding at Everek; that they attacked every Armenian house in the town, broke open boxes for valuables, and violated many women; and that the above declaration was made under the seals of two Armenian priests and of the village authorities; and whether the Foreign Office will cause further inquiry to be made into the matter, and will take active steps with the object of preventing the recurrence of any such incidents?
  SIR E. GREY: The information stated by The Daily News to have been communicated to the Embassy at Constantinople has not yet reached Her Majesty's Government, but inquiry will be made.

  RATIONS IN THE NAVY.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is considered that the authorised ration of the seaman of the Royal Navy is his own property to the same extent as the ration of the soldier; if so, is it a fact that the skimmings of the Fleet, derived from the cooking of these rations, have been alienated from the men, sold, and the proceeds paid into the Public Exchequer; and how much has been paid into the Public Exchequer on this account during the last 10 years, and will the Admiralty authorise this

  83
  money, as well as all future sums obtained by such sales, to be credited for the benefit of the seamen of the Fleet?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWOBTH,): The system in force for victualling the Navy differs widely from that in force for the Army, nor can the authorised rations of the seamen be regarded as their own property. The skimmings have never been so regarded, and have not, therefore, been alienated from the men as suggested in the question.

  MILITARY OPERATIONS ON THE INDIAN FRONTIER.
  MR. LITTLE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether, before the Indian Financial Statement is made to the House, he will place upon the Table copies of the Despatches, Minutes, and official Papers which contain or explain the reasons why the Indian Government has conducted military operations beyond the political frontiers of British India on the western and northern side; and whether he can state to the House the cost per annum of such of those operations as are in contravention of the Act of 1858?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOB INDIA (Mr. G. RUSSELL,): The Secretary of State is not aware that any recent operations have been undertaken in contravention of the Act of 1858. The Tapers relating to the two expeditions of 1891 were presented to Parliament in Return C [6526] of that year, and those relating to the Hunza Expedition were presented in Return C [6621] of 1892. The Secretary of State will have no objection to laying on the Table Papers connected with the recent fighting at Chilas if my hon. and learned Friend wishes to move for them.

  ABSENTEE JUSTICES.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in the Return for which he has moved relating to Justices of the Peace for Scotland, notice will be taken of those who are absentees and non-resident, and of those who only reside for a few weeks during the year in the Highlands, and whose occupations require their constant attendance in England, on the Continent
  84
  of Europe, in India, or in other counties of Scotland?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): The Return which has been compiled during the last two months, at the cost of great labour, has already been sent to the printers to be set up in type. No alteration of the character suggested by my hon. Friend could be made without delaying it for a long time, if, indeed, such information could be obtained by the Government.

  FRANCE AND SIAM.
  SIR E. ASIIMEAD-BARTLETT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether two French gunboats, on Thursday night, 13th July, passed up the Menam River after nightfall, and anchored opposite Bangkok; whether a cannonade took place between the French gunboats and the forts, accompanied by loss of life; whether the Siamese Government was in receipt, at the time, of pacific assurances from the French Minister at Bangkok; whether the Treaty of 1856 distinctly requires that arrangements shall be made with the Siamese Government before French warships can ascend the Menam; whether the British Government had prior notification of this movement of the French ships of war; whether, in 1891, out of 307 vessels with a tonnage of 220,786 tons entering the Port of Bangkok, 259 vessels with a tonnage of 193,260 tons were British; and whether, out of 310 vessels with a tonnage of 224,248 tons clearing the Port of Bangkok, 260 vessels with a tonnage of 194,437 tons were British; whether the French gunboats are still anchored opposite Bangkok; and whether an ultimatum has been sent by France to the Siamese Government; and, if so, what are its terms?
  MR. CURZON: At the same time I will ask the hon. Baronet the question which I put to him yesterday, and at his request postponed until to-day.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONES: And, at the same time, may I ask whether, in view of recent events in Siam, and having regard to the Treaty of Amity and Commerce entered into between Great Britain and the Kingdom of Siam in 1855, and the Treaty of Amity

  85
  and Commerce entered into between France and Siam in the same year, and especially the 15th Article of the last-named Treaty, wherein it is provided that French ships of war may not ascend the river towards the City of Bangkok beyond Paknam without the leave of the Siamese Government, the Government have received, or are taking steps to secure, assurances from the French Government that the terms of the last-named Treaty shall in the future be respected and the independence of the Kingdom of Siam maintained; and whether he is in a position, now or at an early date, to lay any Papers relating to the present position in Siam upon the Table of the House?
  SIR E. GREY: The information that two French gunboats ascended the Menam to Bangkok on the evening of Thursday the 13th, after an interchange of shots between them and the Siamese forts, attended with loss of life, is undoubtedly correct. As to the circumstances under which the encounter took place the evidence is conflicting. It is believed that assurances had previously been given by the French Minister at Bangkok to the Siamese Government that the gunboats would remain outside the bar. It is asserted, on the other hand, that the French gunboats, while still outside the bar, were subjected to an unprovoked fire from the forts, and that this led to the subsequent events. The information in the possession of Her Majesty's Government is not sufficient to enable them to come to any positive conclusion as to the merits of the question. Article XV. of the French Treaty with Siam of 1856 provides that French ships of war shall be allowed to enter the Menam and anchor at Paknam; but that, in order to ascend as far as Bangkok, they must give notice to the Siamese Authority, and arrange with it as to the spot where they shall anchor. Her Majesty's Government had no prior notification of this movement of the French gunboats. They were informed by the French Government that these two vessels would remain outside the bar, and they can entertain no doubt that such was the intention of the French Government. The statistics of British trade with the Port of Bangkok quoted by the hon. Member are taken from the Trade Report of the Acting British
  86
  Consul General there, and are believed to be correct. The French gunboats are still anchored opposite Bangkok. There are in all three French and two British gunboats there. It is understood that an ultimatum has been sent by the French Government to that of Siam. Her Majesty's Government are not in a position to make any announcement of its terms. But they are making inquiries on the subject, and as soon as they are able to do so they will give information to the House. I may add that the only part of the ultimatum which concerns Her Majesty's Government is that relating to territorial arrangements, and that they have determined at once to send Lord Dufferin to Paris to exchange views in an amicable spirit with regard to certain points which seem to require elucidation.

  A VICTORIA CROSS MAN IN TROUBLE.
  MR. M. KENNY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been called to the case of James Corrigan, or Maguire, who was convicted of larceny at the recent Tyrone Assizes: if he received the Victoria Cross and a £10 annuity for an act of great valour while serving in the 1st Bengal European Fusiliers at the capture of Delhi; if he has since forfeited both in consequence of convictions for various offences; if his conduct while serving in the Army was good, and that he attained the rank of sergeant while in the Service; if he is aware that Maguire is apparently suffering from some mental affliction, probably the result of sunstroke, and is in such a state that the learned Judge discharged him from custody; if inquiry will be made, and Maguire medically examined with a view to testing his mental condition; and if it is found that he has not been really responsible for offences with which he has been charged, will the War Office restore his forfeited annuity, or make other suitable provision for him in his old age?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN,): James Maguire lost his annuity so long ago as 1862, when he was convicted of felony, and, under the Statutes of the Victoria Cross, was necessarily struck off the roll of that Order. The Judge who tried the case

  87
  did not consider that there were mitigating circumstances, and as it was fully considered by one of my predecessors I am not prepared to re-open the question. The man served in the local Indian Forces, but he is eligible for consideration, among other applicants, for the special campaign pension now being awarded.

  STATE REGULATION OF VICE IN MALTA.
  MR. W. S. B. M'LAREN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the system of the regulation of prostitution, and the examination of the women, is still in force in Malta; whether it is the case that soldiers sent to the hospital are compelled, under threat of punishment, to name the woman from whom they have contracted the disease; whether, in the event of a soldier not being able to name the woman, he is taken in charge of a sergeant to the house in which he alleges she resides, in order that he may point her out; and whether he will order a stop to be put to the entire system?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: A full Report on the points referred to in the question has been called for from Malta.

  RIFLE RANGE ACCIDENT AT YOUGHAL.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a fisherman named Patrick Cronin was severely wounded at Youghal, County Cork, on the 12th instant, by a shot fired from the rifle range, owing to some mistake in the danger signals; whether steps will be taken to secure the absolute safety of boats at sea during ball practice at this range; and whether, in view of the fact that the wounded man is dependent upon his occupation for his livelihood, reasonable compensation will be granted him for his injury and consequent disablement?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Patrick Cronin was wounded in his boat on the 12th instant by a shot from the rifle range, but there does not appear to have been any mistake as to the danger signals, nor is carelessness imputable either to the firing party or to Cronin himself. He was struck when outside the supposed range of danger, probably
  88
  by a ricochet bullet, and the occurrence seems to have been quite accidental. I am glad to say that the wound is not likely to have serious consequences. Orders have been given to increase the zone marked as dangerous, and the question of compensation will be duly considered.

  OVERCROWDING ON THE LONDON AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the overcrowding of third-class compartments on the London and North Western Railway at Euston Station; whether he is aware that on Saturday the 8th, when the thermometer was at 84 degrees in the shade, one compartment of the 4.10 p.m. train to the North was packed by the order of the officials, notwithstanding the strongest protest, with 13 passengers, and remained so packed till it reached Rugby; and whether, in view of the fact that cattle trucks are forbidden to be packed with more than their registered number, he will order an inquiry, and enforce penalties against the London and North Western Railway Company, so as to insure that their third-class passengers at the Euston Terminus shall be treated at least as well in the hot weather as cattle?
  MR. BURT: The attention of the Board of Trade had not been drawn to overcrowding on the London and North Western Railway at Euston until the hon. Member gave notice of this question. The Company state that extra vehicles were added to the train referred to, but that an unexpected number of passengers arrived almost at the last moment, and amongst them a lady with a child in her arms and three other little ones at her side. As she was anxious to proceed by the train the lady and children were placed in a particular third-class compartment, with the intention that they should be changed at Willesden Junction. This was not done through a failure on the part of the telephone. The hon. Member can seethe correspondence. Overcrowding is the subject of bye-law; the case is not one for inquiry.
  MR. BARTLEY: Arising out of the answer, are we to understand that the London and North Western Railway

  89
  Company at their terminus at Euston has so little carriage accommodation that if a lady and three children happen to arrive at the last moment before the starting of a train the passengers must submit to be overcrowded on the journey all the way to Rugby? Is it not reasonable to require a great Company to have sufficient accommodation available to prevent that? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that those complaints of overcrowding are made daily?
  MR. BURT: Our information is that this was a very unusual occurrence, and that the Railway Company do all they can to prevent overcrowding. If the hon. Member wishes to put any further question perhaps he will give notice. I may repeat that the Board of Trade have no power to deal with cases of this kind except by calling the attention of the Railway Companies to them.

  THE MARLBOROUGH STREET TRAINING COLLEGE, DUBLIN, AND MR. T. CONWAY.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the case of Mr. Thomas Conway, who is a candidate for the office of Professor in the Training College at Marlborough Street, Dublin, the Board of Education has received any communication on behalf of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland protesting against his appointment; whether the Training College at Marlborough Street is the only Undenominational College in connection with the Board of Education, and on that account largely availed of by Presbyterian students; whether he is aware that on Tuesday, the 11th instant, the question of Mr. Conway's appointment produced a second deadlock at the National Board, the voting being six against six, and that Mr. Morell, a Presbyterian Commissioner, who had previously supported Mr. Conway, abstained from voting; and if it is proposed by the Resident Commissioner to still further press this gentleman's candidature?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MOKLEY,): A communication, as stated, was received by the Board of National Education protesting against the appointment of Mr. Conway until the public mind has been satisfied as to his suit-
  90
  ability for this office. The facts are as mentioned in the second and third paragraphs of the question. The Resident Commissioner has not given any undertaking in respect of his intended action when the case comes up for final settlement in October next.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman is he aware that out of the votes recorded for this gentleman four were those of officials and two those of ex-officials of the Board, and that the legal and clerical element polled against him? Is not the right hon. Gentleman, in postponing action until October or November, when Parliament may not be sitting, running the risk of allowing a grave injustice to be done?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have no opportunity of making any analysis of the voting, but I do not see, even if it were as the hon. Member indicates, that I could do otherwise than I have said.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Inasmuch as copies of the evidence taken at the investigation are to be had, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to lay one on the Table, so that it may be used in discussing this matter on the Vote on Account? I want the evidence regarding the moral character of this man whom it is proposed—[Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot undertake to place the evidence on the Table of the House until I have had an opportunity of considering it. I should think then it is extremely doubtful if it should be produced—the man may not be appointed, and may not continue to be a candidate even.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I shall raise the whole question on the Vote on Account.

  THE JULY CELEBRATIONS AT DUNGANNON.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Dungannon Bench of Magistrates, assembled at Petty Sessions, and representing every creed, unanimously decided that it was quite unnecessary to draft extra police into the town for the July celebrations, but that, notwithstanding this decision of those responsible for the peace of the district, 60 additional police were brought into the town

  91
  from Connaught; whether any disturbance took place; and if the cost of this extra police force, brought into the town against the decision of the Justices, will be charged on the county?
  ME. J. MORLEY: It is true that the local Magistrates were of opinion that no extra force of police was necessary on the occasion mentioned; but the Divisional Commissioner and local police authorities considered that additional men were absolutely necessary, and it was probably owing to the presence of the force of police that no breach of the peace occurred. The men were drafted, not from Connaught, but from Donegal and neighbouring counties. The cost of the extra force, which will be something very small, is chargeable to the county at large.
  ME. T. W. RUSSELL: But, Sir, as the peace of the county has not been disturbed on these occasions, is the right hon. Gentleman justified, when the Local Authorities declare that no assistance is necessary, in putting them to extra expense by sending in additional police?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot take the advice of the Local Authorities over the opinion of my own officers. If that were done, decisions might be come to in other cases which the hon. Member would by no means approve.

  SECOND DIVISION CLERKSHIPS IN IRELAND.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it has been usual to hold competitive examinations for Second Division clerkships in the Civil Service in April and October; whether any such examination has been held since October last; and whether it is proposed to call upon candidates before October next?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): Open competitions for Second Division clerkships are not necessarily held at fixed intervals, but at such times as may be necessary, in order to meet the requirements of the Public Service. It is true that during the last three years such examinations have been held twice a year; but, on the other hand, no such open competition was held between August, 1887, and May, 1890. No examination has been held since October last; and having
  92
  regard to the present infrequency of vacancies, there is no immediate prospect of an examination being required.

  THE CENTRAL TELEGRAPH OFFICE.
  MR.MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General how many temporary clerks and senior substitutes, at present employed in the Central Telegraph Office, have been in the service of the Department for 12 months and upwards with no longer break in their service than three weeks?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I do not clearly understand my hon. Friend's question. There are 70 unestablished, i.e., temporary telegraphists in the Central Telegraph Office who have been in continuous employment for more than a year. I presume that by "senior" substitutes my hon. Friend refers to "season" substitutes. There are 34 of these officers, who have been employed for as long as 12 months. They take the place of absentees.
  MR. MACDONALD: Are not those who have been in continuous employment for a year eligible for the permanent service?
  MR. A. MORLEY: Some are over age.

  THE CASK OF RICHARD HUDSON.
  MR. RANKIN: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether Richard Hudson, rural postman at Moccas, Herefordshire, was dismissed from his post, at a week's notice, on 24th June last, in order that an Army Reserve man might be put in his place; and whether such dismissal was in pursuance of a policy to appoint Army Reserve men to positions under the Post Office; if so, whether he will consider the advisability of granting some compensation to Richard Hudson for being dismissed from the service of the Post Office?
  MR. A. MORLEY: I am inquiring into this case, and when I get the information I will communicate with the hon. Member.

  RATING IN RURAL PARISHES.
  MR. H. HOBHOUSE: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in view of

  93
  the fact that he proposes by the Local Government Bill largely to extend the powers of rating vested in Parish Bodies, and to limit the voting power of owners and large ratepayers, thus placing the appointment of both Parish and District Councils mainly in the hands of the compound householders, he will consent to state or to grant a Return of the number of rural parishes where an order of the Vestry under Section 4 of "The Poor Rate Assessment Act, 1869," requiring owners to be rated instead of occupiers is at present in force?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): I have no information as to the number of parishes in which Orders have been made by the Vestries under Section 4 of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, for the rating of owners instead of occupiers. In order to obtain the information it would be necessary to get Returns from the Overseers of about 13,000 parishes. There is not only great difficulty and delay in obtaining Returns from Overseers, who are unpaid officers; but if the particulars suggested wore furnished by them, the information would be of little practical use. It would afford no means of making any estimate of the number of compound householders under Section 4; and there are, of course, many parishes where, although Section 4 of the Act has not been put in force, the rates are paid by the owners instead of the occupiers under voluntary agreements between the owners and the Overseers under Section 3 of the Act.
  MR. JEFFREYS: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will communicate with the clerks of the various Boards of Guardians in the country asking them to send circulars round to Overseers in order to gain the required information on this point?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: That would be trying to obtain by two steps that which I think cannot be obtained by one.

  METROPOLITAN POLICE MAGISTRATES.
  MR. WHITMORE: I bog to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now come to any decision with respect to the recommendation made in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Metro-
  94
  politan Police Courts, that two additional Magistrates should be appointed at once?
  THE SECRETARY OK STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITTI,): The Government have come to the conclusion that they would not be justified, for a Metropolitan purpose, in increasing the charge upon the Consolidated Fund to the extent which would be necessary if the recommendations of the Committee were carried into effect. The whole question of the best way of dealing with the difficulty is receiving my careful attention.
  MR. WHITMORE: I shall call attention to the Report of the Committee on the Estimates.

  THE ADMINISTRATION OF LYONS' ESTATES.
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the hon. Member for Merionethshire, as a Charity Commissioner, whether the Charity Commission has any control over the administration of Lyons' Estates, in the County of Middlesex; and, if so, whether its attention has been directed to the unremunerative terms on which, in some instances, the leases on these estates have been granted; and whether, on the renewal of such leases, care will be taken to secure duly favourable terms for the beneficiaries of the Trust?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. T. E. ELLIS,): Though the Charities founded by John Lyon in Middlesex are within the general jurisdiction of the Charity Commissioners, the control usually exercised by the Commissioners over the grant of long leases of Charity Lands is, in this case, negatived by certain Private Acts of Parliament under which the Governors exercise leasing powers. In these circumstances, the Commissioners have no knowledge of the matters in question. It is, however, the duty of the Governors to grant leases upon the best terms obtainable, and the Commissioners would be prepared to consider and to inquire into any specific complaint of neglect by the Governors of this duty.

  LONDON'S ADMINISTRATIVE EDUCATIONAL AREA.
  MR. BENN: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he will cause the

  95
  attention of the Education Department to be directed to the fact that under Section 40, Sub-section 2, of "The Local Government Act, 1888," such portions of the Administrative County of London as formed part of the Counties of Middlesex. Surrey, and Kent, wore severed from those counties, and now form a separate county by the name of the County of London, and to the fact that in their Provisional Orders made this Session under "The Elementary Education Act, 1870," the Parishes of Fulham, St. Mary Islington, St. John Hackney, St. Leonard Shorediteh, St. Matthew Bethnal Green, and All Saints Poplar, in the County of London, are erroneously described as being in the County of Middlesex, the Parishes of Charlton, Plumstead, St. Nicholas Deptford, and Greenwich, in the County of London, are erroneously described as being in the County of Kent, and St. Giles Camberwell and Battersea, in the County of London, are erroneously described as being in the County of Surrey?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): I recognise that it is very important that these matters should be correctly stated. The descriptions of sites in Provisional Orders made by the Department have always been given in the words of the Schedule to the Petition of the School Board for the granting of the Order. The Department will, however, direct the attention of the School Board for London to the point, and will take further precautions on the matter in future.

