Sitting of 6 June 1893

QUESTIONS.

  THE MOMBASA RAILWAY SURVEY.
  Viscount WOLMER: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when the final and complete Report of the Mombasa Railway Survey will be presented to Parliament?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): The Report has, as I have already stated, been presented, and will be distributed as soon as the maps, the preparation of which has caused a slight delay, are ready.

  PORTMAHOMACK HARBOUR.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: In the absence of the hon.Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Weir), I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he has received a communication from the Convener of the Portmahomack Harbour Committee, drawing his attention to the fact that the herrings shipped at that place for the last five years have only averaged 3,439 barrels per annum; that during the five years ending 1867 the average was 17,317 barrels per annum, shipped from an average of 120 boats; and stating that this depreciation has arisen solely from the want of accommodation to suit the increased draught of water of the boats now in use; and whether such steps will be taken to improve the condition of Portmahomack Harbour as shall restore the fishing industry of the town?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): I have received the communication referred to, and have obtained Report from the Fishery Board, who state that this is one of the many harbours which require improvement in the interests of the fisheries, but that they have no funds that are available. The money at their disposal has been spent, amongst others, on the harbour of Balintore, in the same County of Ross as Portmahomack, and within a few miles of it. The cost of re-constructing the harbour at Portmahomack, so as to provide accommodation for the modern type of fishery boat, is estimated, in a Report which has been laid before me, at £4,000, and, under present circumstances, I see no prospect of the requisite assistance being granted.

  THE MOGADOR CONSULATE.
  MR. FORWOOD: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention to transfer the Consulate at Mogador to Casablanca, and appoint a Vice Consul at Mogador; and whether, in view of the facts that British trade with Mogador amounts to nearly half of the total trade between Great Britain and Morocco; that the distance between Mogador and Tangier, the residence of the British Minister to Morocco, is double that from Casablanca, involving more responsibility on the British Representative at Mogador; and that there is also a very large district south of Mogador, in which the Consul at that port has to exercise a supervision over British interests, Her Majesty's Government will restore the Consulate at Mogador, and in any appointment made select an officer of long experience capable of holding the usual Consular Court and dealing with the difficulties frequently arising in connection with British interests in that district?
  SIR E. GREY: It has been decided, after full consideration of the subject with Sir West Ridgeway, that it will be more advantageous to British interests to establish a Consulate at Dar-el-Baida, under which there will be a Vice Consulate at Mogador. The officers selected for the two posts have the requisite experience and knowledge of the country, and it is confidently anticipated that the

  315
  new arrangement will be preferable to that which it replaces. I may say that the statement in the question as to the proportion of British trade with Mogador to the total British trade with Morocco does not correspond with the figures in possession of Her Majesty's Government nor with those in such publications as the Statesman's Year-Book. I am, however, to add that any representations which the right hot). Member has to make on the subject will be forwarded to Sir West Ridgeway for his consideration.

  THE HAMPSHIRE FRIENDLY SOCIETY.
  MR. JEFFREYS (Hants,): I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture whether he is aware of an error in the Report of Mr. W. E. Bear to the Royal Commission on Labour, where he writes in paragraph 60, on p. 86, with reference to the amount of invested capital of the Hampshire Friendly Society, that the capital at the end of the year amounted to £11,077 in the Assurance Branch, whereas the actual amount was £111,077 in 1891, and £115,949 in 1892 in the Assurance Branch in addition to the other invested capital; and what steps can be taken to correct this error?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): I believe that the facts are as stated in the first paragraph of the hon. Member's question, and that the figure given in Mr. Boar's Report is the result of a printer's error. I have communicated with the Royal Commission on Labour with regard to the matter, and I understand that the correction will be noted in some suitable portion of the printed proceedings of the Commission.

  THE "LABOUR GAZETTE."
  MR. BANBURY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade in what manner the advertisement pages of the Labour Gazette are conducted; and if he will take steps to prevent a Government undertaking interfering with private enterprise?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): The advertisements in the Labour Gazette, as in other Government publications, are arranged for by the Stationery Office under the directions of
  316
  the Treasury, and the Board of Trade has nothing to do with them.
  MR. BANBURY: Then can the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury give me any information?
  [No answer was given.]

  WALSALL BLUECOAT SCHOOL.
  MR. TALBOT: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether he is aware that in the Blue Coat School of Walsall the fees charged are 3d., 4d., and 6d., and the subjects taught of an advanced character, and that a large proportion of the scholarships at Queen Mary's Grammar School in Walsall are gained by boys educated at the Blue Coat School, so that the school may be fitly described as a higher grade school; whether the schools have invariably earned a very high grant, of part of which they have been deprived under the 17s. 6d. limit; and whether, if this be so, he still adheres to his determination to prevent the school managers from charging the fees authorised by Section 4 (1) of "The Elementary Education Act, 1891"?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): The facts mentioned by the hon. Member are substantially correct. What the managers of the school now claim is that they shall be allowed to retain the high fees which they have hitherto charged, and at the same time receive some £300 a year in addition from Imperial sources. In view of the fact that the school has hitherto found no financial difficulty in giving this high class education, I do not consider that it would be for the educational benefit of the district that fees should be exceptionally sanctioned. It would be better if the school were free. I may add that the voluntary contributions to the school have been steadily diminishing for the last four years; were they kept up to a higher level the school would not suffer from the 17s. 6d. limit.

  THE NEWFOUNDLAND LOBSTER FACTORIES.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask he Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to a Petition which was presented

  317
  to the Newfoundland Assembly by Mr. James R. Hayes in March last, claiming inquiry and compensation with regard to the closing of his three lobster factories in 1891 by Sir Baldwin Walker, and which inquiry had boon refused on the ground that it was an Imperial question; and whether the British Government will inquire into the matter?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. S. BUXTON,): The Petition has not been brought before the Secretary of State officially, but it appears from the newspaper which my hon. Friend has handed to me that in the winter of 1891, after the modus vivendi had been in force for a year, and while negotiations for its renewal were in progress, Mr. Hayes, as he alleges, was induced to erect these factories by a reassuring telegram from the Colonial Prime Minister. His claim for compensation was, therefore, rightly made against the Colonial Government. He has no claim against Her Majesty's Government, as the factories wore built after the modus vivendi had been entered into, and, therefore, with full knowledge that the right to build them was in dispute.

  VACCINATION.
  MR. HOPWOOD: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what authority the Board of Customs make the following requirements a condition precedent for the appointment of boatmen, &c, who are in other respects fit for the nomination they have received, namely—
  "Have you had the small-pox? When were you last vaccinated?"
  It is understood
  "that a candidate who has not been successfully vaccinated within the last seven years will be refused admission to probation by the Board of Customs";
  is there any law compelling re-vaccination; when was the practice adopted; and, in the absence of any law, will he use his influence to abolish indirect compulsion to a medical remedy not unanimously approved of?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I consider that it is very desirable that persons, whether in public or domestic service, should be protected from small-pox, both for their own sakes
  318
  and for those by whom they are surrounded. I should certainly, for the safety of my own family, desire that those who live in my house should be vaccinated, and, if necessary, re-vaccinated; and I am not prepared to recommend a different practice in the Public Service. The Order as to vaccination has been long in force. The Order as to re-vaccination is dated 1881. I do not intend to deal with cither of them.
  MR. HOPWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if it is enforced in the higher ranks of the Service? Can the Chairman of the Board of Customs be called on to forfeit his position for neglecting to comply with the condition? SIR W. HARCOURT: I do not know, but I should strongly recommend the Chairman of the Board to be re-vaccinatod.
  MR. HOPWOOD: In consequence of the sportive replies of the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give notice that I shall call attention to this matter at the earliest possible moment, and point out that the condition referred to in my question is unjustifiable.
  MR. LONG: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Interim Report of the Royal Commission on Vaccination concerning prosecutions for contumacious refusal to carry out vaccination was a spontaneous one on the part of the Commission, or whether it was a reply to a question addressed to the Commission from the Government; and whether he has any reason to believe that the Royal Commission considered the question to be one of urgency requiring to be dealt with before their Report was presented on the whole matter submitted to them?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): The hon. Member in the first paragraph of his question asks me information as to what took place in the time, and, as he suggests, at the instance of, the late Government, of which he was himself a Member. I have no official knowledge on the subject; but I find that on February 29, 1892, Mr. Ritchie, the President of the Local Government Board, of which the hon. Member was Secretary, stated in this House that he had communicated

  319
  with the Commissioners and had learnt from them that the matter would receive their consideration. As to the second paragraph, the Report speaks for itself. The Commissioners unanimously state that they have arrived at their conclusions quite independently of the question whether vaccination should continue to be compulsorily enforced, and I cannot conceive why they should have presented their recommendations, as they have done, in an Interim Report, unless they thought the matter one of urgency, fit for immediate legislation, and entirely independent of the larger questions submitted.
  MR. HOPWOOD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Local Government Board if his attention has been called to an inquest held at Uttoxeter on the 17th of May, concerning the death of Thomas Henry Nash, a child nine weeks old, and the verdict of the jury that death was attributable to pyæmia or blood poisoning from vaccination?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir W. FOSTER,): The Local Government Board have obtained copies of the depositions taken at the inquest, and have sent them to the Vaccination Commissioners, whose practice it is to investigate any case of the kind referred to. The verdict of the jury was that Thomas Henry Nash
  "did die from pyærnia, after 24th day of vaccination, and, from the medical evidence, such pyæmia would most probably arise from the vaccination having run together and caused much matter and inflammation."
  DR. MACGREGOR: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that blood poisoning may arise from any surgical operation, however skilfully performed?
  SIR W. FOSTER: Yes, Sir; any slight abrasion of the skin may lead to pyæmia equally with vaccination.