  THE "COSTA RICA."
  MR. W. REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that Sir George Dibbs, Premier of New South Wales, has telegraphed to the Agent General of that Colony, now in London, instructing him to inform the Secretary of State for the Colonies of the great indignation which is felt in New South Wales at the conduct of the Imperial Government in relation to the detention of the ship Costa Rica as the result of the action of the Dutch-Indian Authorities in arresting the captain; whether he is aware that Sir George Dibbs submits that the award of £2,500 to the captain of the Costa Rica by no means meets the justice of the case; and whether it is the
  96
  intention of the Imperial Government to demand compensation for the owners and crew of the ship Costa Rica, in accordance with the desire of the Now South Wales Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOE THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): The Agent General has forwarded to the Secretary of State a copy of a telegram of the nature described from the Prime Minister of New South Wales, which is now under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

  CROWN LANDS IN IRELAND.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury how much, if any, of the sum of £65,000 entered in the suggested Irish Balance Sheet under the heading "Income from Crown Lands," is derived from estates brought into the possession of the Crown through the operation of the Act of Settlement, and liable under the provisions of that Act for the maintenance of a second College in the University of Dublin should such be founded?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Almost the whole of the Crown Revenue in Ireland is derived from quit-rents, and it is probable that a large part of these quit-rents come under the Act of Settlement; but investigation would be required before a definite opinion could be given on the point. The 219th section of that Act does not seem to bear the interpretation which my hon. Friend gives to it. It appears to direct that in the event of a second College being founded an annuity should be settled upon it, not derived from the quit-rents reserved to the Crown, but as a new charge to be placed upon the lands to which the section refers.

  PRISON OFFICIALS' PAY AT DARTMOOR.
  MR. LUTTRELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it has been the custom at a convict prison, where officers have been in receipt of allowances on account of special circumstances caused by the situation, to add such allowance to their pay when calculating their pension on retirement; and, if so, whether he would recommend that those employed at Princetown Prison, Dartmoor, who are in receipt of "inconvenience money," may likewise have the "inconvenience money" added

  97
  to their salary when calculating their retiring allowance?
  MR. ASQUITH: The extra allowances made to the officers at Dartmoor Convict Prison were sanctioned by the Treasury not in order to meet expenses incurred by high rents, or increased cost of the necessaries of life, but in some measure to equalise the conditions of service for officers serving in so remote a situation as Dartmoor. The inequality of conditions, however, ceases when the officers' term there comes to an end; and the Treasury have decided that, in accordance with the practice observed by them in similar cases, they cannot permit these allowances to count towards pension, and I do not see my way to press the Treasury for a re-consideration of their decision.

  THE IEISH CONSTABULARY FORCE FUND.
  MR. MAINS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what amount of information, if any, the Government will give in the form of a Return of the income and expenditure of the Constabulary Force Fund; whether the Fund has ever been audited; and, if so, by whom; how many effective and non-effective members of the Force have a vested interest in the Fund; and whether any, and, if so, how many, widows and orphans are now a charge upon the Fund?
  MR. J. MORLEY: With reference to this question, I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the very full reply which I gave on the 9th May last to a question put by the hon. Member for Cork, and in which I stated that the invested balance of the Fund, amounting to £304,000, is in the hands of the National Debt Commissioners, in addition to which there was at the same date a current cash balance of about £2,500 in the public account of the Inspector General; that the Fund has been audited from the outset of its career by the Exchequer and Audit Department; and that the number of officers and men now serving, whose pay is subject to the statutable deductions for the Fund, is approximately 8,730, and the number of subscribing pensioners 3,426. The concluding paragraph of the question seems to be based on a misapprehension.
  98
  No pensions are granted from the Fund, and all claims cease with the payment of the gratuities to widows or children.

  IRISH SHAREHOLDERS IN LONDON COMPANIES.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether in the case of public companies (whose offices are registered in London, but many of whose shareholders are Irish) which pay the Income Tax on dividends for their shareholders, such Income Tax, as far as it relates to Irish shareholders, will be credited to the Irish Exchequer, under the provisions of the Government of Ireland Bill?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: Any such receipts in respect of Income Tax as are contemplated in the question will not, under the proposed Financial Clauses, be credited to the Irish Exchequer, but a reference to Parliamentary Paper No. 337 will show that they are taken into account in estimating Ireland's contribution to Imperial Expenditure.

  THE ARCHBISHOP OF MAEASH AND ZEITOUN.
  SIR G. SITVVELL: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Foreign Office has obtained a copy of the procès verbal of the cases of the Archbishops of Marash and Zeitoun, on which the Court of Cassation at Constantinople based its decision?
  SIR E. GREY: We have not got a copy of the procès verbal; but, as I have previously stated, unofficial representations wore made as to irregularities said to have taken place at the trial.
  MR. F. S. STEVENSON: Are efforts, still being made to secure the release of the Archbishops?
  SIR E. GREY: The matter continues to occupy the attention of Her Majesty's Representative.

  UNDER INSPECTORS OF FACTORIES.
  MR. FIELD: In the absence of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, I bog to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the recently-appointed Under Inspectors of Factories are only being paid £100 per annum, without any personal expenses, although they are doing similar work for which their predecessors

  99
  were paid from £200 to £300 per year; and whether, in view of the fact that they have had to remove their homes from one part of London to another at their own expense, and also that this salary without personal expenses may place temptation of bribery in the way of these Inspectors, he will take steps at an early date in order to make arrangements for some increase of salary to be paid to these Inspectors, and for payment of their travelling expenses when away from home?
  MR. ASQUITH: The scale of salary for the new class of Inspectors' assistants was fixed by the Treasury on the recommendation of the Home Office at £100, rising by £5 annually to £150, and all the applications and appointments were made on that footing. Their being required to take up their work at their own expense was in accordance with the universal rule of the Service. Any expenses incurred by these Inspectors in visiting workshops or travelling on official business are re-imbursed from public funds. They are allowed an allowance when they have been absent from home for not less than 10 consecutive hours of 3s., which is equal to that allowed to Her Majesty's Inspectors. I see no ground for raising their salary, or making in their favour an exceptional arrangement as to expenses.

  THE TRALEE AND DINGLE RAILWAY.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether, in the event of the County Kerry Grand Jury and the Great Southern and Western Railway Company coming to an understanding as to the re-construction and future working of the Tralee and Dingle Railway, he will be prepared to advise the Treasury to assist the undertaking?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Light Railways Act of 1889 does not enable the Treasury to make advances in the case of lines already constructed, and, moreover, all the money available under that Act is now expended or allocated.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: Will the Treasury re-consider this special case?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am afraid I can only say that I have no funds available.

  THE HOUSING OF THE DINGLE FISHERMEN.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he will state what reply has been received by the Irish Local Government Board to their latest communication to the Dingle Board of Guardians on the subject of the housing of the Dingle fishermen?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Local Government Board inform me that the Dingle Board of Guardians did not meet on Thursday last, and that they have addressed a letter to the clerk of the Union requesting him, in case the matter referred to is not disposed of at the Guardians' meeting to-day, to issue notices to each Guardian that the representation under the Labourers Acts will be submitted for final decision at the meeting to be held on next Thursday.

  THE HIRE PURCHASE SYSTEM.
  MR. BRUNNER: I beg to ask the Solicitor General whether his attention has been called to a case heard by Mr. Cooke at the Marylebone Police Court, on Thursday, the 13th instant, and reported in The Daily News of the following day, in which the Magistrate inveighed in the strongest terms on the conduct of John Warner, furniture dealer, in seizing the furniture of Sarah Shibbling, purchased of him on the hire system, after £4 2s. 6d. had been paid out of £5 3s. 6d. due; and whether the Bills of Sale Bill is intended to provide against, or will, in fact, provide against, such cases?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,): The case referred to did not turn out to be a case of hire and purchase. There can be no doubt that great hardships are inflicted under that system, and the Lord Chancellor has taken it into his serious consideration. He introduced in the Bills of Sale Bill in the House of Lords a clause intended to deal with the whole question, but found that it provoked so much opposition that it was hopeless to go on with it. The Bill was one of a totally non-contentious character. It was one of several Bills, including the Public Authorities Protection Bill, the Evidence in Criminal Cases Bill, and certain Consolidation Bills, which had passed the

  101
  Lords once or twice. Unfortunately, they had not been allowed to proceed upon those Bills in this House at present; but he hoped hon. Members who had hitherto taken objection to them would remember that they came down with the sanction of all Parties, and that they contained nothing of a contentious nature.
  MR. BARTLEY: Do I understand these Bills passed in previous sessions?
  SIR J. RIGBY: Yes; they were passed by the Lords.
  MR. BARTLEY: Were they stopped in this House?
  SIR J. RIGBY: I cannot tell the history of them, but they did not pass through this House.
  MR. CARSON: Is the Criminal Evidence Bill a non-contentious Measure?
  SIR J. RIGBY: I think it was introduced by the late Government and passed with the assistance of the present Lord Chancellor, who has again passed it through the House of Lords with the entire approval and assistance of the other side.
  MR. BRUNNER: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the Government will take an early opportunity to promote legislation to put an end to this system of oppression of the poor?
  SIR J. RIGBY: The Lord Chancellor is determined to take the earliest opportunity to deal with the law, and to remove, at any rate, some of the abuses which are shown to exist.

  THE COMPILATION OF IRISH POLICE STATISTICS.
  MR. BODKIN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether his attention has been drawn to the admission by Sir Peter O'Brien, Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, at the recent Kilkenny Assizes that the number of Serious offences has been reduced in that county by one-half, from 22 to 11, as compared with the corresponding period the previous year, and that the minor offences have also considerably decreased; whether his attention was also directed to the long and strongly-worded complaint, on the same occasion by the same learned Judge, against the method in which the official criminal Statistics are compiled, and the refusal of those responsible to include in the table of
  102
  outrages fires and other injuries to property which the police believe to have been accidental, or to have been perpetrated by the owners for the purpose of obtaining compensation from the Grand Juries out of the rates; whether these criminal statistics have been compiled in the same way and by the same persons for many years, certainly during the whole of the last Administration in which the learned Judge acted as Attorney General, and whether during that period there was any official or judicial complaint, either by the learned Judge himself or by his colleagues in the law room of the Castle or on the Bench, as to the method in which these statistics were compiled; and whether, in view of the fact that any alteration in the system which has existed so long would destroy the value of these statistics as a standard of comparison between one period and another, he will continue unaltered the system so long in operation?
  MR. CARSON: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers that question may I ask him, in reference to the same matter, whether the case which the Chief Justice alluded to as having been omitted was returned by the Grand Jury as a case of malicious, and not accidental, burning of hay on the farm of a man named Campion, and whether the Return was not in an altogether different form, as stated by the Chief Justice, to that laid before him at Clonmel, in which similar injuries to property appeared?
  MR. J.MORLEY: I must ask for notice of that question. I understand that the County Inspector made a mistake which he afterwards explained to the learned Judge.
  MR. CARSON: It is all in the same Charge.
  MR. J.MORLEY: I think the hon. Member will find he is mistaken. With regard to the question on the Paper, my attention has been drawn to the language of the learned Judge in his address to the Grand Jury at Kilkenny Assizes. It is quite true that his Lordship admitted there was a considerable reduction in the number of offences of all classes reported since the spring Assizes as compared with the corresponding period of last year. In answer to the second portion of the question, my attention has also been directed to the strongly-worded

  103
  complaint of the Judge with respect to Irish criminal statistics. I am not aware that the system of compiling those statistics has been commented upon either by this learned Judge or other Judges of Assize in any year before this. The learned Judge was mistaken in thinking that all doubtful cases are usually included in the Returns. The contrary has been the practice, as the Code reads—
  "Care must be taken that no outrages, not recorded as such at headquarters, are included in the Return."
  The learned Judge seems to have overlooked the fact that these statistics are prepared primarily for the information of Parliament and of Her Majesty's Government. The Executive Government have hitherto used—and certainly so long as I am responsible for it will continue to use—its own discretion as to the principles on which those Returns are made up. With regard to the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice that doubtful cases should in future be included in the Returns, I need not do more than repeat the general objection I have so often presented to the House, and which I believe is equally entertained by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that such a change would destroy any possibility of comparison between the present and past years. That seems in itself a good reason why we should not take the learned Judge's advice.
  MR. CARSON: May I ask whether the Police Code does not direct that all outrages reported to the police shall be laid before the Judges of Assize when they come to the different counties? May I further ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will read to the House the words of what he calls the "Strongly-worded complaint of the Judge?" Was not that complaint a complaint that a particular outrage was kept back on the allegation that the man had himself set fire to the hay? And, if so, was not that as great an outrage as could be committed?
  DR. COMMINS: Is there any such practice known in England as that of a Judge in charging a Grand Jury commenting on cases which do not appear in the calendar?
  MR. J.MORLEY: I think it is, as the hon. and learned Member indicates,
  104
  not the practice in England. It is undoubtedly true that an English Judge would not make an occasion of this kind an opportunity for criticising the actions of the Executive Government; and if he happened to be opposed in politics to the Executive Government, I am quite sure an English Judge would be doubly careful. It is undeniable that the Code says—and it has equally been the invariable practice—that
  "Care must be taken that none but outrages recorded as such at headquarters are included in the Return."
  I cannot say whether the hon. Member is correct as to the other quotations from the Police Code.
  MR. CARSON: I can tell you I am. For what purpose does the Code direct outrages to be returned to the Judge unless for the purpose of drawing attention to them? and may I ask whether it is the practice in England under any Code to lay outrages before the Judge of Assize? May I also ask—[Cries of "Notice!"]—I am not going to be mobbed by hon. Members below the Gangway—may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman can quote any case arising under the late Government whore an outrage found to be malicious by the Grand Jury was not included in the Return?
  MR. J.MORLEY: The House must see that the hon. and learned Member must know he is asking me a number of questions as to particulars which it is impossible for me to answer offhand.
  MR. CARSON: Then you ought not to attack the Judges.
  MR. J.MORLEY: If the hon. Member will be good enough to put these questions on the Paper, I will give him the best answer I can. As for the attack on the Judges, what I have done has been to give a simple account of the matter; and if that simple account conveys in itself an attack on the Judges, it is due to what they themselves have said.
  MR. CARSON: A most cowardly attack. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR.SPEAKER: I did not catch the remark of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am told he used the words "cowardly attack." If he did they are out of Order, and he will, no doubt, withdraw them.
  MR. CARSON: In deference to what you say, Sir, I do withdraw them. I

  105
  wish simply to add it was in consequence of my questions not being answered that I thought the remark justifiable.
  MR. BYLES: Is it not often the fact that claims are made to the Grand Juries for malicious burnings with the fraudulent object of obtaining compensation?
  MR. J.MORLEY: I believe there are such cases.

  LOCH BROOM.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, having regard to the fact that the Treasury declined to aid the railway extension from Garve to Ullapool in consequence of the Report of the Treasury Commission being unfavourable as to the navigability of Loch Broom, and that, inasmuch as their Report is considered by many well-known persons possessing thorough knowledge of the loch to be inaccurate and misleading, the Treasury will authorise another Report to be made?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): The matter has been considered and reported on by a Commission in 1890, and also by a Committee in 1891. Those who reported were very competent persons. Both Reports were unfavourable to this line, and the Government see no occasion for appointing a third tribunal.
  MB. W. WHITELAW: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the members of the Committee which condemned Loch Brown as unnavigable never went near either Ullapool or Loch Broom in order to take evidence from those accustomed to navigate the loch, which large steam and sailing vessels do navigate by day and by night with perfect case?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have myself navigated Loch Broom, and can speak personally of the loch, but I believe the Report was founded on a very careful examination of the matter by a Commission.
  MR. WHITELAW: I shall raise the question on the Estimates.

  ABERDAKE SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. D. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his Department has received a letter from a member of the Aberdare
  106
  School Board, complaining of an alleged irregularity in convening an extra ordinary meeting of the Board for 6th July, at which a resolution passed at a previous meeting was rescinded; and whether he is aware that the meeting was informally summoned; if so, what remedy the complainant has?
  MR. ACLAND: A letter has been received by the Department from a member of the Aberdare school Board complaining that an extraordinary meeting of the Board had been summoned on the 27th June last, without due notice. The Education Act of 1870 provides (schedule III., 1c) that an extraordinary meeting may be held at any time on the written requisition of three members of the Board addressed to the Clerk of the Board. The Department is not empowered to decide whether a meeting of a school Board has been properly summoned. As no remedy is provided in the Act, the complainant would have to have recourse to legal proceedings in order to contest the validity of the proceedings of the Board.

  LABOUR IN GOVERNMENT ARMS FACTORIES.
  MR. LOUGH: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, with a view of preventing the dismissal of workmen, he can see his way to adopt the system of shortening hours all round in periods of slackness in any of the Government Arms Factories?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (Mr. WOODALL,): A considerable number of discharges have taken place at Birmingham, where workmen have a fair chance of being absorbed in kindred occupations. At Enfield, where practically there is no other opening for men discharged from the small Arms Factory, it is sought to give relief in reducing the working hours all round by playing on Saturday. At Woolwich the precise nature and extent of the probable demands on the factories are not so obvious; but, in the event of the anticipated falling off of work, the policy of working short time, instead of diminishing the number of men employed, will be followed as far as is practicable.

  SWAZILAND.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the Under

  107
  Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Convention concerning Swaziland, arranged with the Government of the South African Republic, has yet been signed; whether it requires, or has received, the ratification of the Volksraad of the South African Republic; whether it requires, or will receive, any ratification by the Imperial Parliament; and whether the Convention will be arranged and finally signed before Parliament have been given any opportunity of examining its terms or expressing any opinion thereon?
  MR.S. BUXTON: I hope to be in a position to make a statement on the subject shortly; and, Meanwhile, I would request my hon. Friend not to press his questions.
  SIK G. BADEN-POWELL: I hope the hon. Gentleman when he makes his statement will give an answer to the last paragraph in the question.

  THE CROWN LANDS BILL.
  MR. KENYON: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the persistent opposition offered to the Crown Lands Bill, he will state as far as he can within the limits of a reply the terms of Reference he proposes to submit to the Committee of the House?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: If the Bill is referred to a Select Committee, as I propose, I do not contemplate any special terms of Reference beyond those which have already appeared upon the Notice Paper, and which give power to call for persons and papers and to take evidence.

  CRIME IN COUNTY CORK.
  CAPTAIN-DONELAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether it is a fact that Judge Madden, in his Charge to the Grand Jury of the County Cork on Monday last, stated that the condition of the county was most satisfactory; and whether, under these circumstances, the extra police at present stationed in the County Cork will be withdrawn?
  MR. J.MORLEY: It is true, as stated by the learned Judge, that the condition of the County Cork is generally satisfactory and peaceful. But, as already stated by me, there is one portion of the county which does not bear favourable comparison with the rest of the county;
  108
  and the local constabulary authorities, taking into consideration the nature of the duty to be performed by the police over so extensive a county as Cork, cannot at present recommend a reduction in the extra force.
  MR. CARSON: May I ask whether the learned Judge said there was a considerable amount of intimidation, amounting in some cases to actual violence, which deterred people from coming forward to prosecute, and what steps the Government are going to take to put it down?
  MR. J.MORLEY: It is true, as the learned Judge said, there is a considerable amount of intimidation, and the Constabulary will do the best they can to cope with it. As the hon. and learned Member Must know, they are always on the alert.
  MR. SEXTON: How much of the county is subject to these special observations?
  MR. J.MORLEY: Only a small portion of a very large county.
  CAPTAIN DONELAN: Did not Mr. Justice Madden State that, compared with other large areas, this county was exceedingly free from crime?
  MR. J.MORLEY: The learned Judge said he observed with satisfaction that there was a decrease in the number of specially-reported cases as compared with the number in the corresponding period of last year. He also observed that, so far as the county at large was concerned, in a larger proportion of cases persons were made amenable.

  HOP AND MALT SUBSTITUTES.
  MR. QUILTER: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Reference to the Royal Commission on Agriculture will include any inquiry into the substitution of sugar, molasses, rice, Maize, and other ingredients for barley malt, and of chemical substitutes for hops; and into the diminution in the number of small brewers, as disclosed by the Return issued this year relating to brewers' licences; and to the effect on the cultivation of barley and hops in this country?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not think this subject could be made the object of special Reference, but I have no doubt that it will be included within the general terms of Reference.
  MR. QUILTER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Bills have been introduced to lessen the adulteration of beer, and that these Bills have been backed by Members of all shades of politics, including the present Minister of Agriculture; and is he aware that at meetings of agriculturists throughout the United Kingdom some legislation in this direction is one of the most approved remedies?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am aware of the zeal and activity of the hon. Member in efforts to Secure the purity of beer.
  MR. HENEAGE: May I ask whether the House can be afforded an opportunity of discussing the question of the appointment of the Royal Commission?
  [No answer was returned.]