  COALING ARRANGEMENTS AT KEYHAM.
  MR. FORWOOD: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty if the plans for the new coaling arrangements at Keyham have been completed; and if he will arrange for their being made accessible to Members of Parliament to inspect before the Naval Works Vote is submitted to the Committee of the House?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): The plans of the new coaling arrangements at Keyham are in abeyance, pending the consideration of the new scheme for the extension of the dockyard, which may involve some modification of the plans in question.

  WAR OFFICE CONTRACTS.
  MR. FORWOOD: I beg to ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office if the War Office, before sending invitations to persons to tender for war material, adopt measures to ascertain the competency of the persons so invited to execute the work in a satisfactory and efficient manner, and whether it is the practice of the Department to accept the tender which is the lowest as regards price from one of the selected firms, provided in other respects it complies with the form of tender and specifications?
  THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE WAR OFFICE (MR. WOODALL,): Full inquiries are made as to a firm first applying for a contract; and, if their price is satisfactory, trial orders are generally given, increasing in amount until the firm has approved itself equal to the requirements of a large contract. It is the practice to accept, from among approved firms, the tender of the firm which offers at the lowest price, provided the rate of delivery is satisfactory; but the Secretary of State reserves to himself liberty to divide the order if he thinks it desirable to keep two or more firms at work. In the case also of exceptional warlike stores, on the efficiency of which much may depend, the experience in the past with the firms which compete is taken into account as well as the price.

  POLYNESIAN LABOUR IN QUEENSLAND.
  MR. S. SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the statements of the Government Agent at Brisbane, published in the recent correspondence relating to Polynesian labour in the Colony of Queensland, wherein are contained statements against the missionaries; whether his attention has been drawn to a letter which appeared in the Westminster Gazette, on 26th May, from Mr. A. K. Langridge, the representative in this country of the

  321
  leading missionary referred to, in which he refutes the alleged charges, and gives explanation of the matters which he states to have been misrepresented by the Government Agent; and whether the Government will make inquiry into the truth of these charges brought by their Agent against the missionaries?
  MR. S. BUXTON: I am aware of the statements made by the Government Agent, and I have seen the letter from Mr. Langridge. I am glad to have seen Mr. Langridge's letter, and I trust it will be found that the Government Agent—who I may observe is the Agent of the Colonial Government and not of Her Majesty's Government—has been mistaken as to the other facts, as well as the reported abandonment of their posts by two missionaries. Copies of Mr. Lang-ridge's letter will be sent to the Governor of Queensland and to the High Commissioner, and Mr. Langridge's letter and their replies shall he published in the next Paper given to Parliament.

  THE CASE OF MR. DUNFORD
  MR. THEOBALD: I beg to ask the Postmaster General the number of clerks on the staff of the Central Telegraph Office who were appointed before Mr. Dunford; whether the officer who was pensioned from the Controller's Office was an Assistant Superintendent; why Mr. Dunford was not made an Assistant Superintendent; what were the duties performed by the pensioned officer that could not be equally and satisfactorily performed by clerks years senior to Mr. Dunford; and whether the Controller claims to totally disregard seniority and set aside the ordinary tests of fitness?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): The number of telegraphists now in the office who were appointed before Mr. Dunford is 605. The answer to the second, third, and fourth questions is that the officer pensioned from the Controller's Office held the rank of Assistant Superintendent, and there is no intention of tilling up his vacancy at present. The fifth question implies that promotions in the Controller's Office are made by the Controller. This is not the case. I am alone responsible for all promotions.

  GORTAVEHA NATIONAL SCHOOL.
  MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that, upon the night of the 22nd May, the National school at Gortaveha, County Clare, was broken into, as also the presses therein, and that a large number of books and maps were destroyed: has any person been arrested in respect of this outrage; and have the local police any clue to the perpetrators?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): It is a fact that on the night of the 22nd May the National school in question was broken into and a number of books and maps destroyed. No arrest has been made, but the police, who have strong suspicions as to the perpetrators, are investigating the matter.

  FLAGTOWN NATIONAL SCHOOL.
  MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is he aware that upon the 22nd of April last the manager of the National school at Flagtown, County Clare, gave notices of dismissal to both the teachers; and was there any ground of complaint against these teachers or either of them: and, if not, will the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland hold an inquiry upon the subject with the view to their re-instatement?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am sorry I cannot answer this question, but the Commissioners of National Education inform me that they cannot identify this school. They are not acquainted with it.

  THE POLICE AND THE ROYAL WEDDING.
  MR. JAMES STUART: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the fact that the Metropolitan Police received three days extra leave on the occasions of the official visit of the Shah of Persia, of the celebration of Her Majesty's Jubilee, and of the recent visit of the German Emperor, whether he will grant a similar extra leave to members of the Force during the present year, in connection with the opening of the Im-

  323
  perial Institute and the forthcoming Royal marriage?
  MR. ASQUITH: It would be premature to come to any decision upon this subject at the present moment, but the matter will be considered when the proper time arrives.

  PRESTON GRANGE COLLIERY AND FIREBRICK WORKS, EAST LOTHIAN.
  MR. A. C. MORTON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the Preston Grange Colliery and Firebrick Works, East Lothian, have been ruined and closed by the royalties and wayleaves taken by the Crown and others; whether he is aware that about 250 workmen have been thrown out of employment thereby; and whether he will reduce the royalties in the interests of the trade and business of the country?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have been in communication with the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and with the Official Liquidator of the Company, and am satisfied that, so far as the Crown is concerned, the failure of the Company is not in any way due to the payment of royalties. The royalty is a small one, and the average for the last seven years has been equivalent to about 2½d. per ton. The total amount paid to the Crown since 1875 has been about £5,100. The debts of the Company amount to £63,000.

  PRECAUTIONS AGAINST CHOLERA.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the fact that the Council of the Association of Municipal Corporations, representing nearly every Municipal Corporation in the Kingdom, passed a resolution at their last meeting expressing the opinion that the expenses incurred by a Local Authority in taking special precautions to prevent the introduction of cholera should be defrayed out of the Imperial Exchequer; if he is prepared to re-consider his refusal to render such assistance to Local Authorities out of the Imperial Exchequer for the above purposes; and whether, in the alternative, the Government will afford the House an early opportunity of discussing this subject?
  MR. HENEAGE: I beg, at the same time, to ask the right
  324
  hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that the Council of the Association of Municipal Corporations have passed a resolution to the effect that, in their opinion, the expenses incurred by a Local Authority in taking special precautions to prevent the introduction of cholera should be defrayed out of the Imperial Exchequer; and what steps have been taken to provide the Seaport Sanitary Authorities with hospital ships free of charge by the Admiralty?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: When a deputation came to see me on behalf of the Ports asking me to undertake the payment for precautions against cholera out of Imperial funds, I stated that the demand would certainly be made not on behalf of the Ports alone, but of all Municipal Authorities. This is what has happened, as I predicted. I have nothing to add to what I stated to the deputation.
  MR. HENEAGE: My right hon. Friend has not answered the second part of my question.
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am in communication with the Admiralty on the subject, and I hope that it may be found possible to do something in the matter.
  MR. HENEAGE: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the conditions under which the Admiralty propose to lend hulks? Is it possible for Local Bodies to accept them? Can he do anything in that direction?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have not seen the conditions. I will do what I can to press the matter on the attention of the Admiralty.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER: Will the right hon. Gentleman say if the Government will afford the House an early opportunity of discussing this question?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: There is one thing which the Government very much want, and that is money; but there is another thing which they want still more, and that is time.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER: I beg to give notice that I will take the earliest opportunity of calling attention to the subject. I now beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what steps his Department have taken, or are taking, by way of precaution against any importation of cholera into this country?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): During the outbreak of cholera last autumn, and subsequently, the Local Government Board have carefully considered all practicable precautions against the introduction of the disease into this country. There will be no relaxation in the action of the medical staff of the Local Government Board, and I am quite satisfied that they are doing everything' that is within their power to safeguard the health of the country.
  MR. H. S. FOSTER: Have any recommendations been made to the Port Sanitary Authorities as to the steps they should take to prevent an outbreak of cholera?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Medical Inspectors have been making examinations, and advising all the Port Sanitary Authorities during the past few months.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: When the right hon. Gentleman says that the Medical Officers are doing all that can be done, does he mean that they are doing nothing whatever except to recommend stops to be taken at the expense of the Local Authorities?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: That is an argumentative question.

  THE WEST COAST OF SCOTLAND FISHERIES.
  MR. BIRKMYRE (&c): I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that complaints have been made that the protection afforded to fishermen on the West Coast of Scotland against the depredations of the steam trawling vessels is inadequate; will he be prepared to furnish a Report of the watching operations of the sea police boats for the month of May; and whether he would sanction the enrolment of selected fishermen as special constables for fishery service, their remuneration to be paid from fines exigible on conviction from the offenders?
  MR. A. C. MORTON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the last Report of the Fishery Board for Scotland states that at the present day the Vigilant, which is an old sailing cruiser, is not worth the money which she costs to keep up, and that she
  326
  should be superseded by a steam vessel; and whether it is the intention of the Scottish Office to remove this sailing ship: and, if not, will he explain on what grounds?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Government will have to consider, before next year's Estimates, the advisability of providing, in the place of the Vigilant, a steam launch such as is owned by the Fishery Board of the County of Lancaster for similar services as those performed by the Vigilant.

  GREENWICH AGE PENSIONS.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has had under his consideration the Report of a Committee of the House of Commons, presented last year, upon the subject of the Greenwich Age Pensions; and, if so, whether he has arrived at any decision in reference thereto?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I must ask for more notice of this question.
  MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN: I will put it down for Monday.

  INSOLVENT IRISH UNIONS.
  MR. ROSS: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what Poor Law Unions in Ireland are in an insolvent condition; and in how many of these cases have the Boards of Guardians been dissolved, and paid officials appointed to act in their stead?
  MR. J. MORLEY: If by the expression "Poor Law Unions in an insolvent condition" the hon. Member means Unions in which the liabilities of the Guardians are at present in excess of their liabilities, I have to say I am informed by the Local Government Board that it would not be possible for them to state what Unions are in that position at this moment, as very few of the accounts for the six months ending in March last have been audited. Only one Union is at present under the management of Vice Guardians.
  MR. ROSS: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to giving the names of the Unions whose cheques their bankers have refused to honour? That is what I want to know.
  MR. J. MORLEY: Personally, I have no objection. I will inquire of the

  327
  Local Government Board if the information can be obtained.
  MR. BODKIN: Is it calculated to restore the solvency of a Union to dismiss the representatives of the ratepayers, who gave their services gratuitously, in order to employ officials who have no knowledge of the district, and have to be paid out of the rates?
  MR. SEXTON: Was the appointment of Vice Guardians in the Tralee Union due to the insolvency of that Union?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot answer that, but I understand that Union is now in a fairly satisfactory condition.
  MR. ROSS: Is it not a fact that in every case in which Vice Guardians have been appointed instead of elected Guardians to manage insolvent Unions, that insolvency has ceased to exist?
  MR. J. MORLEYwas understood to reply that usually the Vice Guardians did place the Union finances on a sounder footing.

  INCOME TAX REBATES.
  MR. DIGBY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the Surveyors and Collectors of Taxes have the sanction of the Government in insisting on the payment in full of Income Tax without allowing for the rebate in respect of allowances and losses incident to the agricultural depression, thus necessitating the inconvenience and trouble of claiming a return of the proportion to which the Government were really not entitled?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I must ask for longer notice of this question; it was only put down last night.
  MR. DIGBY: Friday.

  SMOKE NUISANCE (METROPOLIS) BILL.
  MR. BURNIE: I bog to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to a case in the High Court of Justice on the 9th ultimo, "Cowper v. Lord Stratheden and Campbell," in the course of the hearing of which it transpired that the late Lord Stratheden and Campbell had left the control of his Smoke Nuisance (Metropolis) Bill to the Duke of Westminster; and whether he will take any steps with the view to the passing of such Bill into
  328
  law; or if he will consider what other measures can be adopted for lessening the smoke nuisance in Loudon?
  MR. H.H. FOWLER: In the Report of the case to which the hon. Member refers it is stated that in the will of the late Lord Stratheden and Campbell there is a clause to the following effect:—
  "The control of my Bill on smoke abatement, which has been sanctioned by the House of Lords and gone since through accurate revision, I venture to leave to the Duke of Westminster and his coadjutors."
  I have no further information with reference to this bequest. I cannot undertake to bring in a Bill during the present Session for dealing with the smoke nuisance.

  CHOLERA ABROAD.
  MR. HENEAGE: I bog to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have received any reliable information as to the re-appearance of cholera at Hamburg and other places having trade relations with British seaports; and, if so, what steps have been taken by the Foreign Office to insure special precautions being taken by the Local Authorities in this country?
  SIR E. GREY: The only official information we have about cholera at Hamburg is that there has been one case, which ended fatally on the 27th of May, but there is good reason to believe that the origin of this case is not known, that it was isolated, and that there has been nothing else of a suspicious character. We have also heard of the existence of cholera in Brittany, but not to any extent, which deserves the name of epidemic. Any instructions as to precautions to be taken in this country are issued by the Local Government Board.

  THE BEHRING SEA FISHERIES.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, previously to making the agreement with Russia, as to the western portion of the Behring Sea (embodied in Lord Rosebery's Despatch of 3rd May, and Mr. Chichkine's reply thereto of 22nd May, 1893), which provides that British subjects shall be forbidden to exercise their right peaceably to navigate and to fish the high seas, and shall be made liable to search and capture

  329
  by Russian cruisers, Her Majesty's Government have obtained any reparation for or any sufficient explanation of the seizure by Russian cruisers, in July last, of six British vessels on the high seas, and the captivity and inhuman treatment of their crews?
  SIR E. GREY: This matter has been referred by the Russian Government to a Special Commission, and it is understood that they have now made their Report, and that a communication will shortly be received from the Russian Government on the subject. The present Provisional Agreement with Russia was made expressly without prejudice to the rights of vessels, which were seized last year by Russian cruisers, and I must also point out that the present agreement is bi-lateral and not uni-lateral as the hon. Member seems to suppose.
  In reply to a further question by Mr. Gibson Bowles,
  SIR E. GREY: The answer of the Russian Government has not yet been received; it was therefore distinctly stated that nothing in the Agreement was to prejudice the rights of British vessels seized last year.

  THE EAST NOTTINGHAM ELECTION.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIE: I beg to ask the Solicitor General whether his attention has been called to an article in The Pall Mall Gazette of 5th June, in which the Postmaster General is alleged to have won the seat by means of bribery; and whether, in the interests of purity of election, he will cause the charges therein made to be fully investigated?
  MR. ASQUITHanswered the question in the absence of the Solicitor General. He said: Parliament has provided a special procedure for the investigation of all matters relating to the conduct of elections. I understand that some months after the General Election an application to the Court was made by the defeated candidate, Mr. Finch-Hatton, based on allegations similar to those contained in the newspaper referred to, to re-open the Petition in East Nottingham, and that the Court made an order that, subject to notice being served on the sitting Member, the time for payment of the deposit should be enlarged. I understand that no such notice was served, and no
  330
  further action was taken. In these circumstances, I do not think that anything has occurred which calls upon the Public Prosecutor to take action in the matter.
  MR. SEXTON: May I ask whether the appearance of an article in a newspaper is sufficient justification for a Member of the House putting a question in this form. Does it entitle him to make a charge in this form against a Member of the Government or any hon. Member of the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: Questions are repeatedly put from statements which appear in newspapers. The hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, actuated by honourable motives in putting the question; and I cannot say that the question itself is out of Order, as the statement has appeared in print.
  MR. T. M. HEALY): Seeing that there is a legal way of dealing with these matters and resort was not had to it, is a Member of this House entitled to put, in the form of a question, any charge a newspaper may make? I would urge that he is not.
  MR. SPEAKER: Of course, with that I entirely agree. But, the statement having been made in the newspaper, it is competent to the hon. Gentleman to put a question with reference to it. But it is quite irregular to re-open a question which has practically been settled.
  MR. DARLING: Is it not perfectly open to the right hon. Gentleman to take proceedings in the same way as others of Her Majesty's subjects?
  MR. ASQUITH: That is a question which the hon. Member is quite as capable of answering as I am.
  MR. KEIR-HARDIE: May I ask the Postmaster General whether he will indict the newspaper in question for a breach of Privilege?
  MR. SPEAKER: That is entirely a question for the right hon. Gentleman.