  THE APPOINTMENT OFMAGISTRATES.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he is aware that in the Counties of Inverness and Perth the proportion of Liberals to Conservatives on the Commission of the Peace is 5 and 3 per cent, respectively; and whether the Government will take immediate steps to redress this disparity?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,):My hon. Friend is aware that Her Majesty's Government have no means of operating in such cases as this excepting through the Lord Chancellor; and I think he is also aware from statements previously made, and particularly from a statement made by the Home Secretary with respect to the Metropolitan Counties, that the Lord Chancellor has been, and continues to be, employed in redeeming the pledge that has been given on his behalf as to giving effect to the Resolution of the House of Commons. I will take this opportunity of removing one misapprehension that prevails. It is supposed that the Magistrates who have been appointed by the Lord Chancellor Since this Matter came under consideration have been in all cases Magistrates recommended to him by Lords Lieutenant. It is not so. He has gladly and wisely availed himself of the assistance of the Lords Lieutenant, and he has found that assistance to be cor-
  110
  dially given; he has also thought it his duty to avail himself of other means of obtaining recommendations and examining into the fitness of those recommended, and he will, of course, continue to avail himself of such assistance to the utmost extent that he can obtain it. But he will not consider his duties in the matter to be confined within these limits; he will pursue all the means in his power to carry into effect, as rapidly as it can be done with safety, the changes that are in contemplation.
  MR. MACFARLANE: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that in the County of Argyll out of 164 Justices of the Peace, except officio Justices who are appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, only five are believed to hold Liberal opinions?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am not aware of it except from the hon. Member's statement. It is expedient that such cases should be brought under notice. They fall under the general answer I have given, and they will obtain attention in the effort to redress, as far as may be, existing inequalities.
  MR. W. WHITELAW: Have any complaints reached the Government as to the way in which the Justices of the County of Perth have discharged their duties?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: such complaints, if they existed—and I do not suggest that they do exist—would probably not reach me.

  THE UNION JACK IN IRELAND.
  MR. THEOBALD: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he will take steps to make legal the hoisting of the Royal standard over any hotel in Ireland where Her Majesty or any member of the Royal Family might be staying, as, in accordance with the law now existing, over no licensed premises in Ireland can be legally hoisted any other symbol than that appertaining to the hotel, and the Irish Executive would, if they enforced obedience to the law, be bound to have it hauled down?
  MR. J.MORLEY: The question is whether the Government will take steps to make legal the hoisting of the Royal Standard over any hotel in Ireland where Her Majesty or any member of the Royal Family might be staying. For that

  111
  purpose, of course, legislation would be necessary; and at this period of the session I do not think it is likely to be undertaken.
  MR. THEOBALD: As it is not legal to so hoist the flag, would not the authorities or the Irish Executive be bound to haul it down if it were hoisted?
  MR. J.MORLEY: That is a very hypothetical question, and the contingency seems very remote.

  OBEDIENCE TO THE CHAIR.
  SIR F.MILNER: I desire to put a question on a point of Order. It is whether, as it is essential that the decisions of the Chairman should be implicitly obeyed without comment, any step can be taken to put a stop to the growing habit of arguing with the Chair? There have been scenes in the House because the hon. Member for North Kerry on two occasions has declined to obey the Chair; and last Tuesday again several hon. Members below the Gangway declined to do so.
  MR.SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to raise before me any questions as to what goes on in Committee. Such questions must be dealt with in the Committee. The House knows what is due to the authority of the Chair.
  MR. SEXTON: The hon. Gentleman, I understand, referred to me, but as his observations were not audible I will not make any reply to him.
  MR. SPEAKER: I was not aware that he referred to any hon. Member. ["Yes, yes!"]
  MR.SEXTON: If I had heard what he said I would have answered him, but I did not hear what he said.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL. (No. 209.)

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 19th July.]
    [FORTY-SECOND NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Police.
    Clause 30 (As to police).
    THE CHAIRMAN: The first Amendment is out of Order.
    The following is the Amendment referred to:—
    Sir HenryMeysey-Thompson—Page 16, line 23, leave out Sub-section (1).
    MR. T. H. BOLTON (St. Pancras, N.)*MR. T. H. BOLTON (St. Pancras, N.) Moved the following Amendment:—
    Page 16, line 24, to leave out the word "shall," and insert the word "May."
    He said, the subject of the clause was of the greatest possible consequence and importance, and he was sure the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would not find fault with him if he raised a question upon this clause which he thought the Committee generally would admit ought to be discussed. That question was whether the reduction and the ultimate disbandment of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan police should be carried out compulsorily, or whether full discretion should be allowed to the Government—whether, in fact, the Act should provide that by a certain date the police of Ireland should be disbanded, or whether the Government should have power to reduce the police from time to time, as circumstances permitted, and with the view to the ultimate disbandment of that Force at some indefinite period, not to the disbandment of the Force within a definite and fixed period? Of course, upon this Amendment he did not raise the question whether it was desirable this Force should be maintained permanently or not. He only raised a question whether a definite period should be fixed for the disbandment of the Force or whether a fuller direction should be given as to the time, mode, and kind of reduction and ultimate disbandment of the Force. With regard to the Force itself, he should like to quote the opinion of the Prime Minister in reference to it. In 1886, when he brought in his Home Rule Bill, the right hon. Gentleman said with regard to this Force—
    "We think it our first duty to give a definite assurance to the present members of that distinguished and admirable Force that their position will not be put to prejudice by this Act, either in respect of their terms of service or with regard to the authority under which they are employed."
    That was said with reference to the Royal Irish Constabulary, and the right hon. Gentleman went on to say—

    113
    "The case of the Dublin Police is not quite the same, but we propose the same conditions with regard to the Dublin Police, so far, at least, as the terms of service are concerned,"
    He further said that there would be no breach of continuity in the administration with regard to the police, and later on in the same Speech he said—
    "I think it will he understood from what I have stated that the Constabulary would remain under the present terms of service, and under the present authority, although I do not say that this is to be so for ever."
    In the Bill itself there was no provision for the disbandment of the Force by a definite and fixed time, although he admitted the Bill did contemplate that the Force was to be reduced gradually, and its place was to be taken by a local force, and ultimately that it was to be disbanded altogether. The present proposal, however, was that by a definite and fixed time the Force should be disbanded; that by six years it should be put an end to altogether. With regard to the Constabulary, the right hon. Gentleman, when he introduced the present Bill, said very little on the subject. What he did say was that the principles referring to the Constabulary were their gradual, though not too abrupt, reduction, and their ultimate dissolution or disappearance, and in his Speech the right hon. Gentleman again referred to them as a remarkable and honourable Force. The present Bill proposed to abandon the Force within a statutable period of six years, and the object of the Amendment, and of subsequent consequential Amendments, was to provide that there should be no arbitrary period fixed such as the Bill proposed, and he thought this was a suggestion which ought to be adopted for several reasons. In the first place, he did not think it would be possible, without grave injustice to a very large number of deserving men, to disband them in six years, or without creating so largo a pension list, in order to provide compensation for them, as neither the Irish Government nor the English Government would be willing to permit. The Bill proposed what appeared on the face of it a fairly liberal amount in dealing with those men as a class of public servants, but it would inflict very serious injustice on large numbers of them individually. Take the case of the officers. Those who were in receipt of £255 a year would only get a pension of
    114
    £93; those in receipt of £237 a pension of £75; and those in receipt of £191 a pension of £48. When they considered the inconvenience and the absolute cruelty inflicted upon most deserving officers by such a system of pensioning they would see that, however fair it might be on the whole, it would inflict the greatest possible injustice on many of them individually. With regard to the men, it appeared from the Return which the right hon. Gentleman had granted on his (Mr. Bolton's) Motion, as to the conditions of service in the Royal Irish Constabulary, that their wages varied from a little under £1 per week to £2 per week with certain allowances. A man who joined the Force at about 21 years of age, and had served something like 10 years, would appear to be entitled to a pension, under the scale proposed, of about 9s. per week. At 30 years of age he would be turned out into the world with this small pension, and probably with a wife and family dependent upon him, and his service in the Police Force would probably, to some extent, have unfitted him for going to learn another occupation. This seemed a great hardship. The object of his referring to this pension list was not to discuss the fairness or unfairness of it, but to suggest that if a system of compulsory disbandment was carried out great injustice would be inflicted on a very large class of deserving and worthy men unless the pensions were very much increased. He doubted very much whether they could disband something like 15,000 men in this period of six years. If the men were to enter into the local force—which was another suggestion—in any large numbers there were other considerations bearing upon the matter. By merging large numbers of these trained and disciplined men into the local force they would be practically handing over an Army to the Irish Government. That could hardly have been intended; therefore it must be within the contemplation of the Government that a large number of these men would be retired and dispensed with. What necessity was there for it? Why should not the present police remain under the control of the Central Government until it came to an end by resignations, retirements, and deaths? Why should a definite period be fixed? It was admitted to be an honourable

    115
    and good Force, which was doing its duty. The greater reason for retaining it. Why could not an arrangement be made by which a Commission, if they liked, should be constituted which should be under the authority of the Imperial Government, but which should have upon it representatives of the Irish Government, so that the Police Force might remain until it gradually died out, instead of being disbanded in this arbitrary and unfair way, which would work great injustice to many men, do no good whatever to the Irish Government, and at the same time be absolutely and practically unnecessary. He knew that the Irish Members made it a great point that they should have control of the police. They considered it a part of the necessities of the position that in order to preserve peace, order, and good government in Ireland they should have control of the police. He would suggest that sufficient control of the police might be given in some modified form, which would be consistent with the preservation of that Force and consistent with a longer period for its disbandment than the definite arbitrary period of six years. The Government must see the difficulty of disbanding the Force in this fixed and definite period. The suggestion he made by his Amendment was consistent with the real requirements of local government in Ireland, and at the same time in accord with the feeling expressed by the PrimeMinister—namely, that they should deal with this Force with the greatest possible consideration. He begged to move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 10, line 24, to leave out the word "shall," and insert the word "May."—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'shall' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Sir, the hon. Member appears to me to have mixed in his Speech, though not in his Amendment, three questions which are totally distinct the one from the other. The first is, whether provision shall be made for the local control of the Constabulary in proportion as provision is made for the local establishment of police in different places. That is the first question. The second is, whether a term ought to be fixed for the general
    116
    disbandment of the Constabulary Force; and the third question is, whether the scale of pensions proposed for the members of that Force is a liberal and proper provision or not. First of all, although the hon. Member's Speech has been pointed to two other questions, the Amendment now moved has no bearing at all upon the two other questions; and, secondly, the hon. Member himself appears to me to have admitted—whether he intended it or not—that he had no ground whatever for the present Amendment. Why? The present Amendment is bringing in the element of discretion into the clause, and we are asked to substitute "may" for "Shall." But the hon. Gentleman himself has, in reading the second paragraph of the clause, stated to the House that the element of discretion is already introduced in it.
    MR. T. H. BOLTON: Only during six years.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That is quite another matter. The three questions themselves refer to a part of the clause that has no reference to six years. The principle that where sufficient provision is made on local grounds for a local police there the Constabulary should be reduced and withdrawn is a principle perfectly independent of the question whether a fixed term shall be appointed for the final disbandment of the Force. We must defer our reply to the Speech of the hon. Member, which has nothing to do with the Amendment whatever, until the proper time comes on the clause, and that will be no great hardship to the hon. Member, as he will be in the happy position of already having discharged himself of his Speech. The element of discretion is already given to the Lord Lieutenant, and if he considers it inexpedient, then we shall not deal with the local withdrawals. Still, I submit it is most reasonable to give local control of the police, and then, having imposed on the Irish Authority, independent of the Local Authority, the duty of providing for the peace, order, and good government of the country, they ought to have some control over the Police Authorities by which that peace, order, and good government ought to be maintained. I think, whatever becomes of the general proposition, that this Amendment ought not to be accepted.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and I do not think the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman is probably a convenient occasion to discuss the hardships, as we think, that are inflicted upon the Irish Constabulary by the scale of pensions mentioned in the sixth schedule to the Act. But I cannot agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we ought to allow these words to pass and deal with the question of a discretionary termination of the police at a later stage, because it is evident, if we pass the word "Shall," it will not be competent for us at any future stage of the discussion upon this clause to move an Amendment by which it shall be possible to direct the Lord Lieutenant, acting on behalf of Her Majesty, to say whether the Police Force shall continue to be the Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Read lines 31 and 32. There is a discretion there.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman is quite accurate. The Lord Lieutenant's discretion is maintained in these lines for six years; therefore, if hon. Gentlemen wish to discuss the propriety of allowing a permanent discretion with the Lord Lieutenant to continue the Royal Irish Constabulary or part of it after the term of six years, it is quite clear that that question should be raised upon the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman opposite.
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, his hon. Friend had one main question which he wanted to raise, and that was whether or not there should be a discretionary power after six years had elapsed with regard to the keeping or disbanding of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The Prime Minister dealt with other matters, such as the hardship of the pension, and so forth. His hon. Friend distinctly stated that he only mentioned the question of the pension without any intention of discussing it or making it part of his argument. His main question was whether, in order to avoid any inconvenience or extra cost, the Government would accept an Amendment which would extend the discretionary power now accorded by the Bill up to the six years beyond that period. That was the question which the Prime Minister had
    118
    not replied to, and perhaps some other Member of the Government would do so.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid, that the Amendment was of no effect whatever in this respect, because it would still leave it open to the Lord Lieutenant to effect withdrawals of the Force. When the Committee reached the proper place in the Bill for discussing the six years' term he should be prepared to explain the views of the Government.
    MR. T. H. BOLTONobserved that the clause itself was clear and definite that the Irish Constabulary should be reduced and cease to exist; but the subsequent portion of the enactment was a proviso providing that the Lord Lieutenant should not be required or compelled within six years to cause the Force to cease to exist. But for this Proviso, there was nothing to prevent the Lord Lieutenant being immediately required to proceed as expeditiously as possible to reduce and ultimately extinguish this Force. The Proviso was a limitation of the full scope of the clause.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONEsaid, the hon. Gentleman could move to strike out the six years' provision at the proper time, which was not now. He thought the object of the wording as it stood was perfectly clear.
    MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, he had given notice to move a subsequent Amendment; but it was necessary, as a preliminary, that the word "shall" should be converted into "may."
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, the Prime Minister evidently laboured under a misapprehension. The discretion was limited by these words as they stood, and he took it that it would be competent—he did not say it would be done or that the Chairman would consider it due to himself to allow it to be put; but it would be competent for any hon. Member to move to strike out—
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: strike it out altogether.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that was not what he meant. It would be an abuse of the Rules of the House, he took it, to substitute for the word "six" the figures "999." But the hon. Gentleman who had moved the Amendment desired to leave a permanent discretion with the Lord Lieutenant. That was, practically, a discretion for ever. If they

    119
    followed the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister they would be guilty of an abuse which would not be consistent with the duty of the Chairman.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONEwas understood to say that any hon. Member could move to strike out any words in the portion of the clause with which they were dealing.
    MK. J. G. LAWSONsaid, the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant would disappear with the subject of it, for no new members of the Force might be enrolled.
    MR. CARSONsaid, if the word "Shall" was allowed to remain the Lord Lieutenant would have a discretion in one sense, but he must proceed immediately to reduce the Constabulary Force. They would see that this was the case if they would look at the schedule. When it was certified that the local force had been established, then the Lord Lieutenant must proceed to the withdrawal of the Constabulary, and within six months—
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J.MOELEY,)said, he would direct attention that the hon. and learned Member should read the words commencing "by reason."
    MR. CARSONsaid, he was aware of that—having regard to the withdrawal from a particular locality. If, then, the whole of Ireland insisted upon the retention of the Constabulary the Lord Lieutenant would have no discretion whatever. But if there was withdrawal, then he would be bound to proceed to the withdrawal of the Force so withdrawn, which would be an Imperial Force. He would not, therefore, have the discretion which the right hon. Gentleman opposite suggested, and which, apparently, everyone would say that he should have. The scheme here was to reduce an Imperial Force; but the new Government was given no power to create a Civil Force; and so, during all the six years, there would be no power, in the event of disturbances in Ireland calling for Imperial intervention. Even if the full force of the Constabulary were necessary for dealing with such disturbances, the Lord Lieutenant would have no power to say that the Force should be maintained at its present strength. The result was obvious to anyone who studied the question. He did not see what great
    120
    harm could be done by the substitution of "may" for "shall." On the contrary, he saw that the word "may" would give an absolute discretion to the Imperial officer in Ireland. He would, no doubt, be bound to act from time to time in accordance with the section; but he would have a much better and more satisfactory, because a wider, discretion under the term of the Amendment than if he were bound by the strict discretion which would otherwise be imposed upon him.
    MR. J.MORLEYsaid, he would refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the paragraph which he had indicated, commencing "by reason."
    LORD R. CHURCHILL: Is that an Amendment?
    MR. J.MORLEYsaid, it was not an Amendment. He was quoting from a paragraph which had been already mentioned. The construction of the words, as the Committee would see, was that, so far as the reduction of the local force went, the Lord Lieutenant would be bound to make it; but there might be a reason in the mind of the Lord Lieutenant, acting upon which he would not reduce it. He was not now speaking of withdrawal. There might be cases of waste, and it might be that circumstances would require him to keep a certain number of men at headquarters if, to his judgment, it seemed that they might be wanted.
    MR. CARSONsaid, the instances to which the right hon. Gentleman referred were such instances as they wished to provide for by inserting the word "may" instead of "shall." The right hon. Gentleman said the Lord Lieutenant might, on the withdrawal, proceed to disband the members of the Constabulary Force, if he saw no reason to the contrary. But he read in those words in the section. They wished to give the Lord Lieutenant a discretion if he saw no reason to the contrary. The right hon. Gentleman based his case on a consideration of what he called waste—that was, of men dying off. If he was, in such a case, to exercise his discretion according to the meaning of the word "shall" he would proceed to act in the teeth of this very section, which said that no vacancies were to be filled up. The very argument of the right hon. Gentleman himself showed the propriety of the Amendment. He had not pointed out any difficulty that could arise from the insertion of the

    121
    word "may." With this word the Lord Lieutenant would have a discretion, and would be bound to exercise it according to the terms of the section. The very instances stated by the right hon. Gentleman would be in the teeth of the section.
    MR. JESSE COLLLNGSsaid, they had it provided that when a certificate was given that a force had been established throughout Ireland, and when that certificate was forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant, he should be compelled to disband the whole of the Constabulary Force. Suppose be received certificates from all the districts that they were supplied within, say, one year of the passing of the Bill, then he was immediately—
    MR. DILLON: No. Read the section.
    MR. JESSE COLLLNGSsaid, if that were not so, as he read the section, the Lord Lieutenant was to have six years for the purpose. If a portion of the local police force was filled up, they found that the Lord Lieutenant was to have power in relation to a portion of the other force; but if certificates were furnished that all districts were supplied with local police, then he was compelled to disband the whole of the Constabulary.
    MR.SEXTONsaid, the proper time for this argument was when the proviso of the clause came to be discussed. He would refer the Committee to sub-section 24 of the schedule, by which it would be seen that the Lord Lieutenant would have a discretion, not as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Jesse Collings) stated, but after six years, on the formation of the new police. It would therefore be seen that the supposition of the right hon. Gentleman was not well founded. The Lord Lieutenant could not do as he had suggested, but would have this discretionary power after six years—
    MR. JESSE COLLINGS: No.
    MR. SEXTONasked the right hon. Gentleman to read the section. After one Police Force was established, the discretion came in, and the other would be disbanded, so that, even if a local police force were established all over Ireland, the Lord Lieutenant might wait until the end of the six years. This was absolutely clear—so clear that he hoped no hon. Gentleman would return to the
    122
    subject. It was suggested that the Lord Lieutenant had not sufficient discretion given him in the schedule. He (Mr. Sexton) submitted he bad ample discretion. They had the words "appears to him." He was not to make any reduction unless be thought it necessary; but if he thought it a necessity with regard to the whole of Ireland, the maintenance of the old force was for six years simply and solely in his hands. He thought the word "shall" should be maintained. His reason was that there were financial interests, affecting both Great Britain and Ireland, bound up in this clause. Upon the establishment of the local force there should be a systematic course of reduction of the expenditure on the Constabulary. Great Britain and Ireland both contributed to that expenditure; and surely they in England would not wish for a continuance of the special charge, while as to Ireland, if they had a local police force, there would be no reason for keeping another force in existence. The reduction should go on as steadily as possible; and, in his opinion, nothing but harm could follow upon any alteration in the wording of the clause.
    MR. RENTOULsaid, as he understood the matter, the object of the Amendment was to give the Lord Lieutenant discretion after the six years had passed. Hon. Members had interpreted the clause to mean that no such discretion would be given if the word "shall" remained. He confessed that he was unable to follow or to understand the explanation given by the Prime Minister. There was an imperative command on the Lord Lieutenant given in the word "shall." The Constabulary must die out—it must cease by the act of the Lord Lieutenant. But the difficulty was as to his discretion when the six years after the appointed day had expired; and it seemed to him that, if the Amendment were not agreed to, the Proviso would be in contradiction of the policy declared in the clause, and they would then have it that the Lord Lieutenant should do nothing unless the Act should require him to do it. What was he to be required to do? The Proviso was part of the section, and they should read together. The only way of dealing with the question was, as the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour) had suggested, to