  FRANCE AND THE CYPRUS TRIBUTE.
  MR. PIERPOINT: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the whole or any part of the guarantee of France towards the payment of the interest on the Turkish Loan of 1855 is paid out of the Cyprus tribute; what is the amount, if any, and what is the date of the first payment; and whether there is any agreement or

  331
  implied agreement with France as to any further payments out of the tribute?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: England and France are joint guarantors of the loan of 1855, the interest on which is now paid out of the tribute from the Island of Cyprus. Since 1882 no payment to Franco has been made; no occasion has arisen for such payment, and none is likely to arise.
  MR. PIERPOINT: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered my question as to the date of the first payment?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I have stated I that in 1882 was the first and only payment to France. No payment can arise if the interest is paid; and the interest is paid out of the tribute.
  MR. PIERPOINT: On account of interest, year by year?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: No payment can be made if the interest is paid, and the interest is paid out of the tribute. The payment of 1882 was merely a settlement with France of a certain sum paid by her as the guarantor, before the Cyprus tribute was applied to the payment of the interest.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: May I ask whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be willing to give a Return as to the profit which the British Government has derived from the revenues of Cyprus, which Lord Knutsford stated to be £101,000 a year?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: If the hon. Member wants to know the amount of profit which the British Government has derived from the revenues of Cyprus, he is inquiring about a minus quantity; but if his object is to know whether the whole Cyprus tribute goes to payment of the interest on the loan, I may tell him that it does not. There is a small margin after payment of the interest, and that margin goes towards the Sinking Fund.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman give a Return of the amount of money which is paid out of the Cyprus tribute to the English Exchequer to relieve it of its obligation to pay the Guaranteed Loan?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I think the hon. Gentleman had better put the question on the Paper, and I will consider it. I do not think he quite apprehends
  332
  the question, or he would not talk of money going into the English Exchequer.

  SIR HUSSEY VIVIAN'S PEERAGE.
  SIR CHARLES DALRYMPLE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether it is in accordance with custom that an hon. Member of this House should take part in the proceedings of the House by voting in Divisions, after the announcement has been made that Her Majesty has been pleased to confer upon him the dignity of a Peerage of the United Kingdom?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): When it is stated that the Queen has conferred a Peerage on a certain person, the meaning is, not that that person is a Peer or that we have made him one; but it means that Her Majesty has expressed her pleasure that proper steps should be taken to bring about his being made a Peer. In the present case there cannot be the smallest doubt about the matter that by usage and by law the presumption that the hon. Gentleman is debarred from voting in this House is a clear and even a gross error. The only authority to which I have had the opportunity of referring on the point is Sir T. Erskine May, who says—
  "It a Member be created a Peer it is often the practice to move the New Writ when he has kissed hands, but sometimes not until the patent has been made out or the recepi endorsed."
  I am not aware whether Sir Erskine May meant to convey, or whether, if he did, he was right in conveying, that the kissing of hands uniformly accompanies the conferring of the Peerage. I have doubt about that, but there is one step which invariably precedes it, and that is the gazetting of the person who is to be made a Peer. Sir Hussey Vivian has not boon gazetted, and there is not the slightest pretence for supposing that his status as a Member of this House is in any degree affected, or that his constituents ought to be prematurely deprived of the advantage of being represented by a gentleman of so much experience and in possession of their confidence. Sir Erskine May has not said anything with regard to gazetting; but there is the case of Lord Eddisbury,

  333
  who sat until May 15, 1848, although his creation had appeared in The Gazette on May 9.
  MR. THEOBALD: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to the last case, which happened in 1848, I would like to know what is the usual etiquette in such cases?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I cannot say that the case to which I have referred is the last case, and I do not know what is the usual practice in these cases. The Government can make any amount of inquiry as regards this particular case, but there is not the slightest shadow of ground for supposing that there is any doubt about the matter.
  SIR C. DALRYMPLE: I was not so foolish as to suggest that the hon. Baronet was disqualified from voting. I simply desired to know whether it is customary for an hon. Member to take part in Divisions of the House after the announcement has been made that Her Majesty has conferred a Peerage upon him?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am not aware that there is any custom which should have dictated any difference in the position of my hon. Friend.

  RUSSIA AND THE BEHRING SEA.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury when Her Majesty's Government propose to introduce a Bill to empower them to give effect to the Agreement with Russia made last month, that British subjects shall be prohibited from fishing on the high seas in the vicinity, but outside the territorial limits, of the Russian coasts and islands of the Behring Sea; whether, on the introduction of such a Bill, they will afford due facilities for its discussion; and whether Her Majesty's Government propose in the meantime to issue orders to English cruisers themselves to capture, or to permit Russian cruisers to capture, any British vessels on the high seas in this part of the world?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Such a Bill will be introduced, but with regard to procedure it is premature to enter upon the subject.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: May I direct the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the last part of the question, and ask whether Her Majesty's
  334
  Government intend to allow Russian vessels to capture English vessels?
  SIR E. GREY: With regard to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am desired to state that the object of the Agreement with Russia is to lay down certain prohibited zones, within which Her Majesty's Government will waive the right which they have outside territorial waters to object to the prohibition of British vessels sealing. It is, therefore, desirable that the Agreement should be arrived at as soon as possible.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is the House to understand that before the Agreement has been confirmed by Parliament Her Majesty's Government propose to allow the Russian Government to seize English vessels on the high seas?
  SIR E. GREY: The right to object to seizure on the high seas is one which Her Majesty's Government are entitled to decide whether they will exercise or not. The object of this Agreement is to come to an understanding, as regards sealing vessels, that that right of objection shall not be raised within the limits of certain prohibited zones.

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

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 5th June.]
    [FOURTEENTH NIGHT.]
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Legislative Authority.
    Clause 3 (Exceptions from powers of Irish Legislature.)
    MR. BUTCHERsaid, he desired to move, as an Amendment, the insertion in the 6th sub-section, after "treason-felony," of the words "conspiracy and combination," this referring, of course, to such conspiracy and such combination as was criminal. This question of the Law of Conspiracy was one of extreme importance, inasmuch as it affected in a very intimate manner one of the most important social discoveries of modern times—namely, the principle of combination, which had been applied to labour and trade disputes, and, in Ireland especially, to agrarian difficulties. There

    335
    had always been great difficulty and considerable delicacy in dealing with the subject. The object of the law ought to be to reconcile the interests of the individual on the one hand with the interests of certain classes of the public on the other. The subject should be considered by a Legislature in which all classes would be fairly and impartially represented. He did not say there should be no change in the law; but if they were to have an adequate protection of the minority in Ireland they must have that change sanctioned by the Imperial Parliament. And if the making of a law upon this subject was difficult and delicate, so was its administration. English Judges as well as Irish Judges had found that to be the case. If his Amendment were accepted the administration of the law would be placed in the hands of two Exchequer Judges, who would be appointed by the Imperial Parliament. That would be a great advantage, not only to the Irish Judges who might be called upon to administer the law, but to the public who would be concerned to see that it was properly administered. He hoped he would not receive from the Government the stereotyped answer, that they desired to leave to the Irish Legislature matters exclusively Irish. This Law of Conspiracy was not an exclusively Irish matter, and any alteration in it would affect Her Majesty's subjects, whether resident in England, in Scotland, or in Ireland; it would affect all those who had trade or other dealings with Ireland. It was essentially an Imperial matter that steps should be taken to insure that equal justice was meted out to all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, and in this particular ease it appeared to him that there were certain special grounds which made it eminently desirable that the subject should be reserved for the Imperial Legislature. Let them consider who were the men who would wield the powers given to the Irish Legislature, and how they were likely to wield them. He desired as far as possible to avoid personalities; but this was a matter on which it was impossible entirely to exclude the personal element from their consideration. The Nationalist Leaders were not ignorant of the Law of Conspiracy; the complaint was that they knew a great deal too much about it.
    336
    Many of them had been engaged in conspiracies which had been held to be criminal, and some of them had been convicted. He would not detain the Committee by going through a list of the conspiracies. Not very long ago several Members of the Nationalist Party were found by a competent tribunal to have been engaged in a conspiracy to obtain the independence of Ireland. That was not a purely Irish matter. A large number of them were also found to have been engaged in a conspiracy, by means of coercion and intimidation, to promote an agitation against agrarian rents with the object of expelling the "English garrison." That, again, was not a conspiracy which dealt with a purely Irish matter. Members of the Irish Party had been proved by the Law Courts in Ireland to have been guilty of conspiracy in connection with the somewhat notorious Plan of Campaign. That was an organisation which had brought great misery and disaster to Ireland, and they would undertake a serious responsibility if they allowed its authors to alter the law on so vital a subject. Then there was the conspiracy of boycotting, which had been the cause of the direst disaster and deepest misery to Ireland. It had been characterised by the most cowardly and detestable crimes; it had been accompanied by intimidation, and it had been found to be illegal, not only by Irish Judges, but by an English Judge, and men had been convicted of that charge by an English jury. If these methods had been employed in Ireland in the past, what could they reasonably look for in the future? Had the Nationalists abandoned their former methods? Had they repudiated their past? He should look with interest to see whether any Nationalist Member expressed contrition for his action in connection with conspiracies in Ireland in the past.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is not speaking to the Amendment.
    MR. BUTCHERsaid, he, of course, bowed to the ruling of the Chairman, and he would simply explain that he was dealing with the probable future of Ireland. He did not mean to say the Irish Parliament would do nothing but evil; but, on the other hand, he was far from asserting they would do nothing but good. He thought he had said

    337
    enough to show that the minority in Ireland had some grounds for saying that an Irish Legislature, composed, as it necessarily must be, of the Representatives of the farmers and labourers, was not a proper body to be entrusted with powers to deal with matters of conspiracy. In the past conspiracies in Ireland had been almost wholly agrarian; and probably the first action of the new Irish Legislature would be to legalise the Plan of Campaign and to alter the law affecting boycotting.
    MR. PHILIPPS: Is the hon. Member now in Order, Sir?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot say the hon. Member is at the present time out of Order; but he is trenching very closely upon the ruling I gave just now.
    MR. BUTCHERsaid, he desired to urge on the Committee that he had advanced a special reason in the case of Ireland why it was not safe to entrust the proposed Irish Legislature with the powers which he sought to reserve. They were told by the Government that they desired, so far as they could, to protect the loyal minority in Ireland; that loyal minority had fears on this subject, which he submitted were not unfounded, and he trusted the Government would not fall back upon the plea generally put forward and say these fears were utterly idle and unreasonable. He would ask the Government to allay those fears by inserting in the Bill words which would prevent the Irish Legislature from dealing with the law of criminal conspiracy and combination.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 6, after the words "treason-felony," to insert the words "criminal conspiracy and combination."—(Mr. Butcher.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): I think, Sir, a very few words from me will dispose of this Amendment. The interpretation put upon the clause by the hon. Member and his irrelevancy of argument would relieve me of any attempt to deal with his speech. He began by saying he would not indulge in charges against Irish Members, and then proceeded to indulge in them.
    MR. BUTCHER: I said I would endeavour to avoid personalities, but that it was impossible wholly to avoid the personal element in this matter.
    MR. J. MORLEY: His argument was not relevant. I do not mean to say that all the hon. and learned Gentleman has said would not be relevant to the 2nd clause; but the Committee has agreed to erect a Legislature to be responsible for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland, and the question raised by the Amendment is whether the power to deal with the law of criminal conspiracy and combination should be excepted. The answer is very simple and very obvious. Nobody could devise a surer means of promoting friction between England and Ireland than to throw upon the Imperial Parliament the duty of making laws upon this difficult, embarrassing, and complicated subject. It would bring the whole fabric to the ground. It would be folly to expect, the Irish Legislature or Executive to be responsible for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland if they are to be debarred from making any alterations in the laws of criminal conspiracy or combination, even if new forms of conspiracy and combination should arise. One more remark, and that is as to the ridiculous position in which the Committee would be placed if it should prohibit the Irish Parliament from doing anything to repress criminal conspiracy and combination, which is sufficient to show the absurdity of the Amendment.
    MR. ROSSsaid, it was no answer to the Amendment to say that it was absurd and ridiculous, without adducing a word of argument or giving a serious or proper reason. He would like to know what right the Government had to give such an answer, and he would put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the supporters of the Amendment were entitled to some better reply than had been given. He would like to know on what ground any reservations at all were made in the Bill? The loyal minority asserted that, if any subect ought to be reserved, it certainly was the law of conspiracy and combination. The loyal minority entertained two fears. In the first place, that the Irish Legislature might declare certain things to be lawful which were now unlawful; and, in the second ease, that certain things

    339
    might be declared unlawful which were now perfectly lawful. Having regard to the grave history of the country, it was particularly important to deprive the Irish Legislature of this power. The smallest alteration in the Law of Conspiracy might render the obtaining of rents impossible. If the Plan of Campaign were declared to be a lawful combination, where would the payment of rent be? If that happened there would be no payment of rent over a large portion of Ireland. It was not only agrarian matters they had to deal with, however, for, as his hon. and learned Friend the Mover of the Amendment had pointed out, there were other questions that would most certainly arise. He took no imaginary case, but a case that actually occurred in the past—the case of boycotting a railway at Carrick-macross. There was a house in the town occupied by a certain Magistrate, and from that house he was evicted. The station-master took the house, and immediately the railway was placed under a boycott—cars were not allowed to attend trains, people dare not travel by them, carts could not go near the place with goods, and social order was disorganised, and the town in a state of turmoil until five or six of the ringleaders were sentenced to short terms of imprisonment, and then this system of tyranny was at an end. If the Law of Conspiracy was to be left to the Irish Legislature they might have a recurrence of all this. It was right he should remind the House of this boycotting of the railway, for this insane method of conspiracy was devised by Irish Members. The Irish Members, in an Irish Parliament, were to declare what was lawful and what unlawful. Would they declare acts of that sort unlawful? Again, let them take the Institution of Freemasonry in Ireland. Was it to be declared unlawful? As it was, it was opposed and denounced by the Roman Catholic Church; every Catholic in Ireland was enjoined not to support it, even to the extent of assisting its charities at a bazaar, for they remembered that the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin (Dr. Walsh) told them that any Catholic who attended it was, ipso facto, excommunicated. By the smallest alteration of the Law of Conspiracy that great Society might be rendered unlawful.
    340
    It held large property in Ireland, and, of course, it would be possible to do as he suggested, and so prevent the Society from holding property. These were the reasons that induced him to come to the conclusion that, if any power was to be reserved from the cognisance of the Irish Parliament, it was that of dealing with the law of criminal conspiracy and combination. The Chief Secretary had given no answer to the argument of his hon. and learned Friend; and he (Mr. Ross) respectfully submitted that the reasons now brought forward should show the Government the necessity of accepting the Amendment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I honestly confess, Mr. Mellor, that I am surprised at the manner in which this Amendment has been received by the Government. I had not thought that the Government were likely to accept the Amendment in opposition to the wishes of their Irish allies; but I had thought they would, at all events, treat the matter seriously. The Chief Secretary has attempted to pooh-pooh the Amendment as if it were something absurd. [Cheers.] I understand from those cheers that the Chief Secretary's mode of treating the Amendment is accepted and endorsed by hon. Members opposite. Have those hon. Members any recollection of the agrarian history of Ireland during the last 10 years? Are they aware that, by means of illegal conspiracies, established under the authority of hon. Gentlemen whom the Government propose to make supreme in Ireland, the whole political and agrarian controversy has been carried on for many years? Are they aware that by means of these illegal conspiracies private individuals were despoiled of their goods, infinite suffering was caused to unoffending, helpless persons, and the whole of society was disorganised in many counties in Ireland? To hand over the government of Ireland to persons who thought these conspiracies were legitimate methods of Party warfare and to allow them to frame a new Law of Conspiracy would be nothing else than to surrender into their hands their opponents, bound and help-less. Is not that a serious matter? The Chief Secretary argued that because a clause has been passed granting to the Irish Legislature power to make laws for the peace, order, and good govern-

    341
    ment of Ireland, no Amendment can be accepted having reference to peace, order, and good government. But that, contention cannot prevail, for the Government have themselves already made reservations. The subject of treason and treason-felony, for example, has been deliberately excepted by the Government from the criminal subjects to be dealt with legislatively by the Irish Assembly. This question is important to the United Kingdom as well as to Ireland, because the social order of any part of the Kingdom can never be a matter of indifference to the rest of the country. The Government apparently propose to give the Nationalist Party the power of establishing New Tipperaries over the whole of Ireland. If the originators and architects of New Tipperary were gentlemen of no political weight—if they were persons whose actions were denounced by the leaders of Irish opinion, there would be some justification for the opposition of the Government to this Amendment. But to entrust the manipulation of the Law of Criminal Conspiracy to persons who have offended against that very law is not to deal honestly and fairly by the innocent subjects of Her Majesty, whose property, whose happiness, and, in some cases, whose lives will be affected by the methods in favour with hon. Gentlemen whom the Government are going to make supreme in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman opposite says that if we withdraw from the Irish Assembly the power of dealing with the Law of Criminal Conspiracy, friction will result between England and Ireland. But will not still greater friction be caused if the Amendment is not agreed to? Supposing the Irish Legislature were to make alterations in the Law of Conspiracy for the purpose of legalising the Plan of Campaign, and supposing that the Lord Lieutenant were to veto those alterations, would there not be more friction than might arise from our preventing the Irish Legislature from dealing with the subject at all? Of all the methods of controlling the Irish Legislature the veto is the method that will cause the most friction; and if it is probable that certain subjects will not be treated properly in the legislation of the Irish Assembly, it is our duty, in the interests of peace and order, to take care that
    342
    legislation on these subjects shall not be possible. To the people of this country nothing has seemed more shocking in this Home Rule legislation than the fact that, by it, the Government are entrusting the lives and the property of the minority in Ireland to gentlemen who, whatever their patriotic views may be, have proved to the public that their views upon land questions are not in harmony with the opinions habitually held in this country. The ordinary public, no doubt, realise acutely the injury which they believe will be done to the Empire by this Separatist measure; but perhaps what chiefly causes them to distrust the policy of the Government is the conduct of Irish politicians during the last 10 or 15 years. They cannot understand how the Government can think of entrusting to those gentlemen the formation and administration of the Criminal Law of Ireland. Yet the Government pooh-pooh an Amendment proposed with the object of withdrawing from the Irish Legislature powers which, there is every reason to believe, will, if granted, be abused. It may be that hon. Members below the Gangway, when they have obtained Home Rule, will cease to act in accordance with the principles which have hitherto ruled their policy, and will be willing to punish persons engaged in criminal agrarian conspiracies. But, supposing that they should evince such willingness, will they be allowed to change their policy? They depend for their position on the votes of the small farmers in the South and West, and they will not be able to act in opposition to the lessons which they have taught their constituents, the majority of whom will want them to carry out the views they have been advocating in the past. How will they be able to resist a Bill introduced for legalising the Plan of Campaign? They cannot do it: their speeches in this House and in Ireland will rise up in evidence against them. Whatever their wishes may be, the power of their past over their present would be so overwhelming in such circumstances that they could not by any possibility resist a change having for its object the modification of the Law of Conspiracy in a manner that would put the whole of the landed property in Ireland under the control of the Land League. I desire to say that I regard the Amendment as a