    123
    leave it open for some hon. Member to move to substitute for the term now named some other period of time—999 years, if they liked—but that would make the clause look ludicrous. The Prime Minister had thrown no light on the subject at all. What they desired was that the Lord Lieutenant should have it in his discretion for all time to come to retain the Constabulary if he was not satisfied with the composition or reliability of the local force. The Lord Lieutenant, for instance, might be of opinion that, as the local force would be composed of those who were in favour of the Nationalist interest, they would not be reliable for Imperial purposes. The Lord Lieutenant would be an Imperial officer, and he might feel himself called upon to retain the Constabulary in the Imperial interest.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTsaid, in order to carry out the intention of the Chief Secretary to have a number of Men as a force at headquarters, it would be necessary to insert the word mentioned in the Amendment.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, when he referred to headquarters, he did not mean Dublin. He meant headquarters in different parts of Ireland.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTsaid, he quite understood the right hon. Gentleman to mean that. It was clear, however, that there would be no power, as the matter stood, to retain men who had been withdrawn from the stations, say, in the North of Ireland. They could not keep such men elsewhere—in the south of Ireland, for instance. But they would be able to do that if they inserted the word "may."
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, the difficulty in which the Committee were placed was duo entirely to the change of front on the part of the Government. Within only the last few days a practically new schedule had been substituted for the one first presented with the Bill, and he thought it was alike unfair and inconvenient that, with a measure of this magnitude and complexity of detail, the Government should at the last minute introduce important changes in the schedule relating to the Irish Police. In the circumstances, the Committee hardly knew where they were, and there was not sufficient time
    124
    for adequate discussion to make the matter clear. He wished to ask the Chairman whether the Committee could act on the suggestion made by the PrimeMinister—that if the word "shall" was left in it would be competent to move to leave out the words "until the expiration of six years from the appointed day?" It seemed to him that if the one word was retained the others must be retained also, otherwise the clause would be rendered contradictory.
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the word "Shall" be left in, I see no reason why it should not be competent to move to leave out the words referred to.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, in that case they could provide that, notwithstanding anything in this Act, it would be in the Lord Lieutenant's power to retain the Constabulary Force. That being so, he should reserve the remarks he had to make until the opportunity offered for moving in that direction.
    MR.MATTHEWS: I think the hon. Member who has just spoken has shown how the word "shall" came into the clause. As the Government originally drew the schedule the Lord Lieutenant was bound to reduce the numbers of the Royal Irish Constabulary on local police forces being established. The Government have now altered their schedule, and intend to leave the Lord Lieutenant a discretionary power. That being so, the word "shall" becomes totally inapplicable to the clause. The clause contains two provisions—one for a gradual reduction, and the other for the ultimate cessation of the existence of the Police Force. The clause gives discretion as to the ultimate cessation, but gives no discretion as to the gradual reduction. This construction of the clause is emphasised and made inevitable if you keep in the word "shall."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman quite mis-states the case. The clause provides that as the gradual organisation of the local police forces goes on the Lord Lieutenant, with the qualification of the Proviso respecting the cessation of the Constabulary, Shall order the reduction of the Force.
    MR.MATTHEWS: The Chief Secretary has Stated the intention of the Government to be that the gradual reduction shall not be compulsory on the Lord Lieutenant.
    MR. J.MORLEY: What I said was that you are not to suppose that each particular withdrawal is to be necessarily within six months accompanied by a corresponding reduction.
    MR.MATTHEWS: I quite agree. That is what the Chief Secretary said. The reduction is not to be compulsory on the Lord Lieutenant in consequence of the withdrawal, but the Lord Lieutenant is to act as the requirements of the Force in other parts of Ireland Make it proper for him to act. The sixth schedule more or less roughly indicates that view on the part of the Government. Under these circumstances, the word "shall" becomes totally inappropriate.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We do not impose upon the Lord Lieutenant the necessity of reduction.
    MR.MATTHEWS: If you do not mean to lay an obligation on him, why do you say he "Shall" reduce?
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 278; Noes 246.—(Division List, No. 229.)
    GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY (Hammersmith) moved to leave out from "shall," to the end of the Clause, and to insert—
    "Cease to exist three months from the day when this Act comes into force, and every officer and constable shall be entitled to receive such sum as he would have earned as gratuity or pension if ten years had been added to his actual service, and such further sum as may be considered equitable for loss of pay and allowances, and prospects of promotion and higher pension.
    "All pensions of, and gratuities to, persons retired under this section shall be paid by the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, but the extra compensation granted for compulsory retirement and loss of prospects shall be recovered from the Irish Exchequer. In the event of any difference of opinion as to the compensation awarded, it shall be settled by a Judge of the High Court of Justice in England."
    He said it was well-known that the Royal Irish Constabulary had been engaged on many occasions in trying to put a stop to a state of disorder due to the operations of the National League and the Plan of Campaign. It had been said that Unionists acted as though they thought the Irish Legislature would be composed of lunatics. He had not gone on that assumption at all, but he thought it very likely that a large number of the
    126
    Members of the Executive would be men who were members of the National League, or who had had to do with illegal combinations in Ireland. That being so, the Constabulary would be under the orders of those with whom it had been brought into collision in the past. The officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary had asked the Government to be allowed to resign in the event of the Bill becoming law, and they were willing to sacrifice something in order to have the option of retiring. All he desired was that both officers and constables should have the option of leaving the Force. It was well-known that the Irish Constabulary was one of the finest bodies in the whole world. No doubt some of them might be willing to serve under an Irish Government, and the Irish Government might he willing to retain their services. The Chief secretary for Ireland, who, whilst he treated his opponents in the House very fairly, naturally looked al the question from a different point of view, thought that as soon as the Bill came into force Ireland would be a heaven. He (General Goldsworthy) did not think that would be the case. The members of the Constabulary did not think so either; and as many of them would not feel themselves in a position to serve under the Irish Government, he contended that they ought to be liberally dealt with. He did not suppose that the Irish Legislature would be above the average of human nature; and, that being so, some of the members of the Force Might undoubtedly find their lives unbearable if they remained in it after the Irish Government was constituted. They ought, therefore, to be able to retire on terms which would be sufficient to compensate them for having their whole prospects in life destroyed.
    Amendment proposed,
    Page 16, line 24, leave out from "shall," to end of Clause, and insert "cease to exist three months from the day when this Act comes into force, and every officer and constable shall be entitled to receive such sum as he would have earned as gratuity or pension if ten years had been added to his actual service, and such further sum as may be considered equitable for loss of pay and allowances, and prospects of promotion and higher pension,
    "All pensions of, and gratuities to, persons retired under this section shall be paid by the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, but the extra compensation granted for compulsory

    127
    retirement and loss of prospects shall be recovered from the Irish Exchequer. In the event of any difference of opinion as to the compensation awarded, it shall be settled by a Judge of the High Court of Justice in England."—(General Goldsworthy.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'when and as' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. J.MORLEY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has made a very straightforward Speech, as he always does, and I think he always acts in good faith in these matters. I think, however, his Amendment is one which he can hardly expect the Committee to accept. Its effect, if it were adopted, would be that at the end of three months the whole of Ireland might be left completely without police. I have a very good opinion of the Irish Police, and a very hopeful opinion of Ireland. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says I have stated that if the Bill passes Ireland will become a perfect heaven. I have never taken such a hopeful view as that, and still less should I say that Ireland should be the first country in the world which should try to do entirely without police. The scale which the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes is too vague for us to act upon; and if we were to take so large and liberal a view of the claims of the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, we should land the Irish Government in a most formidable financial difficulty. The hon. and gallant Gentleman says we ought at least to give the officers and men of the Constabulary a right to resign. That is all very well. No doubt we have given such a right to the Civil servants; but surely everybody must see the enormous difference between a semi-military Force of this kind, to which the state looks for the performance of important duties indispensable to the maintenance of order, and the members of the Civil service. I have not heard that there is likely to be any serious desire in the minds of the members of the Royal Irish Constabulary to retire. Certain representations have been made, and I have had the advantage of hearing representatives of the officers and men, and, from the information which has been put before me, I do not think that in any large numbers they would use the right to retire. No doubt a constable may resign, but that would affect his right to a pension. The hon.
    128
    and gallant Gentleman's proposal is that he should have all rights to a pension even if he retired, and, by so doing, placed the Government in a most serious position. He says that apparently we want to get rid of the Royal Irish Constabulary, but that is not our desire.
    GENERAL GOLDSWORTHY: I did not say that.
    MR. J.MORLEY: What we hope and expect—what I, for my part, confidently expect—is that by far the greater number of this splendid Force will be perfectly ready to serve in the local forces. I have heard a great deal, directly and indirectly, of the tone that has prevailed amongst the Constabulary during this very trying time; but, so far as I can gather, there is no general disposition on the part of the men to leave Ireland or the Public Service. No doubt some of them will not choose to be transferred, and they will probably come over to England or Scotland and be absorbed into the English or Scotch Forces. It would be a hardship to them if there was no pension; but it cannot be said that their services would not be availed of, and would not be at a premium, in any English-speaking country. As to all that has been said about the splendid services of these men—their loyalty and steadiness—any compliment of that sort from me would be common-place. I do not think the Committee will expect me to say more than that I cordially agree with every word the hon. and gallant Member has said as to the character of these men.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It would be impossible to listen to my hon. and gallant Friend without sympathising with the motive which has animated him in moving his Amendment. I go further, and say that if this Amendment were in the proper or most convenient place, I should feel disposed to vote for his proposal, or some modification of it. It appears to me that the arrangement proposed by the Government is a very one-sided one. Though, no doubt, some precautions should be taken against the catastrophe to society which would be involved in what the right hon. Gentleman called "a general strike" of the police, but which I should prefer to call a general resignation, still I think that the schedule which leaves it in the

    129
    power of the Government, and the Government alone, to determine whether these men should be required to continue service under totally new masters is a very one-sided arrangement. It ought to be discussed, but I think the proper place to discuss it is on the schedule.
    An. hon. MEMBER: You will not have an opportunity.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am looking at the matter from the point of view of general order, and not of the peculiar circumstances under which we endeavour to carry on our Debates. But the reason I would press my hon. and gallant Friend not to press his Amendment is drawn from the duty we owe not merely to Irishmen and Irish society, but principally to the loyal minority. If on a given day all the loyal minority in the whole South West of Ireland are left without any form of protection I do not think the hon. and gallant Member would contemplate with equanimity what the results would be.
    MAJOR RASCHsaid, he should like to support the Amendment, though it was possible that his hon. and gallant Friend would, in deference to the Leader of the Opposition, see fit to withdraw it. He had great experience of the Royal Irish Constabulary—extending over a number of years—and he was, therefore, acquainted with the physique, morale, and discipline of the men. As to the Dublin Metropolitan Police, they were some of the finest men in the United Kingdom, and any one of them would cut up into two Guardsmen such as they saw about the streets of London. His object in supporting the Amendment was to protest against the disastrous policy of keeping the Force in a state of suspended animation for six years. If the Government wanted to disband them, why did they not do it at once by a guillotining process such as they had applied to the clauses of the Bill? The men would then know what was before them.
    GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYappealed to the Prime Minister to see whether some means could not be found to provide for special cases, both of officers and men.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONEwas understood to say that special cases would
    130
    be favourably considered by the Viceroy when they arose.
    MR. TOMLINSONthought that unless pensions were made for the men who might wish to retire great hardship would be inflicted.
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. SEXTON: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name—namely, in line 24, after "as," to leave out "local," and I have to submit in connection with it some considerations which, I think, will be found closely pertinent to the practical working of the scheme. I say I propose to leave the word "local" out of the second line of the clause. May I ask the Committee to attend to the first Sentence of the clause? It runs—
    "(1.) The forces of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police shall, when and as local police forces are from time to time established in Ireland in accordance with the sixth schedule to this Act, be gradually reduced and ultimately cease to exist as mentioned in that schedule."
    In those few words we are twice referred to the schedule, and when we turn to the schedule we find in the first article—
    "such local police forces shall be established under such Local Authorities and for such counties, municipal boroughs, or other larger areas as may be provided by Irish Act."
    Now, although this clause refers only incidentally to the establishment of new police forces—because the real object of this part of the clause is to provide for the reduction and disbandment of the present forces—yet I apprehend that the clause and the article in the schedule taken together may be considered to exhaust the authority on this subject, and to provide that there shall be no police forces established in Ireland under any circumstances, except the local police forces referred to in the clause and described in the Schedule—that there shall, in the first place, be no police force, except a local police force; and that, in the second place, that local police force shall be under local authority. I shall submit to the Committee that it is doubtful whether such a provision, properly construed, would be adequate to the effectual government of the country; and, first, we have to consider that the language of this Act will hereafter have to be borne in mind by the Lord Lieu-

    131
    tenant when an Irish Bill comes before him in connection with the question of veto. The language will have to be considered afterwards by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the question of ultra vires,and it is essential that there shall be no dispute as to the meaning of the language used, or, at any rate, as far as provision can secure it, that there shall be no language in the Act which will cause confusion hereafter. The Committee is aware of the general outline of the scheme for bringing about the change in the police in Ireland. It consists, firstly, in the establishment of police in Ireland by the Executive Government there, and then on the withdrawal and reduction of the Constabulary Force in a proportionate degree, and it is hoped, no doubt, that the transfer of men to the local Civil police will help to smooth the accomplishment of this new and very important proposition. I may remind the Committee that the provision in the Bill in 1886 was not quite identical with this Bill, because whilst the Bill of 1886 provided that the Constabulary as it existed should be an Imperial Force, there was a provision that the Dublin Metropolitan Police, after two years, should be taken over by Irish Act; and there was also a provision not only for the establishment of police forces in counties and boroughs under Local Authorities, but also for the establishment and maintenance of police reserves. For the establishment and maintenance of police reserves there is no direct and explicit provision in the present Bill. The occurrence of these words in the Bill of 1886 with regard to the establishment of local police forces led to considerable discussion, and the idea used to be that it might be practicable to transfer the Constabulary with some modification of their character to the new authority. A couple of years ago we inquired of the Prime Minister whether he intended to insert a provision in the Home Rule Bill providing for a Constabulary Force, and with certain modifications in its character and numbers as might be deemed necessary to be transferred to the new Executive, and the right hon. Gentleman replied that be had no desire to exempt the police of Ireland in its final form from the ultimate control of an Irish Legislative Body; and, further, that the com-
    132
    plete organisation of a Civil police to take the place of the present Force ought not to take place before a period of five years. The reference there was to the Civil Force. Now, if we come to consider the language of the Bill, I say that the language might be held to be open to the construction that under Clause 30 the only power which the Irish Parliament will have will be the power to establish local police forces and to place them under Local Authorities. The new police forces in Ireland will have to be, at least to some extent, embodied before the existing forces can be reduced. And upon the question of transfer, which is one of great importance, I have to ask whether it will not be necessary that the transfer of men from the Constabulary Force to the Force which is to succeed it must not be effected between the Imperial Government on the one hand and the Irish Executive on the other? I apprehend that unless there is one authority to act for all Ireland on the question of the transfer, if the Imperial Government were to be obliged to deal with Local Bodies, either in the counties or boroughs of Ireland, that the economy and efficiency under which the arrangement might otherwise be conducted would be lost. May I impress upon the Committee the fact that there are at present in Ireland no Local Authorities to take over these important functions? There are, indeed, Corporations in the boroughs. But with regard to Dublin, I suppose it would not be urged that the police should not be otherwise than under the Executive Government of the country, and I apprehend that for some years the police in Dublin would remain under the control of the Executive Government, and I have no reason to know that the citizens of Dublin are disposed to take upon themselves the burden of maintaining a local police force in the city. With regard to Belfast, the Committee has not forgotten that there was a local police force there up to 30 years ago; and in consequence of the action of the local police force in the riots, and in consequence of the action of the Corporation in the control of that force, upon a Report of a Royal Commission, the local force was disbanded and dissolved, and a force under the control of the Executive Government substituted. That having happened in the present generation

    133
    and under circumstances of comparative political tranquillity, it will not now be suggested that the police of Belfast should be placed under the control of a Local Authority there, because, looking at the part taken by the Local Authority in connection with recent political proceedings, I should suppose that if they had the control of such a body it would be used against them instead of in support of them. In the City of Derry, where there is a restricted franchise, owing partly to religious reasons, more than half of the people are shut out from representation on the Council. The force cannot be placed under the control of the Corporation. Then, with regard to the counties, there are no Local Authorities in existence. I suppose it is not suggested that the Grand Juries should have control of the police. I suppose no one would say that it would tend to the peace of Ireland to give the control of the police into the hands of the landlords. Grand Juries are not continuing Bodies. They meet for the discharge of fiscal and criminal functions twice a year, and are then discharged. It is obvious, then, that you cannot establish local police forces under Local Authorities until the Local Authorities are established. A Bill to establish Local Authorities upon a democratic basis, passed by the Irish Assembly, would probably be vetoed by the second Chamber elected on a £20 franchise, or hung up under the suspensory arrangement for four years. After that time we might proceed with the Bill, but it might take four more years to pass, so that it might not be until eight years after the passing of the Act that we would be able to begin the process of placing the police under the Local Authorities. The intention is that this process should continue during the next six years. The proposal of the Government is that once the Irish Government gets into office it should begin to form local police forces; and that, as that force is established, the Constabulary should be withdrawn and reduced. I have shown you, I think conclusively, that there are no means of entering upon this process; that there is no Local Body to take up these functions, and that half a dozen or eight years may elapse before Local Authorities can be established and arrangements made to put the
    134
    local police forces under their control. Therefore, you will subject yourselves and Ireland to heavy pecuniary liability, because if you do not dissolve the Constabulary within six years you will have to pay one-third of the cost; and, on the other hand, if you refuse to allow us a working scheme by which we can proceed to establish a Civil Force, Ireland will be forced into the liability of paying two-thirds of the cost of the Constabulary Force as long as it remains in existence, which will be a heavy burden to us. I say, therefore, that what you give with one baud you take away with the other. It is no use to say you give to Ireland the power of establishing local police forces if you attach to it the condition that it is to be governed by Local Authority, for certainly a number of years must elapse before the machinery of Local Government in Ireland can be perfected. Now, what about the question of pay and control? The Civil Forces in Ireland are to be paid from the Public Revenue by money provided for the purpose. Is it really intended that the Government of Ireland shall pay the police and shall not control the police, and that the Local Authorities in Ireland shall control them though they do not pay them? Pay and control must go together. The Irish Police, since they were established 60 years ago, have always been paid out of Public Revenue, and not out of any local, rate, and I think it will take some considerable time to reconcile the people of Ireland to paying the police out of local rates, especially whilst there is a National Revenue for the purpose. You intend to oblige the Irish Government putting the police under Local Authorities from the first. I have shown that that is impossible. You intend that the Irish Government should pay and not control the police, and that the Local Bodies should control and not pay. I ask any hon. Member whether any such system of division between paymaster and controller would be likely to produce economy or efficiency in the service? I submit that it ought to be clearly expressed in the Act that the Irish Government should have, in the first instance, power to establish a police force without laying upon them the necessity of putting them under Local Authorities. But even if the machinery were perfect; if there were no National Revenue for the