    343
    most important one; indeed, I doubt whether any Amendment of greater importance will be moved during the whole progress of the Bill through the Committee, and I ask the Government to treat it with seriousness.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): Mr. Mellor, if hon. Gentlemen from Ireland who sit below the Gangway possess the fascinating power over the people of this country which the right hon. Gentleman seems to ascribe to them, no one has done more to assist them to acquire that abnormal power than the right hon. Gentleman and his friends by their policy and utterances.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My argument was not that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway would have undue power over the people of Ireland, but that the people of Ireland would prove too strong for hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: What we say is, that if hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway should get dangerous, and if they have such a power over the people of Ireland that the people of Ireland will return them mechanically, so to speak, to the Irish Legislature, there would be no person who would have done so much to maintain those hon. Members in an abnormal position of power as the right hon. Gentleman himself. We do not wish to give any abnormal power to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. How many of them will be returned under this Bill I cannot undertake to say; but I am quite certain that more of them will be returned in proportion as the Irish people listen to the speeches delivered by the right hon. Gentleman. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman is really an indictment against the people of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has been rather complimentary to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway than otherwise, for he says that if they exert themselves in a right sense, the power will be taken out of their hands and given to worse men. Who will give the power to worse men? The people of Ireland. Archbishop Walsh cannot do it. On a recent occasion Archbishop Walsh proposed bi-metallism, but his proposal did not meet with much success. However that may be, the right hon. Gentleman thinks that there are others in Ireland who are
    344
    more dangerous and worse than hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. The only persons who are to have power under this Bill to substitute worse men for hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are the masses of the Irish people; and it therefore follows that the masses of the Irish people are the victims of incurable corruption. Do not let the right hon. Gentleman conceal from himself the fact that it is the mass of the Irish people with whom he proposes to carry on a political conflict, or what may be called, not in a sanguinary sense, a civil war. The contention of the right hon. Gentleman is, that there is some plan or other which will involve judicial action under the Law of Conspiracy against the liberty of some portion of the Irish people. Well, I have not heard, either from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway or from anyone connected with Ireland, that there is any disposition to have in Ireland a Law of Conspiracy different from the Law of Conspiracy in England. The complaint of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway has always been that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. A. J. Balfour) has introduced special laws for Ireland, and their demand has been that one Law of Conspiracy should prevail throughout the whole of the three Kingdoms. The right hon. Gentleman concocted another Law of Conspiracy, setting up new offences.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Yes. Remember this is a matter of history.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: No.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman will not allow it is history, I myself heard the Attorney General for Ireland declare that, besides the categorical offences dealt with in the Crimes Bill, there were other offences dealt with in the Bill; and when the question was afterwards referred to the Irish Attorney General himself he did not deny it. I feel quite convinced that Parliament will deal with the question of conspiracy itself, so as to reduce the Law of Conspiracy in Ireland to what it is in England; but, at the same time, I cannot admit that the Law of Conspiracy ought to be withheld from the Irish nation. It is absolutely and entirely an Irish question—a question of Irish domestic legislation. The purpose of this Bill is to give to

    345
    Ireland the control of her own domestic affairs. This, as I have said, is strictly an internal and domestic question. If the right hon. Gentleman should succeed in withholding from Ireland these internal matters he would insure the revival of a series of Irish Debates in this House after the Irish Legislature had been set up. The question is—are you going to constitute an Irish Legislature or not? If you are going to constitute an Irish Legislature, and to let it pass laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland, can you adopt a more suicidal policy, even from your own point of view, than to take out of the scope of that Legislature laws which are necessarily part and parcel of the Local Government of Ireland?
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, the Amendment was one that vitally affected those whom he represented in Parliament. It appeared to him that some of the arguments used by the Prime Minister were the strongest possible reasons in favour of the Amendment. The Prime Minister said that if such a provision as this were inserted in the Bill, it would be certain to produce friction between the Legislature of Ireland and the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and to provoke debate in the Imperial Parliament touching Irish matters. The ground of this argument was simply the supposition that the Irish Legislature were likely to make laws on the subject referred to in the Amendment which would bring them into conflict with the Imperial Parliament. That was the very reason why the Amendment was asked for. The Prime Minister in 1886 said that restrictions upon the powers of an Irish Legislature would be necessary for the protection of the minority, because the state of things in which the free play of discussion in a free Assembly is the best security for a minority had not then been reached in Ireland. Had anything happened since 1886 which led them to suppose that it was not still necessary to protect the minority by special provisions such as those proposed in this Amendment? Since then the House had witnessed the operations of the Plan of Campaign, the recurrence of boycotting, and all those other tortures and oppressions to which the minority had been subjected in Ire-
    346
    land. Speaking for the scattered minority in the South and West of Ireland, he was bound to point out that even with the advantage of the legislation of the Imperial Parliament and with the advantage of having an Imperial Executive, hardly had the Loyalists escaped with their properties and their lives during the last six years. As to the form of the Amendment, the minority in Ireland had a right to claim that power should not be given to the Irish Legislature so as either to exaggerate the Law of Conspiracy against a minority, or to relax it so as to give an oppressive power to a majority. He believed that if the power of dealing with the matter at all were given to the Irish Legislature it would almost certainly be abused. It was all very well for the Prime Minister to sketch a happy and prosperous future, and to speak with great indignation of the doubts that were thrown on the conduct of the proposed Irish Legislature. But those for whom he (Mr. Pluuket) was now speaking could not afford to rely on such optimistic visions. The right hon. Gentleman said it was to the Irish people that this power was to be entrusted. But it was the Irish people who had the power at present, and everybody knew who the men were that the Irish people had returned to the House of Commons. Those men were willing to organise, to support, to defend, and to take credit for those unlawful conspiracies which, by the authority of the law now in existence, had, after great difficulty, been put down, and which, had they continued to exist, would, as was admitted on all hands, have made the life of the minority in many parts of Ireland not worth having. On these grounds he heartily supported the Amendment.
    MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, the Prime Minister had stated that the Crimes Act had created a difference between the Law of Conspiracy in Ireland and that in England; but Chief Baron Palles, whose judgments commanded respect in England as well as in Ireland, had stated that the Irish law had not been altered as far as conspiracy was concerned. As a matter of fact, the only alteration that had been made was an alteration in procedure. The Prime Minister said that the Leader

    347
    of the Opposition was increasing the power of hon. Members below the Gangway by the way in which he spoke of them. There were other ways of increasing the power of the Nationalist Members besides bringing indictments against them. One way was to cover them with fulsome flattery, as the Prime Minister had been continually doing during these Debates. Whenever the opponents of the Government brought forward an argument founded on history and on law the right hon. Gentleman got up and asked how anyone could make such suggestions against the Irish people. He (Mr. Barton) thought there was nothing more demoralising to a sensitive people, and nothing that could have more lasting and injurious effects, than the language of unqualified praise in which the Prime Minister was continually referring to the Irish Members. The Prime Minister was mistaken in saying that this question of conspiracy only had to do with Irish affairs, for it had to do also with British affairs, and important British affairs. It was true that, in the main, conspiracies in Ireland had been against landlords; but in view of that fact it surely was not honest to leave the administration of the Land Question at the end of three years to the Irish Parliament. The effect of handing over this administration to the Irish Parliament in this way would be to cause three years of agrarian conspiracy and one year of confiscation, when there would be an end of the matter. The Land Question in Ireland had hitherto always been dealt with by conspiracy, and the Government were now deliberately inviting the Irish Nationalists to deal with it in that way for three years. But there had been other conspiracies in Ireland besides agrarian conspiracies. There had at all times been conspiracies against Great Britain in Ireland—conspiracies against British interests, and conspiracies against the British Government—and there could be no question, therefore, that this was not merely an Irish matter. If the Amendment was not adopted, they would be inviting the Irish people to enter with impunity into conspiracy against Great Britain by telling them that they might alter the law which hitherto had been uniform in the two countries. When Ireland possessed a separate Parliament, not only were there
    348
    conspiracies against Britain, but actually conspiracies with foreign enemies of Great Britain. In Ireland, in London, and in Paris the Irish and the French had combined in conspiracy as the common enemies of Great Britain. The Prime Minister, therefore, in asking the Committee to oppose the Amendment on the ground that the question was a purely Irish one, forgot that it was above all a British affair, the majority of Irish conspiracies having been against Great Britain, against British interests, and against the British Government. To refuse the Amendment would be to say—"We authorise you, the Irish people, to make Ireland the place of resort for all conspirators against Great Britain, seeing that for the first time in the history of the country the Law of Conspiracy in Ireland can be altered to suit your views." The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary met the Amendment by saying that it ought to have been brought forward on Section 2.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I said the speech of the Mover of the Amendment ought to have been made on Section 2.
    MR. DUNBAR BARTON: Speeches could not be made without a subject. He presumed the right hon. Gentleman had been referring to the question of conspiracy.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I referred to the speech of the Mover of the Amendment.
    Mr. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, he was entitled to attach some reason to the right hon. Gentleman's observations, and he maintained that in his observations the right hon. Gentleman was speaking to the Amendment. It was a remarkable fact that frequently when a proposal was made for the amendment of the Bill they were told—"The amendment is premature. This is not the place for your proposal—it should be made on Clause 5 or 9 or 21 or 36." But now the right hon. Gentleman used the converse argument. He said, "Your amendment is too late—it should have been made on Clause 2." This showed how vigilant it behoved the Unionist Members to be, and how necessary it was that they should not allow a line of the Bill to pass without careful scrutiny. It had already been shown by the Chief Secretary that they had been a little too scrupulous and brief in discussing Clause 2. ["Oh!"] Yes;

    349
    because the right hon. Gentleman said the speech of the Mover of the Amendment ought to have been made on Clause 2. No doubt, the same argument would be used when other questions arose on this clause. Clause 2, in its language, contemplated exceptions to the legislative powers of the Irish Legislature, and Clause 3 enumerated those exceptions; and he asked were they not entitled to say that this question of conspiracy should come within the exceptions? It would be more dangerous for that law to come under the control of the Irish Legislature than the Law of Treason. It was a more difficult question to deal with in regard to the discovery of crime, giving proof of crime, and bringing it to conviction. The case of Canada was a precedent in favour of those who supported the Amendment. Power in that case had been deliberately distributed between the Central Legislature and the Local Legislatures; but in Section 91 of the Canadian Act Criminal Law and Procedure, including the Law of Conspiracy, was reserved to the Dominion Parliament. Lord Carnarvon, in introducing the British North America Act in the House of Lords, pointed out that this was a wise departure from the system pursued in the United States, where it was competent for each State to deal with the Criminal Code, and where the result was that the law on certain subjects differed in different States. The Criminal Law had been practically assimilated throughout Canada, and the same reasoning and rule should apply in regard to Ireland and Great Britain. If the law were not rendered uniform the two countries would drift apart; at any rate, the Government should give better reasons than those they had hitherto advanced why the Law of Conspiracy should not be assimilated in Ireland—a law which had had a most sombre history in connection with Irish affairs, and which, of all other subjects, should be excluded from the control of an Irish Parliament.
    MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, the way in which the Government had treated the Amendment showed how serious they were in the attitude they had thought fit to adopt. They were proposing now to inflict on the loyal minority in Ireland a state of things which no community in England or Scot-
    350
    land would tolerate for an hour. He did not know if the Government were sanguine enough to suppose that the people of Ireland were so differently constituted to the people of England or Scotland that they would put up with that which their brethren on this side would repudiate. As to what had been said by the Prime Minister, he need only repeat the ancient maxim that "fine words butter no parsnips." The right hon. Gentleman had told them what fine fellows he believed hon. Gentlemen opposite to be. He had regaled them, as he usually did, with a certain amount of prophecy. But what he (Mr. Arnold-Forster) wanted to know was, not what the Prime Minister's view was as to what the Irish Members wore likely to do, but what wore the distinct probabilities, from the facts before them, what were the Irish Members certain to do? The throe main facts of the situation in Ireland during the past 10 years had been three gigantic combinations or conspiracies, neither of which bad come under the head of treason or treason-felony. One of these had boon known as the Land League, subsequently called the National League. Another was the Plan of Campaign, and both these combinations had been carried into effect by a third method—namely, that which had made boycotting effective. The Prime Minister had said that this would not occur in Ireland in the future, or that if it did it would be a thoroughly local concern, with which the people of this country would have nothing to do. He (Mr. Arnold-Forster) did not accept the argument which lay at the bottom of that statement, for he hold that they in England had everything to do with the condition of their fellow-countrymen in Ireland. Whilst he and his Friends did not impute corruption to the Irish Parliament, they said, and were entitled to say, that what the Irish Members had believed to be right and had defended in the past they would believe to be right and would defend in the future. Speaking with regard to the particular class of combinations which hon. Gentlemen opposite had always defended as in the forefront of their political work, a judicial tribunal had said—
    "The leaders of the Land League who combined to carry out a system of boycotting were guilty of criminal conspiracy, one of the

    351
    objects of which was, by a system of coercion and intimidation, to promote an agrarian agitation against the payment of rent."
    The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said that was not a matter which concerned this country—
    "For the purposes of expelling from the country the Irish landlords who are styled the Irish garrison."
    Well, one of the Irish Members opposite, in a speech he had delivered, had said that, as to the conspiracy of boycotting, unless they boycotted they might as well give up the struggle altogether, for they would never be able to put landlordism out of the country, or be able to fly the green flag prominently over Dublin Castle. They had there throe facts—in the first place, that the conspiracy was criminal; secondly, that it was undertaken to promote an object which did most materially concern this country; and, thirdly, that, so far from condemning or regretting the conspiracy, hon. Gentlemen opposite were foremost in urging its continuance throughout the length and breadth of Ireland. The tribunal to which he had referred had declared that the effect of the combination upon a section of the people was to induce them to endeavour to carry out the laws of the Land League even by assassination. When it was found that those combinations had been carried on for years, that the object of their promoters was to injure this country, that they were carried out by means unknown to the law, and by methods which led to assassination, he thought it was abundantly proved that they were dealing with matters that greatly concerned Great Britain. And that was not a view held by the Unionist Members only, for in the opinion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, according to a former pronouncement of his, these conspiracies were intimately and essentially connected with a subject which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had already excluded from the purview of the Bill. He would remind the House that they had had many other examples of conspiracies of this kind. They had had the Ribbon Conspiracy and the Westmeath Conspiracy, and it was idle to suppose that what had occurred in the past would not happen again in the future. Why, in this matter, were they to accept, upon the ipse dixit of the
    352
    Government, that those methods of procedure which had found favour with hon. Gentlemen opposite in the past would cease to find favour with them the moment this Bill passed? If they did not they would inevitably have projects of law brought into the Irish Parliament, with the object of doing away with the penalties which fell upon those who committed actions which at the present moment were illegal. At the present moment it was illegal to conspire to boycott. Hon. Gentlemen opposite thought it was a right good thing to boycott; therefore they would take away the penalty that attached to the crime. The present law said—"You shall not combine to drive the English landlords, or any section of Her Majesty's subjects, out of Ireland." Hon. Members opposite had said over and over again that they not only favoured but desired to promote the conspiracy which had that object. It was only common sense to believe that they would do in the future what they had not only done in the past, but had declared it their intention to do in the future. It was monstrous for the Prime Minister to ask the Committee to believe that almost every statement made by the Irish Members in their speeches in the past was false. Because that was what it came to. The Prime Minister believed the Unionist Members were the most Heaven-forsaken set of people in the world. Why? Because they believed hon. Gentlemen opposite. He saw no path out of that position. They had no right to believe that hon. Members opposite had forsworn themselves; and, certainly, further reasons must be advanced by the Prime Minister before the Committee generally could hold the opinion that they had forsworn themselves. [Cries of "Divide!"] It was certain that if conspiracies such as those which had existed in Ireland prevailed in England and Scotland there would be an end to all law and civilised life in those countries.
    MR. WYNDHAMsaid, the Prime Minister had based the refusal of this Amendment on the alleged difference between the Laws of Conspiracy as they existed in Ireland and England. The right hon. Gentleman had urged that the Law of Conspiracy in Ireland was harsher than the Law of Conspiracy in England, and that it would be wrong to refuse to the Irish Legis-