    135
    payment of the police the day after the passing of the Act, I say that as the Act confides to the Irish Legislature the power of making laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland, the Irish Executive will be responsible for that peace, order, and good government. I think it would be forgetting the facts of history and ignoring the facts of the present time if we were to take out of the hands of the Irish Executive the function of preserving peace, order, and good government, and place it in the hands of Local Authorities who may be either unwilling or incompetent to discharge it. Do you know what has happened in Ulster? The Local Authorities there, constituted as they have been for some time, will not be well-affected towards the Government. Political tranquility may not follow from the adoption of Home Rule.
    MR. W. JOHNSTON: Hear, hear!
    MR.SEXTON: Yes; there May be times of disturbance, and I say that the power to keep order in Ireland should be given to those upon whom the responsibility is placed. If you give them the power I think they will acquit themselves of the responsibility. Pending the final settlement of the Land Question there may be disorder in Ireland; there may be agrarian trouble in one county or another, and it may not be expedient for some years to place upon the Local Authorities the responsibility of preserving order. The Irish Legislature, which will be composed of representative men, will be the place where the functions of preserving order will be exercised, and I should hope that all questions of that kind will be dealt with in an unprejudiced manner. For these reasons I hope it will be made clear that, whilst the local forces should be established eventually, the Irish Government will not be debarred from having a local police force, like any Government in the world, for preserving order, and that the question when and to what extent the local force should be placed under the Local Authorities is a question proper for the discussion of the Irish Legislature—indeed, a question which only the discretion of the Irish Legislature could adequately and with due knowledge deal.
    Amendment proposed, in page 16, line 24, to leave out the word "local."—(Mr. Sexton)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'local' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid, that the hon. Member for North Kerry, with characteristic lucidity and knowledge, had blown the scheme of the Government out of the water. The hon. Member had proved, in the first place, that there were no Local Authorities to institute local police, and that, therefore, the machinery provided by the Bill was unworkable. The hon. Member had proved, in the second place, that where there were Local Authorities, they were absolutely un-suited for the functions the Government proposed to give them to discharge; or, as the hon. Member had put it, there were places in Ireland where the Local Authorities might be unwilling or incompetent to preserve order. He wished to point out that the policy of the hon. Member for North Kerry was diametrically opposed to the principles which the Government had all along laid down as those which should guide them in the institution of a Police Force in Ireland. The hon. Member proposed to leave out the word "local" before "police force" in the sub-section. But he found that when this question was discussed on the 1st of June the President of the Local Government Board said—
    "By using the words 'local police force' it is made impossible to create an armed force."
    Therefore, on that word "local," the Government had relied to obviate a danger which was feared by the minority in Ireland.
    MR. SEXTON: I said nothing about an armed force.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid, the hon. Member wished the Irish Legislature to have the power to create any force they might think necessary in order to preserve peace and order in Ireland. The Prime Minister had an Amendment on the Paper that no Police Force organised and armed as the Constabulary was to be instituted in Ireland; and the hon. Member for North Kerry, dissatisfied with that proposal, had given notice to move as an Amendment that power should be left to the Irish Government to establish such police arrangements as they thought necessary.
    MR.SEXTON: To meet emergencies.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid, that emergencies might arise in any country, but there was no country in which they were more likely to arise than Ireland. The plan of the hon. Member in having a force which could be so disposed as to perform the functions of a Central Force was in opposition to the principle of the Government policy. The result was that there were two distinct policies before the Committee The policy of the Government, though it showed some scruples and provided some safeguards, was, as the hon. Member for North Kerry had shown, wholly unworkable, and was not calculated to meet the exigencies of the social position in Ireland. The Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry, on the other hand, though it provided a workable and practical policy, contained the seeds of great injustice and oppression. The Prime Minister on the First Reading of the Bill, on February 13, said—
    "We propose and contemplate that upon the gradual establishment by the Irish Authority in local areas of a new police force, the Constabulary will be withdrawn piecemeal from those local areas one after another."
    The Government had set up a plan for policing Ireland embodying theoretical injustice towards the loyal minority, and, finding at the last moment that it would not work, they would probably catch at any straw Hung to them by hon. Gentlemen from Ireland. The Bill proposed to extinguish the two forces which—the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police—between them discharged the functions of a Central Force which could be removed from one part of Ireland to another in cases of emergency, or during those agrarian difficulties which frequently prevailed in the wilder parts of the country, and it was proposed to substitute for them local police forces. The Prime Minister, speaking on June 1, said—
    "Take the case of Belfast, which furnishes the best example that I think the whole case of Ireland, as far as recent experience goes, presents. Should we force the Irish Legislature to fix the police force at Belfast at its maximum wants? No; certainly not surely it would be much better that, instead of having in every police district arrangements adequate to meet exigencies, which occur once in 15, or 20, or 50
    138
    years, you should have a Central Force, which would be adequate to meet the whole of such exigencies."
    So that on that occasion the Prime Minister went a little way to meet the hon. Member for North Kerry in this matter of the police. The fact was that the policy of the Government had been wavering and inconsistent, for in the very same Speech the Prime Minister also said—
    "…. I am for localising to the utmost degree. Even if the Irish Legislature chose to avoid having any Central Police Force, which I rather hope it would, they would be obliged to have somewhere an available and disposable extra police force over and above the wants of some special locality."
    Therefore, the Committee approached the consideration of the question, within a few hours of the Closure being moved, with no definite knowledge of the policy of the Government regarding it. It was a policy which wavered between the institution of a purely local force and some Central Force not specified, between a vague transference of powers on the one hand, and a definite policy announced by the hon. Member for North Kerry on the other. He thought he knew the solution of the difficulty which the Government would arrive at. They would say, as they had said in other difficulties, that their plan could not work, and that their only chance was to accept the proposal of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. The policy of the Government was vague and indecisive, and did not meet the necessities of the case in Ireland. They laid it down that the forces at present existing should "be gradually reduced and ultimately cease to exist as mentioned in the schedule." According to his reading of the schedule, it was obligatory on the Lord Lieutenant to withdraw the Constabulary from any area in which a local force was raised by the Local Authority, the only qualification on that obligation being that there should be "nothing to cause either of those forces to cease to exist." The option would, therefore, lay on hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, as Members of the Irish Government, to say where the Constabulary should continue to exist and where it should not continue to exist. In fact, the whole of the Constabulary might be withdrawn from Ulster and left in the South of Ireland; or withdrawn from

    139
    the South of Ireland and left in Ulster; or it might be withdrawn from Clare and other disturbed areas where there were eviction campaigns. That was an interesting and most important fact, which had not hitherto come out in the Debates. The objection to this policy was that the Lord Lieutenant had no local discretion. He could not keep the Constabulary in Belfast, even if there was the danger of a religious social war there, or keep them in the disturbed areas in the West of Ireland. And while the Lord Lieutenant had not this local discretion, neither had the Irish Legislature any discretion to create a Central Force. The hon. Member for North Kerry had said that the Bill pointed to that conclusion, and he thought the hon. Gentleman had read the Bill rightly. In the Debate on the 1st June, the Chief Secretary said, in reply to the Leader of the Opposition—
    "The right hon. Gentleman has overlooked a couple of facts. The first is that the Government do not contemplate the placing of this Police Force under the Central Authority."
    Therefore, it was plain that the central authority would have no discretion in the matter of forming a Central Police Force. He thought he had shown that the policy of the Government was an imperfect policy, and that it could not cope with the difficulties in Ireland. It provided for the extinction of the present Central Force, which was adapted to meet emergencies, but did not provide any substitute in its place. There were, therefore, only two courses open to the Government, except they wished the Bill, in the matter of the police, to be as ridiculous and unworkable as it had proved to be in several other instances. They could either accept the solution offered to them by the hon. Member for North Kerry, which, though a logical one, would run counter to everything that they had said; would be a breach of the pledges given to the House of Commons, and would rouse the fears of the loyal minority in Ireland; or, instead of adopting that course, the Government should alter their Bill, accepting the principle of gradual reduction of the Constabulary to 2,000 men instead of total extinction, and enlarge the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant, so that he might maintain, if necessary, an adequate force in disturbed localities. The Government, during the
    140
    discussions on this subject, had laid down three propositions. First, that the local forces should be unarmed and civil forces; secondly, that the Irish Legislature should not create any force analogous to the Royal Irish Constabulary, and while making these two declarations, they had admitted, in the third place, that the necessity for a Central Force would occasionally arise. If, in obedience to the third admission, the Government accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry, they would reject their two other propositions, that the forces must be local and must be civil. Admitting the necessity for a Central Force, would it not, he asked, be better, while persevering with the first and second propositions, to effect the third by leaving to the Lord Lieutenant the organisation and manipulation of a small force adequate to meet those special emergencies arising out of agrarian troubles and political and religious conflicts in Ireland?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We are now on the question whether under this Bill the police in Ireland should be locally organised or not. That is the only question before us, and therefore I do not discuss the question whether any Central Police Force is likely to be necessary or is permissible in Ireland. But on that point I Make these two observations. In the first place, under the Bill as it actually stands, I do not, believe there is anything, and I am advised that there is nothing to prevent the Irish Government from creating, if it thinks fit, police reserves, or some Central Body available for local action. On the other hand, I say that in this country, with its dense population, no necessity has been found for any Central Police Force, the arrangements between the Local Authorities being quite equal to meet all special exigencies. But that is not the question before us. The question before us is simply whether we are to lay down the principle that Ireland is to be divided into areas, and that these areas are to have allotted to them a police force which shall be local. No one can go further on the merits than I do in urging the principle of local police. I consider that no local government approaches to perfection unless it has the control of the police, and that attribute must be recognised as belonging

    141
    to the very nature of local government, if it is to perform its main purpose of creating an habitual feeling of responsibility in the people of a country for the preservation of life and property. It is truly unfortunate that, owing to the unhappy history of Ireland, when we talk of police, we seem to be incapable of recognising that police has anything to do with the ordinary maintenance of life and property. We assume that it is an engine intended for dealing with political exigencies, such as it is in some countries on the Continent, like Italy, and we overlook the fact that the ordinary maintenance of life and property is the main business of the police. For myself, I am a strong advocate of a local police. I believe that the police system which we have in this country is fundamentally the best system. But I am not going to say that that is a reason why we should import it into this Bill. On the contrary, I think there is great force in the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for North Kerry, who says—"Leave it to the Irish Legislature to determine how far the police shall be local, or how far it may be necessary to keep it central." But the principle on which we have proceeded in this Bill is that we have apprehended that old and present jealousies may reach a height, as they have in many points reached a height, which threatens to enfeeble and discourage the action of a new and popular Government in Ireland. On that account we have inserted limitations in the Bill on various subjects—limitations which we ourselves do not believe to be of absolute necessity, and which in many cases we should be prepared to leave entirely to the discretion of the Irish Legislature. We have thus come under engagements to the Committee which it is our duty to redeem, and we intend to keep our pledges in this matter. What are our pledges? Of the jealousies to which I have referred, a large part are specially concentrated upon the subject of the police. The idea of giving the police without restraint into the hands of the new Legislature especially terrifies many minds. First, there is the fear of a centralised police, and, secondly, the fear of an armed police. We do not think there is any ground for these apprehensions, but we do not think them altogether so unreasonable as several
    142
    other fears which we have heard expressed in the course of the Debate. We have endeavoured to meet the apprehensions of an armed police by providing that no police shall be created in Ireland after the present Constabulary ceases to exist, nor shall any police be armed except in the manner and within the limits of the ordinary Civil police. In the same way we believe the Committee may be wisely called upon to provide, as I intend to propose by a subsequent Amendment, that the basis of the police shall be local. I admit that this course involves a narrowing of privileges which, under happier circumstances, might probably be left unimpaired. But I cannot admit that the principle of a local police will cause any practical inconvenience; and I do not see why, for general purposes, a police system which has been found quite sufficient for England and Scotland should not meet the wants of Ireland. That system has worked admirably in England and Scotland, and there are few things on which we have greater reason to consider that the functions of Government have been satisfactorily discharged than the manner in which both each separate locality, and also the different localities considered as an assemblage of localities, have provided for the general exigencies of the country in respect to the police. Those are the grounds on which we are of opinion that the Committee will do well to accept the word "local." It is a provision which, in the circumstances, it is prudent to adopt, and one which will not entail any inconvenient interference either with the just necessities or with the proper responsibilities of the Irish Legislature.
    MR. J. E. REDMOND: I have listened most attentively to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, and he must allow me to say with regret that I do not think he has overthrown the case that was made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Kerry. The case the hon. Member made was shortly this—that, the first sub-section of this clause and the Schedule read together, as they must necessarily be read together, provide that at the end of six years the Royal Irish Constabulary shall cease to exist, and that their place shall be taken by local police forces under Local Authorities. The hon. Member for North

    143
    Kerry pointed out conclusively that for a considerable time after the passing of this Act there would be no Local Body in Ireland to whom the control of this local police force could be given, and it is quite possible that at the end of six years it would be out of the power of the Irish Legislature to replace the Royal Irish Constabulary by a system of local force under local control. That is a position which has not been upset by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. As I read the section and the Schedule, and as they were read by the hon. Member for North Kerry, there will be no power whatever to create or to continue in existence any Central Police Force whatever. We have heard of police reserves. For my part, I do not exactly understand what the functions, and powers, and duties of police reserves would be; but it is clear, so far as I read the Bill, that the proper construction of it would be that it would be out of the power of the Irish Legislature to create a Central Police Force. I desire most emphatically to express my opinion, at any rate, that some such Central Police Force is absolutely essential. I regret very much that when on the 1st of June this matter was under discussion, owing to unforeseen circumstances, it was impossible for me to be in my place and to take part in the discussion; and the hon. Member for North Kerry reminds me that he was prevented by other reasons from taking part in that discussion.
    MR SEXTON: The reason was that I rose four or five times, and did not get a call.
    MR. J. E. REDMOND: I think it was a most unfortunate thing that the hon. Member was not allowed to speak in that Debate, and, for my part, I regret that it was not in my power to take part in the discussion. But I have read the discussion most carefully, and the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndham) will forgive me when I say that he did not give a perfectly fair representation of the attitude taken up by the Prime Minister and the Government; and I would respectfully say to the Prime Minister, when he speaks of the invitation held out to him by the hon. Member for North Kerry to break his pledges and to go back from the position he then took up, that he can accept the Amendment of the hon. Member with perfect consistency
    144
    with the pledges he gave in the Debate on the 1st of June. On the 1st of June an Amendment was under discussion providing that the Irish Parliament should be deprived of any power of having any police force other than a police force required for local purposes. That Amendment was objected to by the Government and was defeated, and in the course of the discussion on it the Prime Minister spoke as follows:—
    "Even if the Irish Legislature chose to avoid having any Central Police Force, which I rather hope it would,"
    thereby contemplating the retention of power by the Irish Legislature under the Bill to have a Central Force—
    "they would be obliged to make provision for having some where an available and disposable extra police force over and above the wants of some special locality—say Dublin—which extra force might upon occasion be made use of for the different parts of the country, just as in England, now detachments of police are sent from one district to another to meet local wants. I cannot conceive how this can be disputed. It seems to me that under this Bill it might be necessary to get the Municipality of Dublin to send a purely Dublin force to Belfast to stop disturbances in Belfast."
    The right hon. Gentleman points out that it would be a monstrous thing to have an order of Belfast dependent upon the will of another locality in the country. It surely is obvious not that you should necessarily introduce a Central Authority, but that it would be absurd to say that the power of provision for the special wants of any particular district should depend on the will of the Local Authority of some other district. What is the meaning of that argument? The meaning of that argument is that on the 1st of June the right hon. Gentleman contemplated a power remaining under this Bill to the Irish Legislature to have in existence a Central Police Force of some kind or another. The right hon. Gentleman to-day points to the example of England, and says in England there is no Central Police Force; but he took a different line on the 1st of June, because, when the Leader of the Opposition was speaking, he used that argument about England, and said—
    "The Prime Minister, in his speech, appears to contemplate the necessity for Ireland and some kind of Central Police Force, and he seems to think that some such Central Police Force exists at the present time in this country. That is a mistake."

    145
    The Prime Minister intervened and said—
    "There is a large force in the Metropolis under the control of the Executive Government which supplies all the needful purposes of a Central Force."
    So that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, it seems to me, took the proper view of the position in England, and I am sorry he has now adopted the argument which, on the 1st of Jane, was used by the Leader of the Opposition. I do not desire to prolong this matter, but I desire to say that, in my opinion—and I do not see why I should not speak perfectly candidly in this matter—while I most earnestly desire to see the establishment of local police under local authority in Ireland as soon as practicable, and while I believe that the time necessary for bringing that consummation about will not be very long, the Government of Ireland under an Irish Parliament and an Irish Executive will necessitate for a considerable time the existence of some Central Police Force which will be quite apart from the local forces that will be created in the different localities. I take the strongest possible view on this question, and when it comes up in another form on an Amendment by the Prime Minister I will express my opinion on the other branch of this subject as to whether this force should not be armed and drilled within certain limits. These are questions which it was impossible, for reasons I have mentioned, to discuss on the 1st of June; but I hope that the opportunity will be afforded to us to-night to discuss them. The speech of the hon. Member for North Kerry was clear as crystal and conclusive, and was not upset by the Prime Minister. I do trust the Government will accept the proposal, and will then—I was going to say make a concession, but really in view of the statement I have quoted from the right hon. Gentleman it is not a concession, but that they will take the course which will be strictly consistent with the spirit of the attitude they took up on the 1st of June, and will enable the Government of Ireland to start on its now and difficult career with some hope of preserving law and order in the proper and best sense of the words in Ireland, and enable them to look forward to the future with some sense of security.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I stated that the Metropolitan Police answers, in a considerable degree, to the designation of a Central Police Force. It is a large force; its margin is considerable, and so it is able to do more in the way of lending temporary assistance than an ordinary local force. In lending, however, it is exactly the same as any other local police force in the country.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No doubt it is a matter of considerable anxiety to Irish Members what course the Opposition will take, because if we vote for the Amendment hon. Members below the Gangway will have to find some means of abstaining from supporting their own proposal. [Nationalist cries of "No!"] I, therefore, desire to relieve any undue anxiety on the subject by saying that we intend to vote with the Government Hon. Members below the Gangway can, therefore, go to a Division with the absolute certainty that the Government will not be defeated. I do not desire to dispute with the right hon. Gentleman as to what are the fundamental principles upon which police forces should be constituted; but it must be, I think, admitted that the country which is not fit to have a local police force is not fit to have local government, and is not fit for Home Rule.
    MR. SEXTON: It might take eight years to establish.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I am coming to that point. My argument is that if the social condition of Ireland is what it is represented to be, then Ireland is not fit to have the privilege which is being claimed for it. That is what we have always contended, and in favour of that argument I will claim henceforth among its strongest supporters the two Leaders of the Nationalist Parties, who have addressed the Committee this evening. The next important point to be noticed is the interesting statement of the hon. Member for Waterford. His claim is not merely that Ireland shall be blessed with a Central Police Force, but that that force shall be drilled and armed. Does such a statement as that point to Ireland being pacified by a Home Rule Bill? The Member for Waterford knows something about Ireland—he knows more than the Prime Minister—and he is perfectly well aware that the conditions of society in that country are such as to cause the

    147
    gravest anxiety, unless there is placed at the hands of the Government responsible for the preservation of law and order, not merely a Central Police Force, but a force equipped in a manner which is happily not necessary in this more fortunate country. The hon. Member for North Kerry has also laid it down that one reason why it is not an unfair demand to make on behalf of the Irish Parliament that it should have a Central Police Force, is that Local Authorities in Ireland cannot be constituted within eight years. It is to take eight years for the Irish Legislature to pass a Local Government Act for Ireland, and yet we are expected to pass a Home Rule Bill for Ireland in a single Session. I do not know that the anticipation of those who are to take so leading a part in the management of the Irish Legislature is that the arts of obstruction will flourish unchecked in that Legislative Assembly. In conclusion, I will only say that I deeply regret that the Committee have not been favoured with more speeches on Homo Rule from the two Leaders of the Irish Party, because those to which we have listened to-night have been most instructive as to those hon. Members' views of the methods they intend to adopt in the Irish Legislature for preserving law and order. We should before now have learned the admirable lesson which they have taught us tonight, and which we should not easily forget.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, that no more important speech on the Home Rule Bill had been delivered than that which the hon. Member for North Kerry had made to-night. That speech went directly to the root of the whole question whether Ireland ought to have Home Rule or not. The hon. Member had said that, although he had risen five or six times on the 1st of June, he had not been called upon; but the hon. Member was mistaken, because he had not only been called upon, but he had made a speech that was reported in Hansard, in which he said—
    "The whole question of police was dealt with in Clause 30 of the Bill, and the Schedule dependent upon it, and it would be extremely inconvenient to have anything bearing upon that subject elsewhere than in that clause."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that what the hon. Member called a speech was an
    148
    observation on a point of Order made by him before the Debate began; and during the course of the Debate, although he rose several times, he was not called on.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, it was no declaration on a point of Order, because the hon. Member had risen in the Debate upon the Amendment, and had declined to discuss the question of the Irish Police until the clause now before the Committee came on for discussion. To pass from that matter, he wished to say that he had been found fault with for expressing distrust of the Irish Legislature, and yet the hon. Member for North Kerry was now showing his distrust of the people of Ulster by demanding that the Irish Executive should have a Central Police under their control for the purpose of coercing the people of Ulster. The hon. Member for North Kerry could not trust the quarter of a million inhabitants of Belfast, nor the Corporation who were elected by them, to manage their own police. The hon. Member distrusted the people of the North of Ireland, who had not half as bad a record as that of the people of the South and West. The only object that the hon. Member for North Kerry had in view in demanding this Central Police Force was to enable him and his Colleagues to coerce the Province of Ulster. The hon. Member knew perfectly well that if ever this Bill became law the Ulster people would not submit easily to the new form of Government that was being forced upon them against the votes of the freely-chosen Representatives of that Province. [Cries of "Oh!"] He knew that hon. Members opposite did not like to hear the fact stated, but the fact that they did not like to hear it was all the greater reason why he should say it. He hoped the Government would stand firm to the end. They had no proof of that, but he had thought it well at all events, as a Member for that Province, to let the Committee know what was meant by a Central Police Force.
    MR. DILLONsaid, he desired to say, before they proceeded to a Division, that he was opposed to the principle of a Central Police Force, and he believed that, in saying that, he spoke the sentiments of all his Colleagues, and also the Colleagues of the hon. Member

    149
    for Waterford. The hon. Members for North Kerry and Waterford had made this claim, not because they liked the principle of a Central Police Force, but because they recognised, with perfect truth, that it was not possible to pass instantly, and by a jump, from the evil system which England had forced upon Ireland, to the better system which it had been the happiness of the inhabitants of Great Britain to live under. In England and Scotland they were in the enjoyment of free institutions, and he believed that Ireland would arrive with perfect success after a few years of Home Rule Government at the same position. An argument had been used by the Leader of the Opposition which was one of the most unfair and cruel he had ever heard. The right hon. Gentleman said the claim by the hon. Members for North Kerry and Waterford for the right on the part of the Irish Executive to retain a much smaller Central Police Force than that now deemed to be reasonable in Ireland was a proof that Ireland was not qualified for Home Rule. If that be true, what about the present condition of the country? They required 14,000 armed and drilled men to govern Ireland, and he asked was not that a condemnation of the present system of Government? He and his friends held that after a few years no Central Police Force would be necessary, but they thought that during that period it must be necessary for the Executive to have control over the local police, until the proper Local Authorities were constituted in that country, and until the new Government had got into proper working order. The Leader of the Opposition had said that that proved that they were not fit for self-government; whereas it seemed to him that the only thing it proved was that the right hon. Gentleman's Government, and that of his predecessors in Office, had been exceedingly bad Governments. It was that bad Government which they were now seeking to remove, and which had created the necessity for this Central Police Force in Ireland, a necessity which, he was convinced, would rapidly disappear under Home Rule.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he only wished to say that the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition and of the hon. Member for South Tyrone had been extremely andacious, seeing that they were Mem-
    150
    bers of the Party which had occupied itself, from the late Prime Minister downwards, in exciting disaffection and disorder in Ulster. They now claimed that the vindication of the law against future disaffection should be deft to the government of the counties. For several years to come, after the adoption of Home Rule, there would be none of those Local Authorities in existence. It was sought to place upon the Irish Executive responsibility for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland, and, at the same time, the disposal of a single constable or policeman was denied to them.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLwished simply to say that he owed no allegiance to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and would pay them none.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, the Prime Minister appeared to imagine that the Ulster Members would be perfectly satisfied with a local police. They would be satisfied with no such thing. They believed that a local police force under the influence of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would be absolutely destructive to the liberties of Irishmen outside Ulster. What would the Prime Minister say if an English, Scotch, or Welsh Member got up in the House and said it was his intention when opportunity served to disorganise the British Police? Yet these were the very words used by the hon. Member for Mayo in America in 1880 with regard to the Irish Constabulary. [Ministerial laughter.] He knew he would bring a smile to the face of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who objected so much to ancient history. But the hon. Member had thought deeply over the subject for 11 years. In 1891 he used the very same words during examination in a trial at Cork. He was asked—
    "Did you say in a speech it will be our duty to disorganise and break up the Royal Irish Constabulary? Mr. Dillon: Yes, and I trust to do it yet.—You would break up and disorganise the Royal Irish Constabulary? No. I have not the power yet, but when I have the power I trust to do it."
    Hon. Members below the Gangway did not object to the Constabulary because they were unworthy of trust, but because they had always fearlessly and courageously maintained the law and done their duty. The only police they would ever approve were the police who acted in conformity with the will of the people.

    151
    He maintained that the action of the police ought not to depend upon what the people wanted. They ought to do their duty whether the people liked it or not, and an Irish police at the beck and call of the Irish Government, paid by them, acting in conformity to their will, and carrying out legislation founded upon the principles of the Land League, might be a police in which hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway had confidence, but it would be a police Ulstermen would absolutely despise and refuse to obey for a moment.
    MR. W. REDMONDsaid, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman closed his speech by saying that under certain circumstances he and the Party with whom he acted would disregard the law and set at defiance the police. He asked hon. Gentlemen to take notice of that declaration, because it was a declaration which was perfectly characteristic of the general attitude and particularly of the loyalty of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends. They were quite prepared to support law and order and the Police Force in Ireland, but only on condition that the Police Force did its work. The hon. and gallant Gentleman and the hon. Member for South Tyrone were continually going about the country making speeches and saying that when this Bill became law they would undergo some terrible suffering and terrible persecution. The fact of the matter was, nobody would be bothered with persecuting them; and he undertook to say that when this Bill had become law, the hon. and gallant Gentleman would, if he liked to come to the Irish Parliament, be at perfect liberty to make the class of speech which he made in that House, and they would be very glad and amused to hear him. As for the hon. Member for South Tyrone, he would be quite at liberty to speak in their Parliament until he was black in the face, and nobody would ever attempt, for a single moment, to interfere with him. The fact of the matter was that some people having practised coercion themselves for a long time appeared to be of opinion that coercion must be practised against themselves. But there was not the slightest intention of interfering with them. Hon. Members objected to a responsible Irish Government having a force at its dis-
    152
    posal to enforce law and order, but they had not the slightest objection in the world to try to organise armed forces in the Province of Ulster. He did not believe there would be the slightest necessity for any armed forces to cope with them. All this talk about civil war in Ulster was an absurdity.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 237; Noes 110.—(Division List, No. 230.)
    MR. WYNDHAMrose to move to leave out from the word "reduced" to the end of the 1st sub-section. He did not understand the Prime Minister to object to this and other Amendments standing in his name. The right hon. Gentleman did not adopt an attitude of entire approval, but he did not discourage him in respect of them. The 1st sub-section provided for the extinction of the Royal Irish Constabulary and the cessation, after the passing of the Act, of all admission to that corps. The object of his Amendment was merely to provide for the reduction of the Force. He had put down an Amendment to the Sixth Schedule to the effect that the Force should be reduced to 2,000; but if the Chief Secretary thought it more convenient, he would add these words to the Amendment now.
    MR. J. MORLEYassented.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid, very well; he would add that to the terms of his Amendment in order to raise the question. Well, now, his object was clear. The Government might claim that the policy embodied in this Bill was that the Irish Legislature should have power to create local forces such as those to which they were accustomed in this country. But from all quarters of the House there had been a more or less emphatic declaration that some Central Force was necessary in Ireland on account of the peculiar conditions and difficulties of that country. There was a general opinion that without a Central Force it would be impossible for any Government to be responsible for the security of the life, liberty, and property of the inhabitants of that country. He was sure that the present Chief Secretary would feel embarrassed without some body, analogous to the Royal Irish Constabulary, which could be used on special emergencies. That was an opinion that

    153
    was also entertained, he was sure, by right hon. Gentlemen on his own (the Opposition) side of the House. From below the Gangway they had heard the opinion as to the necessity of some such force put forward by no fewer than three of the most eminent of the Irish Members. The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. E. Redmond) gave his adhesion to the proposition by saying that the government of Ireland under an Irish Parliament would necessitate a Central Force, and that that force would have to be armed, organised, and drilled within certain limits. Therefore, in view of possible political disturbances in the North, and of agrarian disturbances in the wilder districts of Ireland, the Member for Waterford thought that government in Ireland would be impossible in the absence of a Central Force. The Bill, which provided for the extinction of the Royal Irish Constabulary, which met all the requirements of the case, did not provide any substitute. He indicated that afternoon that one way out of the difficulty was to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kerry (Mr. Sexton); but there was another alternative—namely, that, while the Royal Irish Constabulary should be reduced, a nucleus of the Force should be preserved under the control of the Lord Lieutenant to meet emergencies, on the possibility of which be need not enlarge. He did not see any other way out of the difficulty but this—substituting for total extinction the gradual reduction of the Force. A Central Force of that kind would give the Lord Lieutenant a freer hand and more discretion. The hon. Member for Kerry would give the Irish Legislature a freer band and more discretion. They must have either one or the other, and he thought they would see that they would be acting properly if agreeing to the establishment of this Force under the Lord Lieutenant. Hon. Members below the Gangway on the Opposition side said—"We cannot govern Ireland unless you allow us to organise a Force with which to meet emergencies." The Government declined to do that because of the fears of the loyal minority. Then the alternative was to allow the Lord Lieutenant a freer hand than they had given him in the Bill. They proposed to force him to extinguish the whole of the Royal Irish Constabulary
    154
    at the end of six years; but he (Mr. Wyndham) asked that the Royal Irish Constabulary, instead of being extinguished, should be reduced to a small Central Force, and that the Lord Lieutenant should be able to employ them in any particular locality in which their services might be required. Finally, he would say this—the Lord Lieutenant had duties quite as difficult as those which would be involved by this Amendment cast upon him by the Bill, and he was an officer eminently suited to control such a small Central Force, being the intermediary of two Cabinets, each of which would be interested in keeping down the expenses of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 16, line 26, after the word "reduced," to leave out to "provided," in line 29, in order to insert "to 2,000." —(Mr. Wyndham.
    Question proposed, "That the word 'and' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, that if he understood the proposal of the hon. Member for Dover it was that after all that had been said against the Irish Government or the Lord Lieutenant having an indefinite control over an armed Force, and in spite of all that had been said against the existence of an armed Force, the hon. Member proposed to maintain what he called "a nucleus" of 2,000 armed men under the Lord Lieutenant. He presumed that was what the hon. Member meant, though he had not said whether the "nucleus" was to retain its armed character or not.
    MR. WYNDIIAM: I meant that. It is the doctrine of the hon. Member for Waterford.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, be had presumed that that was what the hon. Member meant. As for the reference to the hon. Member for Waterford, it certainly looked suspicious when they found the hon. Member for Dover accepting a doctrine from such a quarter. The whole contention of the hon. Member for Dover and his Party and their allies on the Ministerial side of the House had been that there should be no armed police in Ireland, and it was in order to meet the view of those gentlemen that the Prime Minister hail taken up the view he had. He (Mr. J. Morley)

    155
    regarded the Amendment as an extraordinary departure from the position which the combined Opposition had hitherto taken up on this subject. If the Government had proposed in the Bill that there should be a "nucleus" left of 2,000 armed men of the Royal Irish Constabulary, it was perfectly certain the Opposition would have protested that it would be the nucleus of a future Irish Army. They remembered quite well the arguments which had been used against there being an armed Force in Ireland.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid, he saw all the difference in the world between such a Force under the Irish Legislature and the maintenance of a portion of the Royal Irish Constabulary controlled by the Lord Lieutenant as the Representative of Her Majesty. That was what he had to say, and what he had argued on the 1st of June.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, the hon. Member had suggested that 2,000 armed men should remain under the control of the Lord Lieutenant, but he had not told them on what terms and conditions the Lord Lieutenant was to move about and direct and control this so-called nucleus. He could imagine circumstances in which it might be desirable to have a Central Force; but if on any occasion the Lord Lieutenant thought such a Force should be used or not used in a particular district and the Irish Government thought it ought not to be so used or not used, friction would at once arise which it was most important to avoid. He wondered whether the hon. Member, in taking the line he was adopting to-night, was aware of the provision made in England for dealing with emergencies such as the hon. Member contemplated? Was the hon. Member aware of the 25th section of the Police Act of 1890 passed by a Government with which he had had some connection? This section said that where the police authorities thought it expedient in any special emergency or under any special circumstances to strengthen its Police Force by constables belonging to another Police Force such number of constables belonging to the latter Force might be added under such superiors as might be agreed on by the authorities. Such agreement might be made for a particular occasion or as a standing agreement and
    156
    in reference to unforeseen events. The important thing was that those who were responsible for order in Ireland should be able to have under their control and at their orders a sufficient Force. The Force in a locality—after the extinction of the Royal Irish Constabulary—might not be sufficient to deal with an ebullition of popular excitement. But why should not the Irish Government be able to send into a disturbed city, whether in the North or in the South, police from a tranquil quarter from which men could be spared? That was the course adopted in this country.
    COMMANDER BETHELL: The Government cannot do that.
    MR. HENEAGE: That can only be done by arrangement.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, the lunatic theory then came in. In England they assumed that the authorities were men of common sense, and would make sensible arrangements. And so they would in Ireland. That being so, there was no necessity for a nucleus of 2,000 armed men. Whatever strengthening the police force of a particular district might require could be secured by fusing with it the police of some other district which was in a state of peace and quietude. Moreover, the transitional period of six years would afford plenty of time for Local Authorities, the Lord Lieutenant, and the Irish Executive to see how things were going. Meanwhile, there was no compulsion on either the Irish Government or the Lord Lieutenant to deprive the Irish Executive of such armed Force as they might think necessary to meet any particular emergency. The hon. Member assumed, like the hon. Member for Hammersmith, that the Royal Irish Constabulary was to be disbanded at once—on the appointed day; but that was not the case. The six years' interval would afford ample time for considering what arrangements should be made for meeting emergencies. The experience of six years which the Irish Government, the Lord Lieutenant, and the Irish Local Authorities would have before the extinction of the Royal Irish Constabulary would probably lead to the adoption in Ireland of arrangements similar to those which worked well in England, and if that hope were realised it would not be necessary to maintain

    157
    that nucleus of a Central Force which some hon. Members desired to have.
    VISCOUNT WOLMERsaid, he had put down another Amendment not differing very much from the present Amendment, but he would prefer to take the opinion of the Committee on this proposal. His proposal differed from that of the hon. Member in that, while it would provide for the total extinction of the Dublin Metropolitan Police, it would allow the Royal Irish Constabulary to be reduced to some point that might seem desirable to the Lord Lieutenant. He thought that the Lord Lieutenant, in his Imperial capacity, ought to have some force at his disposal. Many hon. Members sitting in different parts of the House were of opinion that a Central Police Force or a police reserve of some kind was required in Ireland. He would only add to what they had said that, whereas they had declared that this Central Force would be required for Irish purposes, he considered such a force to be also necessary to enable the Lord Lieutenant to fulfil those important functions which were committed to his safeguarding, quite independently of the Irish Executive. The right hon. Gentleman indicated that in framing the Bill the Government had relied on the same course of procedure being followed in Ireland to that which had been adopted in England.
    MR. J. MORLEY: In duo time.
    VISCOUNT WOLMER: That was to say, they relied upon one district in Ireland borrowing police from another district when an emergency arose. Doubt less that was a useful arrangement in England; but he did not think that even in England the system went far enough. It would be better here if there were some Central Force available for local emergencies. There was no country on the Continent in which such a Central Force did not exist in some form or other; and the absence of such a force in the United States had led to the scandal involved in the employment of Pinkerton's detectives.
    MR. RENTOULsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had begun by saying that, after all that had been said against an armed force in Ireland, it was now proposed that such a force should be created. But the position of the hon. Member for Dover was perfectly logical. The Unionist Members objected in the strongest manner to
    158
    an armed Police Force under the control of the Irish Executive. But the 2,000 men proposed by the hon. Member for Dover would be under the control of the Lord Lieutenant in his capacity as Representative of the Imperial Government. The Lord Lieutenant was to have two capacities: In one he was to be advised by the Irish Government—and in that case he would do many things which the Unionists would consider very wrong—but, on the other hand, he was to be advised by the Imperial Government, and in that ease the Unionists were perfectly willing to trust him. They had an intimation from the Chief Secretary that this part of the Bill was an experiment. The right hon. Gentleman, in fact, said, "You can come back to this Parliament for further legislation if this arrangement does not work—you have six years to try it in."
    MR. J. MORLEY: I never said a word about this Parliament.
    MR. RENTOUL: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say they had six years in which to try this experiment.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I did not say experiment. I said the Irish Executive and the Lord Lieutenant and the Irish Local Authorities would have six years' experience before the extinction of the Royal Irish Constabulary.
    MR. RENTOULsaid, that, supposing these authorities found that they could not do without a Central Police Force, where would they get authority to secure it? Would it not involve an appeal to the Imperial Parliament? The Unionists would rather have the proposals of the Government all at once—they would rather see the end of the whole story and know how the thing was to be carried out. The Chief Secretary evidently did not want them to know the whole story. He had put his Bill before them in piecemeal, but they wanted to see how they stood. The way the right hon. Gentleman disregarded Irish opinion was truly horrifying. Three prominent Members of the Irish Party had spoken—the Nationalist Leaders themselves declared a Central Police Force to be absolutely necessary. If it were, it must be wanted to coerce somebody. Was it required to coerce the loyal minority? The Nationalists said no; so it must be wanted to coerce Nationalists in the South and West of

    159
    Ireland. But according to the Amendment the police would not be under the control of the Irish Executive. They would be under the control of the Lord Lieutenant, and if a representation were made to him that on a certain emergency the local police were not sufficient to preserve order they could be strengthened according to his judgment out of the force under his control. The Chief Secretary said that the Police Act of 1890 worked perfectly well in England. Well, that Act might work well enough here where all the Local Authorities worked harmoniously together; but Local Authorities in Ireland were not likely to be in harmony one with another. If there were riots in Belfast, for instance, the authorities of other towns in the South and West might refuse to lend their police and might be likely to say, "Let the riots go on—so much the better." The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, in his most sanguine moments, could hardly imagine that the Local Authorities in the South and West of Ireland would be likely to cooperate with Local Authorities in the North to help them out of a difficulty. Therefore, the analogy of the English Act did not hold at all. The Amendment was one which ought to be accepted by the Government, because it was the first he had seen on the Paper which seemed to possess the sympathies of all sections from Ireland. It would give a Central Police Force—which was a thing the Nationalists demanded—although it would not be under their own control, and the loyal minority would not fear it because it would be directed by the Lord Lieutenant, under the advice of the Imperial Government. Under the circumstances, he heartily supported the Amendment.
    MR. CLANCYsaid, it seemed to him that the speech of the hon. Member who had just spoken was not very relevant to the Amendment. He had asked, for instance, what the Irish Members wanted a Central Police Force for and whom they were going to coerce. If the hon. Member wanted an answer they would tell him that this Central Police Force was required to coerce law-breakers in Ireland and disturbers of the peace, whether they belonged to the Unionist or the Nationalist Party. That was a plain and sufficient answer to the hon. and learned Gentle-
    160
    man. The hon. Member for Dover had spoken of the doctrine of the hon. Member for Waterford. But what was the meaning of the Amendment? It was to retain 2,000 armed policemen under the control of what would be regarded in Ireland under Home Rule as a foreign authority. During the controversies of the last few years, the Nationalists had contended for nothing so much as a purely Irish force under Irish control; and, for his part, he had no hesitation in saying that he would not condescend to sit in an Irish Parliament the doors of which were kept by a foreign policeman. The hon. Member for Dover said it was the only alternative to the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry; but he (Mr. Clancy) was afraid that the hon. Member's remedy would be worse than the disease. If it were difficult or impossible to maintain law in Ireland without a Central Police Force, he was afraid that keeping in Dublin a body of Janissaries, 2,000 strong, to be controlled by what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham once called "a foreign authority," would act, not as a peace-preserving, but as a disturbing element in Irish life; and for that reason, if for no other, he did not see how the Irish Nationalists could support the proposal.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid, the Chief Secretary had not converted him by his observations to his way of thinking. He begged leave, however, to withdraw the Amendment, in order to make way for one standing on the Paper of great importance.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, that in the absence of the Prime Minister he begged to move the Amendment standing in the right hon. Gentleman's name. It was to the effect that the Acts relating to Police Forces in Ireland should be repealed, and no forces organised and armed as the present Police Force, or otherwise than according to the accustomed manner of a Civil police, should be created under any Irish Act. This was an Amendment which the Prime Minister had promised, and it was to fulfil that pledge that he (Mr. J. Morley) moved it.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 16, line 27, after the word "Schedule," to insert the words "and thereupon the Acts relating to such forces shall be repealed, and no

    161
    forces organised and armed in like manner, or otherwise than according to the accustomed manner of a Civil police, shall be created under any Irish Act."—(Mr. J. Morley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, if he had been present, would not have thought it desirable to offer to the Committee some words explanatory of the Amendment. He understood the words—
    "No forces organised and armed in like manner,"
    because he knew what were the organisation and the arming of the Constabulary; but when he came to the words—
    "Or otherwise than according to the accustomed manner of a Civil police,"
    he confessed he felt no certainty as to the meaning. They had had experience of the ordinary aspect and functions of a Civil Force. The men carried truncheons; they did not carry sidearms; they might, on occasions, he believed, have revolvers, but they never carried rifles. So they were to understand, he presumed, that under no circumstances was there to be a force in Ireland carrying anything but, the truncheon. They had accepted the principle that the force in Ireland was to be a Civil Force. They had no desire that after the establishment of Home Rule there should be any Military or semi-Military Force in the service of the Irish Government. But now came the question of a contingency or emergency. Supposing men rose in arms in any part of Ireland against the laws or against the collection of taxes; supposing the incitements of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh and his less gallant but equally earnest confederates appeared to be of some avail in Ireland after the Royal Irish Constabulary ceased to exist, or supposing agrarian trouble took place and armed men went about for the purpose of committing outrage, what were the Irish Government to do? Were the police who had to deal with these law-breakers to bear only truncheons, or, at most, revolvers? It might be said that they could summon the military, buthedid not think that the military should be made use of except in the case of an actual insurrection. The power of maintaining order and vindi-
    162
    cating the law should be exercised by a Civil Force, and, in certain emergencies, it might be necessary that that force should be armed. As he understood the Prime Minister, he would exclude the use of arms. Power should be reserved to the Irish Government to make such police arrangements as might be requisite for the preservation of the law. He, therefore, moved an Amendment to the Amendment to that effect.
    Amendment proposed, at the end of the proposed Amendment, to add the words—
    "But nothing in this Act shall prevent the Irish Government from making such police arrangements as they may deem requisite for the maintenance or restoration of order or the execution of the law."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment."
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, there was one point upon which both sections of the Irish Nationalist Party were agreed, and that was the necessity of having a Central Police Force. He did not altogether agree with his hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. T. W. Russell) that the Nationalist Members had altogether in view the coercion of Ulster. He thought they were actuated by a more personal reason. At the present moment there were very few Nationalist Leaders who could visit their own constituencies without the assistance of the Irish Constabulary. There was the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien). When he visited the city he represented he was surrounded and guarded by the Irish Constabulary.
    A NATIONALIST MEMBER: That is not a fact.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, it was absolutely a fact that, without the protection of the force which, on occasions, the Nationalist Members were, so fond of traducing, the hon. Member's shape would be entirely altered. Then there was the hon. and learned Member for North Louth (Mr. T. M. Healy). There was no town in Ireland that hon. and learned Member could visit without being protected by the Irish Constabulary.
    A NATIONALIST MEMBER: That is not true.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, the truth of what he said could be tested by a visit of the hon. and learned Member to any town in Ireland without police protection. If the hon. and learned Member never returned to the House after such a visit, it would be a great and sad loss; but if he did come back it would be with a very much changed appearance. In the happy family that existed in Ireland at the present moment, they loved one another so much that it was entirely owing to the vigorous action of the Irish Constabulary that these gentlemen were restrained from political manifestations which would end in their mutual destruction. The hon. Member who had just sat down desired to have a Central Force. Without drilling with arms, it was quite possible to have a body of men who would be capable of military action on very short notice. The Metropolitan Police of London were drilled as soldiers, although they did not have rifles, and it would be perfectly possible to transform them into a powerful military force in a very short time. As far as he was concerned, he opposed, in the best interests of Ireland, the existence of a Central Police Force in Ireland. Such a force would be under the direct control of a Government the politics of whose Members the Committee was perfectly acquainted with. For once in his life he agreed with the Government. The hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) had asked what would happen if there was agrarian trouble. The ordinary idea of agrarian trouble was trouble arising out of the difficulty of making a certain set of men fulfil their legal obligations. Agrarian trouble in Ireland had invariably arisen from the fact that a certain set of men called landlords, who required a certain amount of rent from their tenants, enforced claims which the law admitted to be just. It was when those claims were disallowed that there arose what were called agrarian troubles. He wondered what an agrarian trouble would mean under a Government of which the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) and his friends would be the principal component parts? Would it mean an effort on the part of landlords to secure rent? If it did, he would like to know what chance there would ever be of getting a farthing? Would it mean a general rising of the tenants of various counties against the payment of any of
    164
    the rent they owed to their landlords? How, he wondered, would the hon. Member for Kerry employ his Central Police Force in that case? He wondered what form the agrarian question would assume in Clare, Kerry, and Limerick. What would be the position of an Irish landlord in Clare, if there were a local police force? The component parts of that force would be drawn from the sympathisers with the cause of the hon. Member for North Kerry and his friends. There would be in that police men who carried out the decrees and will of the Land League. He should say the force would be mainly composed of moonlighters, and he wondered how the Central Police Force would act in case of agrarian trouble between the owners of property in Clare, Kerry, and Limerick, and the local police, who would naturally sympathise with the cause of the tenants against the landlords? He hoped the Committee would decide that the Government was right in refusing to place in the hands of the Irish Government the power of having a body of men who would be ready to go on their behalf to any part of Ireland, to crush out the very name of freedom, justice, and fair play.
    MR. GOSCHEN (St. George's,): A few precious minutes still remain to us before the application of the shameful instrument which the Government have adopted. A large portion of the precious minutes allowed us this evening have been utilised by hon. Members below the Gangway in discussing what armed force shall be placed at their disposal after the passing of the Home Rule Bill, and now we are about to witness the comical spectacle of the closuring of the Prime Minister's own Amendment, and, what is still more tragic, the closuring of the Amendment of the hon. Member for North Kerry (Mr. Sexton) to the Prime Minister's Amendment. I hesitated for a moment before rising, because I thought that the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Morley), in the absence of the Prime Minister, would deal with the arguments of the hon. Member for North Kerry. But he sat still.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I moved the Amendment.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman moved the Amendment, but in such a manner that the hon. Member

    165
    for North Kerry said that if the Prime Minister had been here he thought he would have made a longer explanation. Sheltering themselves behind the Closure, the Government have not replied to the hon. Member for North Kerry. Being anxious that the hon. Member should continue to be treated with that deference which is usually accorded to him by the Government, and seeing that the Prime Minister has now arrived in his place, I will give him an opportunity of replying.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, it seemed to him to be a most remarks able thing that the Prime Minister could not even condescend to reply to the remarks of his own Leader. When the hon. Member for North Kerry moved an Amendment absolutely complaining that the Irish Government when it was formed would not be able to establish a Police Force able to maintain order, and when the late Chancellor of the Exchequer absolutely made way for the Prime Minister to reply, it seemed a most extraordinary thing that the right hon. Gentleman, the nominal Leader of the House, should not attempt to do so. The Schedule dealing with the police was quite different in many serious respects from that which appeared in the Bill on the Second Reading.
    MR. J. MORLEY: There is no Schedule in the Bill.
    MR. BARTLEY: But there is.
    MR. J. MORLEY: The first part, but not the second part.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, this was another of those Parliamentary shuffles which were not creditable. He was perfectly aware that when the Bill was read a second time it was in such a discreditable condition that half the Schedules were in blank. Since the Second Reading most of the Schedules, the whole of the Financial Clauses, and the whole of the system by which Ireland was to be represented in the House of Commons had been altered; in fact, the Bill had been so changed that its own father hardly knew it. The Opposition had been trying to bring out the fact that this country was to pay for the Constabulary in Ireland, but owing to the Closure they had been stopped. He thought the country would be astonished to hear that the Government were sheltering themselves behind the miserable Closure they had created in order to
    166
    save themselves from explaining to the public the details of their iniquitous measure. The fact was that the Government wore afraid of the public knowing. The Prime Minister was as dumb as an extinct volcano. There never was, and never would be again, a Government in power that was so absolutely lost to all sense of the interests and traditions of the House. Ministers thought that anything would do for the House of Commons if they could simply force it through with the gag they had invented. He represented an English constituency, and he said—
    It being Ten of the clock, the Chairman, in pursuance of the Order of the House of the 30th June, interrupted the Debate and put the Questions already proposed from the Chair forthwith: —
    Question, "That those words be added to the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
    Question put,
    "That the words 'and thereupon the Acts relating to such forces shall be repealed, and no forces organised and armed in like manner, or otherwise than according to the accustomed manner of a civil police, shall be created under any Iriah Act,'
    be there inserted."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 537; Noes 49.—(Division List, No. 231.)
    Whereupon, in pursuance of the said Order, the Chairman proceeded to put successively the Questions on Clauses 30 to 40, forthwith, as followeth:—
    Question put, "That Clause 30, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Aves 315; Noes 289.—(Division List, No. 232.)
    Question put, "That Clause 31 stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 321; Noes 287.—(Division List, No. 233.)
    Question put, "That Clause 32 stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 315; Noes 281.—(Division List, No. 234.)
    Question put, "That Clause 33 stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 314; Noes 279.—(Division List, No. 235.)
    Question, "That Clause 34 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Question put, "That Clause 35 stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 327; Noes 39.—(Division List, No. 236.)
    Question put, "That Clause 36 stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 302; Noes 268.—(Division List, No. 237.)
    Question, "That Clause 37 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Question put, "That Clause 38 stand part of the Bill."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 295; Noes 261.—(Division List, No. 238.)
    Question, "That Clause 39 stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Question, "That Clause 40 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    And, the Order of the House of the 30th June having been complied with, and, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

    CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER [BIRMINGHAM CANAL NAVIGATION] BILL.
    Reported from the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order Bills [Provisional Order not confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER [LEEDS AND LIVERPOOL CANAL] BILL.
    Reported from the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order Bills [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 420.]

    CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER [GRAND JUNCTION CANAL] BILL.
    Reported from the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order
    168
    Bills [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 421.]

    CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER [NAVIGATION OF THE RIVERS AIRE AND CALDER] BILL.
    Reported from the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order Bills [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 422.]

    CANAL TOLLS AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER [WARWICK AND BIRMINGHAM CANAL] BILL.
    Reported from the Joint Committee of Lords and Commons on Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order Bills [Provisional Order confirmed]; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.
    Bill, as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 423.]

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,—Metropolitan Police Provisional Order Bill.
    Water Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill, with an Amendment.
    Places of Worship (Sites) Bill, with Amendments.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 3) BILL.
    Read the third time, and passed.

    FEUS AND LEASES (SCOTLAND).
    Ordered, That Mr. Campbell be discharged from the Select Committee on Feus and Leases (Scotland).
    Ordered, That Captain Hope be added to the Committee.—(Mr, Akers-Douglas.)
    House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before One o'clock.

TOOK THE OATH.
Several Lords.
SAT FIRST.
The Lord Saint Oswald—after death of his father.
NULLUM TEMPOS (IRELAND) ACT, 1876, AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]—(NO. 157.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the said Bill."—(The Lord Morris.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, in accordance with the undertaking I gave on the last occasion when this Bill was before the House, I have considered the question whether it is within the power of the House to originate such a Bill. There are precedents which appear to me to be almost directly in point. In 1846 a Bill was passed by the House for the abolition of deodands, which only affected Revenue in this way—that the Crown was possessed of the right to certain deodands which would be abolished if the Bill had passed into law. That Bill was passed by this House, and was set aside by the House of Commons on the ground of Breach of Privilege. In the same year, on a Bill relating to waste lands in Australia, it was laid down by the Speaker that with regard to that part of the Crown property the proceeds of which were carried to the Consolidated Fund by the Civil List Act, the Lords could not originate any Bill, or alter any Bill passed by the House of Commons, relating thereto. That, of course, would have interfered with the hereditary Revenues of the Crown, just as this Bill would do. The same view had been taken practically in your Lordships' House, because, a few years ago, the House acquiesced in the omission from a Bill relating to Colonial
  62
  Ports of a clause dealing with Crown Revenues on the ground of Privilege. It appears, therefore, that the Bill before the House comes under the class that has been declared and admitted to be within the Privilege of the House of Commons; and that, therefore, it is one which it is not competent for the House to pass.
  LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he was sure their Lordships had the highest confidence in the opinion of the Lord Chancellor upon such a subject. This case seemed to go rather further than any before decided. He had looked at the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons in 1860—an exceedingly strong Committee, on which sat Lord Palmerston, Mr. Disraeli, Colonel Wilson-Patten, Sir Hugh Cairns, and others—which went into the matter very fully, and dealt with the Deodands Bill which was laid aside by the House of Commons. He had also looked at Sir Erskine May's and Todd's books, where the topic was dealt with, and he was not at all prepared to offer any advice differing from the opinion of the Lord Chancellor, though he thought there was a good deal to be said on both sides. The Bill before the House was not intended to make any charge or tax, and it was only in a very roundabout way that a charge could conceivably be put on any public fund. The Bill was an explanatory and declaratory rather than an enacting measure; and he suggested that it should be withdrawn and another, slightly modified in its terms, introduced. Perhaps his noble and learned Friend (Lord Morris), who had presented the Bill, would consent, as it was merely a question of alteration in form, to discharge the Order for the present Bill with that object.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Moved, "That the Order be discharged."—(The Lord Morris.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Order discharged; and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn,

LAND TRANSFER BILL [H.L.]—(NO. 30.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, there were two points to which he wished to call the attention of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—first, as this Bill was of no benefit to landowners nor to rural purchasers, but chiefly benefited those who purchased from Building Societies, if the Government passed it, it ought to secure a Vote of money to pay half the expense of registration; otherwise, it would be acting like the Bengal Government, which, while admitting that the Behar Cadastral Survey would be useful to the Administration, yet made the zemindars and occupiers pay for it. Secondly, although the discretion of the present occupant of the Woolsack and that of his predecessors might be trusted, that would not be the case with some that had been named as his probable successors; and some check or restriction on the size of the districts that might be proclaimed under this Bill ought to be inserted in the Bill. Last Monday he was at the new Office of the Land Registry, and he found them wailing at the prospect of the noble and learned Lord going out of the country before this Bill was passed. If it was passed, and the noble and learned Lord went out of the country, others would wail if it was worked by his successors, so that both these parties would wish the noble and learned Lord to issue a Ne exeat regno against himself. He did not wish to be misunderstood as disinclined to the noble and learned Lord going to India; on the contrary, just now the High Courts and Judicial Body had been exposed to encroachments by the civilians; and it would be a good thing that the Governor General should belong to the legal profession. Besides that, the noble and learned Lord deserved this at the hands of Her Majesty's Government for having sheltered them with the mantle of his respectability.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord is, I am afraid, at some distance from the Land Transfer Bill. As regards the question which the noble Lord puts, I do not think the Laud Registry will involve any additional expense to the Treasury. I do not contemplate that the Bill will cast any burden upon landowners; on the contrary, I believe it will be to their advantage from a pecuniary point of view. With
  64
  regard to the districts to be brought within the operation of the Bill from time to time, we must proceed tentatively and cautiously. I do not see how it would be possible to lay down any rule as to the extent of these districts; but, so far as I should have to administer any such Act—and I believe my successors would follow the same principle —I should not, in the first instance, extend it to a very large district. The experience gained in watching its operation in that district would be the best possible guide as to the extent of the district that should from time to time he brought within its scope. The Amendments to the Bill are of a technical character, and I propose that they should be dealt with in the Standing Committee rather than in your Lordships' House, circulating them beforehand for a sufficient period to enable them to be considered.
  Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE. BILL [H.I,.]

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, upon this Bill I have prepared some Amendments upon Clause 4; but I find that it would be more convenient to those who are interested in the matter that, the discussion should not take place upon them just now; and as they are entirely upon matters of detail, although involving, no doubt, important points, I should propose to defer moving the Amendments until the Bill is in Standing Committee.
  LORD HALSBURY: My Lords, I think that course would be most convenient. Although, as my noble and learned Friend has said, they are matters of detail, still they are of considerable importance; and my impression is that they would be much better discussed, in the first instance at all events, in Standing Committee.
  Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

EDUCATION—ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.

  MOTION FOR A EETUEN.
  THE EARL OF HARKOWBY THE EARL OF HARKOWBY moved for—
  "A Return of the Circular (321) and Form issued on 21st January, 1893, to Her Majesty's Inspectors on the subject of existing school buildings and apparatus; Schedule VII. and Article 85, Subsection (a) of the Code of 1893 to be appended thereto."
  He also asked the Lord President of the Council whether it was intended by the above-named Circular to oblige existing public elementary schools, alike in towns and in rural districts, which had hitherto been accepted by tire Education Department as supplying efficient and suitable education, and as satisfying the grant conditions of the Codes, to meet the requirements set forth in the Circular, as explained by the building rules for new schools; such as, amongst others, 1. School to provide a quarter of an acre for every 250 children; 2. A playground of sufficient size, with gymnastic apparatus; 3. Walls of school, if stone, to be at least of 20 inches; if of brick, at least of 14 inches; 4. Schoolrooms to be lighted from the left hand, or, if not, from the right; 5. Classrooms to be not loss than 18 feet by 15 feet; 6. Staircases and porches to be external, and separate for each department; 7. Cloakrooms to be provided, external to schoolrooms, with gangways of at least four feet, amply lighted from the end; and what were the new requirements mentioned in the Circular as to accommodation at desks and benches; also to ask whether, if such requirements were not met, a school would be "warned" under Article 92 of Code, and, in default of compliance, a School Board would be set up by the Department? He hoped their Lordships would forgive his troubling the House a second time that week on the subject of education; but he was puzzled on one point, amongst many political puzzles at the present time, to know who was really responsible for the management of education in the United Kingdom, whether the Lord President, the Vice President of the Council, or Lord Playfair, who, in answering the other night, showed he was in possession of more official knowledge than the Lord President. He would like to know which of the three was distinctly respon-
  66
  sible? He regretted that the Lord President's time was so much occupied with Indian affairs that he was unable to give his experience and knowledge for the benefit of the schools of the country. This subject of education could not be put aside as dull and uninteresting. They had only to look at the Continent to sec its enormous importance. The revolutionists of Europe were making every effort to get hold of education in their respective countries. In France, Italy, Holland, and elsewhere, schools had been entirely secularised. The revolutionists had found that getting the education of the people into their hands was one of the most powerful means of propagating their doctrines. Their Lordships, therefore, he hoped would agree with him that, however dull the subject of education, it was well worthy of their earnest attention. It affected 20,000 schools, with about 30,000 departments, charged with the welfare of 5,000,000 children, of whom 3,000,000 were in voluntary, and 2,000,000 in Board schools. There were 100,000 teachers, a body nearly as large as the British Army, and they were as influential as any body of persons in the United Kingdom. In an able speech in the House of Commons Mr. Chamberlain said if they destroyed the voluntary schools the ratepayers would have do pay in cash about £40,000,000, and about £2,000,000 a year extra. He had had a great deal to do with the question of education, and when at the Education Department had the satisfaction of helping a great number of Board schools as well as voluntary schools. Therefore, he was not one of those who were wildly opposed to School Boards; but things were beginning to look a little serious. There were about 90 School Boards in the country which had shut out the Bible or anything like a prayer or hymn, and there was a new demand, to which the Prime Minister alluded on Tuesday night, and which had taken some hold in London, that they were to treat as denominational teaching, and not to allow, instruction in the great cardinal doctrine of the common Christian faith of Christendom—the divinity and the atonement of our Lord Jesus Christ. He was convinced, however, that if the country were asked it would say that it wished to have religious schools and to maintain voluntary schools; but the fear

  67
  he had was lest, under the present Administration, the voluntary schools should be silently destroyed. With the enormous administrative power of the Department and a majority in the House of Commons modern improvements might be insisted upon by the Inspectors to such an extent as to silently but surely destroy the voluntary system of education in the country within a very short time. If a general sense of helplessness and hopelessness were created amongst the voluntary schools, they would begin to crumble and give way. The reason why he had now brought forward this subject was to be found in the Circular recently issued by the Education Department—
  "Circular 321.
  "Circular to Her Majesty's Inspectors.—School
  Buildings and Apparatus.
  "Education Department, Whitehall,
  January 21, 1893.
  "Sir,—My Lords are desirous of obtaining a fuller and more detailed statement than is given in the Annual Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors with reference to the condition, as regards buildings and apparatus, of each of the schools in England and Wales.
  "I am, therefore, to request that you will, at each of your animal visits to schools during the year beginning February 1, 1893, complete and file with Form 10 one of the accompanying forms.
  "It is, of course, not to be understood that in every case where the school is to some extent defective in one or more of the points mentioned in the form, you are required to press for an immediate alteration. In that matter you will, as heretofore, use your discretion. At the same time any serious defect in the convenience of the school for teaching purposes, or in its sanitation, should be brought under the notice, both of the managers and of the Department, with a view to its immediate removal.
  "The object aimed at by the form is twofold —first, the answers to the questions are intended to show, with the view of enabling the Department within a reasonable limit of time to secure complete efficiency, how far each existing school falls short of modern requirements in any of the points mentioned; and, secondly, they will furnish a complete statistical record of the condition of the school premises throughout the country. Those answers should not, therefore, be modified by any special circumstances affecting a school, or by the fact that it may formerly have received a building grant.
  "I have the honour to be, Sir,
  "Your obedient Servant,
  "G. W. KEKEWICH.
  "To—, Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools."
  That Circular was a very interesting document. It raised questions almost all of which were answered every year in the regular Returns of the Inspectors. The
  68
  information asked for in the Circular was, therefore, already in the Office. Why, then, was it issued? It was because the Department was now requiring all schools to be brought up to "modern requirements." The schools were all to be brought up to that most indefinite term "modern requirements," and this affecting so vast a number of schools was surely a very serious matter. Of course, the Circular was sought to be justified by the recommendations of the Royal Commission, of which he had been a member. But the Commission, in making their recommendations, said it would be a hardship indeed if any sudden demand of this kind were made upon the schools, and they concluded by saying—
  "We are of opinion that existing schools should gradually, but within reasonable limits of time, be brought up to the higher estimate of the space required for school accommodation. But we think this would be more advantageously brought about in cases where it is required by pressure exerted on managers through Her Majesty's Inspectors at the time of their visits than by a hare-and-fast rule of the Department, which might have the effect of requiring a sudden increase of 25 per cent, in the accommodation in a considerable number of schools throughout the country. The peremptory enforcement of such a requirement would, in our opinion, at the present moment press hardly upon many districts, whether it had to be met by voluntary contribution or out of the rates, and would not, we believe, be consistent with the best interests of the public or the advancement of elementary education."
  One of the strongest recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1888 was that the schools should be pecuniarily assisted by the Department in doing what was recommended, and that the recommendations were to be taken as a whole. Notwithstanding this, the Government were doing exactly what the Royal Commission guarded against, for they were casting upon the schools the cost of bringing them up to the modern requirements. The hardship of this would be felt in every town and hamlet, and if it were insisted upon it would destroy the voluntary schools. For instance, would the Department insist upon schools in populous towns like London, Liverpool, and Leeds, providing a quarter of an acre for every 250 children? What was meant by a playground "of sufficient size"? If the walls were not of the thickness of 20 inches stone, or 14 inches brick, would the building, although passed for years as efficient, be

  69
  required to be pulled down and rebuilt? The Education Department were asked in one case what was included under the term "gymnastic apparatus," and the reply was—
  "The words 'gymnastic apparatus' occur in a question which the Inspectors will have to answer according to the circumstances of each case. It does not seem possible to give any more definite description of gymnastic apparatus than that it includes all apparatus used for gymnastic exercises."
  Could any answer be more vague or unsatisfactory? If the requirements of the Education Department were to be enforced, nearly half the schools throughout the country would have to be rebuilt, and this at a time when the farmers had no money, the agricultural labourers were out of work, and the landowners were compelled to shut up their houses. He was afraid that this action of the Department might give rise to a reaction against education. There was ground for supposing that this action on the part of the Department was the outcome of the intense desire of the present Government to get rid of the voluntary schools. If the Government really desired to abolish those schools, they should bring the matter openly before the country. He hoped that the Church of England would not hesitate for a minute to meet the challenge that had been thrown out to them, and that they would follow the admirable example that had been set them by the Roman Catholic Church, of making largo sacrifices for the purpose of preserving their voluntary schools. He hoped that the noble Lord opposite would give such assurances as would remove the black cloud that now hung over the country in relation to this matter.
  Moved, That there be laid before this House—
  "Return of the Circular (321) and Form issued on 21st January, 1893, to Her Majesty's Inspectors on the subject of existing school buildings and apparatus: Schedule VII., and Article 85, Sub-section (a) of the Code of 893 to be appended thereto."—(The Earl of Harrowby.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he had never read anything so alarming, extravagant, and tyrannical as the Circular of the Education Department referred to by his noble Friend (the Earl of Harrowby). The last time the subject was discussed in their Lord-
  70
  ships' House the late Prime Minister warned the Lord President what might happen if he treated Hindus and Mussulmans as he was treating Churchmen. He would confirm the words of the late Prime Minister, and add that Mussulmans would also show animosity to any interference with Christian schools. This question had been discussed in India, and was one of the conditions of acceptance of British rule. He regretted that the Members of the right rev. Bench were not present, and hoped it was not too late to urge upon the most rev. Primate the necessity of receding from the position taken up a little while ago, and of uniting his forces with those of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy.
  LORD NORTONsaid, he hoped that the President of the Council, in answering this question, would indicate a little more generally the policy of his Lieutenant. The Vice President's grand schemes were only to be read in reports of public meetings; but it was not known how much the Department endorsed his views of national education. The whole subject was practically left by Parliament in the hands of the Department, whose Circulars were virtually Acts. The Vice President addressed Birmingham lately, lauding that City as an example to the whole Kingdom. The Chairman, who was also Chairman of that School Board, though flattered by the compliment, modestly admitted that their schools were elaborately and costily fitted up; but he thought it the best economy to do all things well; and he praised their architect for his triumphs in building. By the Circular referred to in this question this model of magnificence was apparently made a common requisition for all schools, old and new, rural and urban. By such advances of requirements, and increasing tendency to enlarge the field of elementary education, the Department could lay down any standard and bid managers conform or die. The Vice President said that he considered the universal establishment of School Boards throughout the country to be essential to the interests of higher education. Was that the view of the Lord President, and was it the view which the Department endorsed? It was obviously the Vice President's wish to supersede all voluntary schools. He wanted what he called a comprehensive national system municipally

  71
  undertaken, free for all grades; and this system, he urged, must not be under the patronage of clergyman, squire, or mill-owner. The Vice President went further than Dr. Pearson, who said that the age of the Church and of the Home was gone by; everything must be undertaken by the State. He said that Wales was fortunate in having few endowments, and so much the more being allowed higher education by assistance from Government and rates. If the country were content to let national education be under Departmental legislation by such Circulars as that to which the question referred, then Parliament ought at least to have some general information of the meaning and tendency of the assumed policy. He wished to know whether these were the individual views of the Vice President, or whether they were adopted by the Government? They would then know how to meet these Circulars, and be able to appeal to Parliament and to the general feeling and sentiment of the country in ascertaining public opinion.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, the noble Earl who has brought this subject before us asked, first of all, who is responsible for the management of the Education Department. The noble Earl himself has held the Office of Vice President, and I suppose he understands as well as any man can what are the precise arrangements under which the Department is conducted. I am not aware that any change has been made. According to all I have ever learned on the subject, the practice has been that the details of the Department are mainly managed by the Vice President, and that the Lord President is consulted when any important question of principle is at stake, or when any important change is about to be made in the action of the Department. Certainly, I am jointly responsible with my right hon. Friend the Vice President. I do not suppose the noble Earl would be desirous of lessening the importance and responsibility of the Vice President's position. Mr. Forster, the Minister who perhaps took the greatest interest in educational matters, was Vice President of the Council at the same time that he occupied a seat in the Cabinet. The noble Earl was not present when the
  72
  subject was brought before the House earlier in the Session. I will refer the noble Earl to the answer—it is reported in Hansard—in which the assurances now asked for by my noble Friend were given by me, and nothing has taken place since then to alter them. But the black cloud which appears to hang over the noble Earl and others will not, I am afraid, be dissipated by a repetition of those assurances. It has been clearly proved that a considerable number of schools in the country are altogether behind modern requirements—the requirements which the late Government themselves declared to be necessary in the construction of all new schools—and there is great alarm on the part of those responsible for these schools lest they should be called upon to remedy the defects. If the effect of the Circular has been to produce that alarm, I think it is a very wholesome effect. But if it is supposed that the Circular indicates those things which the Education Department will at once require from all schools, I can state unequivocally that the Circular has no such significance. The object is to obtain full and accurate information as to how far existing schools are or are not in the condition required by the Regulations of the Department. After that information has been received, the Department propose to deal with each case on its merits—that is to say, to take into consideration the whole circumstances of the school; what is the amount of the deficiency; whether it is serious or not; and to deal with the matter in a reasonable manner and in accordance with the general policy of the Department. That general policy is to do nothing to discourage or to diminish voluntary effort; to accept all voluntary assistance as far as it can be given in a satisfactory way; but, on the other hand, to see that the schools provided by voluntary effort are sufficient. The Department is also bound by Act of Parliament, in case there should be a complete failure in voluntary effort, to provide the necessary accommodation; and, as the noble Earl knows, that involves a School Board. It appears to be thought that because it may happen that in certain cases the accommodation which is absolutely necessary cannot be provided, therefore the policy we have set on foot, if it be in any way new, by this Circular

  73
  means that the Government intend to force Board schools upon those localities, I can tell the noble Earl we have no such policy or intention; but our intention is—and we mean to abide by it—to bring the voluntary schools, not suddenly, but by degrees, up to the full and proper school accommodation which is required in the interests of the children throughout the country. We shall not shrink from that task, although we should be sorry if, in some cases, it should turn out that our requirements necessitate a certain amount of sacrifice on the part of those who keep up these voluntary schools; but if such schools are to be kept up there must be individual sacrifice and individual effort. I do not believe that the voluntary school managers are reluctant to do their duty in the matter. I believe when the matter is brought fairly before the localities and dealt with in a fair spirit, as the noble Earl said, the Church of England and other Religious Bodies will do their duty. But why is this to be a question for the Church? It is not a question of the Church of England; it is a question of education; and I say this: if the Church stands in the way of education in this country it will be the worse for the Church. But I do not believe it. I have too much respect for the Church, and for the dignitaries of the Church, to believe that they are not zealous in the cause of education. They wished to proceed on their own lines; but I do not believe for a moment that they would be backward in their efforts. Lot me quote the opinions of two distinguished Prelates in reference to the Circular. The Bishop of London, in April, 1893, said—
  "This is an emergency which has come upon us suddenly in consequence of the demand of the Education Department—a just demand, a righteous demand, I must call it."
  The Bishop of Rochester, in June, 1893, said—
  "I am not one of those who regard the principle of the recent Government demand as a wrong one. If we are to go on receiving grants for our schools it seems fair and right in principle—though the principle may be here and there applied in a harsh, unreasonable sort of way, suggesting more red tape than statesmanship—fair and right that we should be compelled to meet modern requirements in the arrangements of our school fabrics."
  The right rev. Prelate is not quite so afraid of modern requirements as the
  74
  noble Earl, and I think his zeal for education exceeds that of the noble Earl. And, for my own part, I would rather share the opinions of the right rev. Prelate than those of the noble Earl, who has himself been Vice President of the Education Department, for a speech more unfavourable to education than his, and more deprecatory of what is necessary for education, it has never been my misfortune to hear. Again, the Committee of the London Diocesan Board of Education—a very competent Body, and who, I am sure, gave a conscientious opinion —in April, 1893, reported as follows:—
  "That Church schools are passing through a serious crisis in their history cannot be doubted; but it is extremely encouraging to note that school managers are everywhere putting forth all their energies to meet the increased but reasonable requirements of the Education Department in regard to the sanitation of school buildings, the provision of cloak-room and classroom accommodation, and the more efficient equipment of schools as to staff and teaching appliances."
  That is the spirit, which I am pleased to see, of people who are really zealous for education, and who are not afraid to make sacrifices when called upon to do so. I can only repeat what I said before—that this Circular is a statistical inquiry, and its main object is to obtain information; but it is not a mere statistical inquiry, because it will be followed by some action whenever the Education Department find that the school accommodation is scandalously bad; there the Department will do its duty and interfere at once—for example, suppose the sanitary condition of a school is shown to be altogether faulty. But with regard to walls, larger playgrounds, gymnasiums, and other such matters, the Department will, so far as I have any voice in the matter—and I believe my right hon. Friend quite concurs with me—endeavour to show a little common sense, a certain amount of which is really all that is required. It would be intensely foolish and absurd to at once require all the schools in the country to be brought up to all the points of efficiency laid down in the Circular. It is impossible to stereotype for ever the condition of the schools, for as time goes on further requirements are found to be necessary, and public opinion also requires a number of things which 25 or 30 years ago would not have been deemed necessary. The Department wish—to use a colloquial expres-

  75
  sion—to bring things up to date. I have not seen the particular speech of my right hon. Friend to which the noble Earl referred. I should wish to see the whole context of the speech, and to what it referred, before giving an opinion upon it; but I will say this on my own account: that I consider it highly desirable that there should be more municipalisation of education. I do not wish to see voluntary schools put an end to. Everyone who has followed the progress of education in this country knows that it would be a vain and useless crusade to endeavour to put an end to the vast masses of voluntary schools in this country with all the support that they enjoy; but, while recognising in the fullest degree that these schools are entitled to perfectly fair treatment, I think it is desirable that there should be more municipalisation of schools and more municipal superintendence of them. We desire to pursue the policy that voluntary schools and Board schools should have that place with regard to education that they deserve, and this Circular applies to both classes of schools alike in carrying on the education of this country. Wherever Board schools do not come up to the requirements they will be called on in exactly the same way as the voluntary schools. In answer to the question of the noble Earl as to further instructions to Inspectors, I would say that no further instructions are required; the Inspectors can give no instructions, for they are given by the Department. Chief Inspector Coward, in commenting on a Report of one of the Inspectors made in 1892, said that the schools in the particular district
  "are often dilapidated and often so badly constructed as to render the arrangement of the classes for instruction difficult and embarrassing. They frequently possess no class-rooms, or, if they do, their small size renders them worse than useless; their lighting is rarely good, and not seldom so defective as to be injurious to the eye-sight, and their ventilation is often radically bad. Cloak-rooms and proper lavatories are in the majority wanting. But with all these defects they are still able to estimate their accommodating capacity at eight square feet of area, a space quite inadequate, and in which the discipline and instruction of a school cannot be maintained well without undue effort and strain. This overcrowding is found in its worst forms in the small class-rooms, which are still unhappily recognised. One shudders at the recollection of numbers of little children crowded together in places with an exhausted and poisonous air and little light. This is of frequent
  76
  occurrence, and will continue until strenuous measures are taken to abate the evil. In several schools which I visited the state of things in this respect was horrible. The time is fast approaching, if not already come, when all the school accommodation of the country should undergo review."
  These are strong expressions. In the face of such a Report, is the Department to leave the children of a large portion of the inhabitants of this country subject to such conditions as are pointed out by the Inspector? I, for one, would not undertake that responsibility; for our first duty is to the children, and it is an absolute duty imposed upon the Department to see that children who are compelled by law to go to these schools should have proper accommodation, and should be relieved from a state of things which was a disgrace to the country.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN: Will the noble Earl lay that Report upon the Table?
  THE EAKL OF KIMBERLEY: It is one of the Parliamentary Papers published, and if it were not I would at once lay it on the Table. It is in the Blue Book for 1892, at page 347. The noble Earl asked what are the new requirements made in the Circular as to desks and benches. My answer to that is that there are no new requirements.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY, in reply, said, that the speech of the noble Earl showed exactly what he had ventured to say, that the aim of the Department was to bring up all existing schools in accordance with the requirements and building rules for new schools. That was a serious-matter, and ought to be done, as the Royal Commission said, with great care. The noble Earl admitted it would be a hardship on the part of the Government to force these requirements on existing schools—that it ought to be done with due consideration, with common sense, and only in due time.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I said, not at once; but, of course, the intention of the Department is to bring the schools up to the proper point.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, that was exactly his own language and the opinion of the Royal Commission. So that when the noble Earl stated he had made one of the most benighted educational speeches ever heard that was really the purport of his own speech. They were, in fact, in entire accord, and

  77
  he only wished the Vice President were there to concur. Anyone who knew the work thrown upon the noble Earl by the great affairs of India would excuse him from any little slip in educational matters; but it could hardly be expected that the educational interests of the country could be properly attended to in spare moments snatched from the administration of the Indian Empire. It was impossible for him to do justice to educational matters by occasionally looking in at the Department.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I said nothing about looking in at the Department in spare moments. I said that no change had been made in the practice of the Department, which was for details to be left to the Vice President, while upon important matters the Lord President was consulted.
  THE EAKL OF HARROWBYsaid, in one case £350 had been expended on sanitary improvements in a, school, in order to bring it up to the requirements of the Department; and they were now within two or three years called upon to make alterations which would involve a further cost of about £200. That was pushing the matter further than was cither wise or right. He thanked the noble Earl for answering his questions, and for the assurance that School Boards would not be set up in case the requirements wore not complied with.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I must correct the noble Earl. I said nothing of the kind. What I said was that in cases of sanitary defects and like matters warning would be given; that each case would be dealt with upon its own merits; and that I hoped the Department would deal with the cases with common sense and in a reasonable manner. Of course, it will be necessary, in some cases, to take steps. As to the Return asked for by the noble Earl, I have not the smallest objection to it; but I would point out to him that the information he wants is to be found in a great many places.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, it was for that very reason that it was given in various places that he wanted it in a short Paper for the convenience of the Members of the House.
  Motion agreed to.

  MARKING OF FOREIGN MEAT, &c.
  Report from the Select Committee (with the Proceedings of the Committee) made, and to be printed: Minutes of Evidence, together with an Appendix, laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out. (No. 212.)

  CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  Report from the Select Committee, that the Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order (Leeds and Liverpool Canal) Bill, the Canal Bates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order (Navigation of the Rivers Aire and Calder) Bill, the Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order (Grand Junction Canal) Rill, and the Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order (Warwick and Birmingham Canal) Bill ought to be allowed to proceed.
  And that the Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order (Birmingham Canal Navigations) Bill ought not to be allowed to proceed.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

  STATUTE LAW RBVISION (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 203.)
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to the Joint Committee on Statute Law Revision Bills of the present Session.
  IMPROVEMENT OF LAND (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 184.)
  Amendment reported (according to Order), and Bill to be read 3a on Monday next.
  TRUSTEE (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.] (No. 205.)
  House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.
  COPYHOLD (CONSOLIDATION) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 206.)
  House in Committee (according to Order): The Amendments proposed by the Joint Committee made: Standing Committee negatived: The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

  CONVEYANCE OF MAILS BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed: and to be read 2a on Monday next: (The Lord Playfair). (No. 213.)
  House adjourned at five minutes past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, Twelve o'clock.