    353
    lature the right to assimilate the two laws. If it could be shown that the Law of Conspiracy was the same on both sides of St. George's Channel, that argument was disposed of. The right hon. Gentleman had quoted authority to show that the Criminal Law Procedure Act had created new crimes. The field of the controversy on that matter was small. It had been alleged, when the subject was under discussion, that by making the National League a criminal conspiracy a new crime had been created; but oven that contention was denied by such a legal authority as Lord Selborne. Under that portion of the Crimes Act only two persons were imprisoned, and it had been demonstrated that the Law of Conspiracy was the same in Ireland as it was in England. Two men, named, if he remembered rightly, Bellew and Fitzgerald, adopted the practice of shadowing at fairs—a practice which in Ireland was found effectual in intimidating small farmers and bringing them to rain. These men crossed the Channel to Liverpool and pursued the same tactics there; but they were prosecuted, tried by an English jury, and found guilty.
    An hon. MEMBER: For what were they tried?
    MR. WYNDHAM: Criminal conspiracy. They, therefore, not only had legal authority for believing that this form of combination was unlawful on both sides of the Channel, but they had the verdict given by an English jury to that effect also. In considering whether or not the law as it existed in Ireland was likely to be relaxed by an Irish Parliament it must be remembered that the Irish Members had been content to go to prison for the political faith that these combinations were ethically justifiable. And it could not be said that it would not be easier for men to make laws in support of their ethical views than to go to prison to show that they held them. It could not be doubted, therefore, that when hon. Gentlemen opposite had the power they would pass laws in support of such systems as the Plan of Campaign. Was he, in saying that, imputing corruption to the Irish people? No; but it had been shown that in the agrarian difficulty of Ireland this ethical view prevailed; and that, to his mind, was the reason why they should
    354
    not put it in the power of the Irish Parliament to legalise these combinations. The Irish Members did not believe these combinations unjust. The Unionist Members did believe them unjust. The former were not responsible for the lives and property of the loyal minority in Ireland; the Unionist Members were. Therefore, it would be a great dereliction of duty on their part not to press this Amendment to a Division. [Cries of "Divide!"]
    MR. H. S. FOSTER and Mr. VICARY GIBBS MR. H. S. FOSTER and Mr. VICARY GIBBS rose.
    MR. J. Morloy MR. J. Morloy rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 306; Noes 274.—(Division List, No. 117.)
    Question put accordingly, "That those words be there inserted."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 276; Noes 317.—(Division List, No. 118.)
    SIR H. JAMESmoved the following Amendment:—Clause 3, page 2, line 6, after "treason-felony," insert "sedition." He said: As I am confident the Government will be likely to give favourable consideration to this Amendment, I do not purpose occupying the time of the Committee at great length. I think the Government will be favourably disposed towards the Amendment, because they have admitted that the Irish Legislature ought not to deal with the offences of treason or treason-felony; and I presume the reason why the Government have prevented the Legislature of Ireland altering the law with respect to offences which may be committed in Ireland, and, therefore, affect the peace and good government of Ireland, is that the offences of treason and treason-felony would be offences against the Sovereign and against the Imperial Government. You could not have the offence of treason or treason-felony committed against the Legislature of Ireland or as against the Executive of Ireland as a body distinct from the representatives of the Crown and Empire. Well, Sir, sedition, I will submit to the Committee, is exactly in the same class of crime as treason and

    355
    treason-felony. It represents any act done, words written or spoken, that shall attack the Sovereign or the Government—that is, the Central Government and not the Government of Ireland. It is, therefore, simply a somewhat diluted form of treason; and, as I have said, treason cannot be committed as an offence directly against the Legislature or the Executive of Ireland, equally I would ask the Committee to accept the view that sedition must necessarily be committed against the same forces against which treason and treason-felony must be committed, and, of course, the Committee will be aware that sedition is a crime of a most insidious character. Out of it treason comes; it forms the first step towards treason: it fosters treason and creates and begets treason. How can it be said, under these circumstances, that the Committee will be willing to allow the Legislature of Ireland to say that sedition shall be no crime? That will be saving that a crime committed against the Sovereign shall be no crime, although it may be a crime committed with the intention of deposing the Sovereign. It will be giving a free hand to anyone who wishes to attack the Central Government and not the Executive Government of Ireland; it will be giving the Irish Legislature power over the general interests of the country, and allowing them to deal with other matters besides those affecting the peace, order, and good government of Ireland. I feel so very confident, from the point of view that it is right that treason and treason-felony should not be dealt with by the Irish Government, that the Government will see the strong force of not allowing the Irish Government to deal with the crime of sedition, and will, therefore, accept the Amendment, that I will not trespass further on the time of the Committee, but move the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 6, after the words "treason-felony." to insert the word "sedition."—(Sir Henry James.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'sedition' be there inserted."
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,): Undoubtedly the crime of sedition does touch closely in some respects on treason or treason-
    356
    felony, and in so far as it does verge on treason-felony, or is identical with treason-felony, it is covered by the reservation of treason-felony. The Committee should be reminded that, although sedition may be a crime of the greatest importance, it may, on the other hand, simply mean acts against the peace, order, and good government of the country. In fact, sedition is a word of such a sweeping character that its reservation would greatly embarrass legislation about unlawful assemblies and other matters. It involves so many matters that are intimately mixed up with the preservation of law and order that it would be impossible to distinguish them in a vast number of cases; that to take away from the Irish Legislature legislation on the whole of that branch of crime which. is included under the term "sedition" would be to raise questions between the Irish Legislature and the Imperial Parliament at every point, and would almost inevitably render the law uncertain, instead of being—what it should be in regard to crime—as plain as anything can possibly be. Considering that "treason-felony" will cover a great many crimes analogous in their nature to treason and treason-felony, we think that such matters as seditious libel, seditious assemblies, seditious conspiracies, unlawful assemblies, and the whole of that class of crime included in the word "sedition," must be left to the Irish Legislature, and the other class—that is to say, treason and treason-felony—to remain with the Imperial Parliament.
    SIR H. JAMES: The Solicitor General has given his reasons for refusing the Amendment; but I appeal on the point to the Government, and especially I appeal to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Are we going to allow the Irish Government to say that the offences under the term "sedition," which the Solicitor General described as small offences, shall be no offences at all? The offence may be small in degree, but against whom is the offence? Seditious libel is not an offence against the person; it is an offence against the State, and not an offence against the Irish Government or against the Irish people. It would be just as proper to treat larceny as a small offence if the amount

    357
    stolen were small, and a grave offence if the amount stolen were great. I say the offence is the same, and I say the point is no answer to my objection against handing over to the Irish Legislature the power of dealing by legislation with offences which are against the State, against the Central Government, against the Sovereign, and not against anything in Ireland. Seditions libel cannot be confined to the Irish Government. It must be sedition against the Central Government, and are we to delegate to the Irish Legislature the power of dealing with offences against the State? We know what the Law of Sedition is now. We ask that it should remain as it is, and that if it needs alteration it is this Parliament, and not the Parliament of Ireland, that should alter it. This question affords a real test as to whether we are to give any significance to the supremacy of Parliament. I say the declaration of the supremacy of Parliament will be but a form of idle words, and would be better struck out of the Bill, if you hand over to the Irish Legislature the power of dealing by legislation with crimes which are not crimes against the Irish Government, but crimes against the Crown and State.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I listened, I confess, with some surprise to the second speech of my right hon. Friend, by which he has considerably raised the temperature of the Debate on what is not, I venture to think, a very serious eleven important point. My right hon. Friend has argued that we are proposing to deprive the Imperial Parliament of the power of legislating and exercising its authority in Ireland in relation to seditious offences committed against what he has called the Central Government. But that is not the question before the Committee. The Imperial Parliament, if this Amendment is rejected, will have precisely the same power as they have now to deal with any case of seditious acts which affect the Central Government. The real question is whether you are going to deprive the Irish Legislature of the power of dealing in Ireland with similar acts directed against the Irish Government. I entirely traverse the proposition of my right hon. Friend that sedition in a
    358
    country with a Legislature such as Ireland will have is an offence committed only against the Central Government. In one sense it is, of course, true that every offence is an offence committed against the Crown. In English law it is the Crown, and the Crown alone, that takes action. Let me remind my right hon. Friend of a very celebrated case of seditious conspiracy—perhaps the most celebrated in our lawbooks—I mean the trial of O'Connell in 1844, which ultimately came before the House of Lords. O'Connell was charged with seditious conspiracy, and the indictment contained a very large number of counts. I will give the Committee the substance of two or three of these counts. O'Connell was charged with conspiring to raise discontent and disaffection amongst the liege subjects of the Queen. That is a charge of seditious conspiracy. Is the right hon. Gentleman going to contend that that offence cannot be committed in Ireland by Irishmen connected in n criminal combination against the Legislature and Constitution which are established in that country? I say it can, and I say that the Legislature—such a Legislature as Ireland will him—ought to have the power to deal with that matter. Take another count from the same indictment. O'Connell was charged with conspiring to excite jealousy, hatred, and ill-will between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects. Cannot these offences be committed in Ireland in reference to the legislation and policy of the local Government, and are we to deprive the Irish Legislature of the power to deal with them? I will mention one other count. O'Connell was charged with conspiring to diminish the confidence in the administration of the law in Ireland, and to bring the tribunals by law established into disrepute. Does my right hon. Friend argue that the Irish Legislature is to be deprived of the right of legislating so as to prevent offences directed to bring into disrepute the tribunals administering its own laws? Why, it would not be consistent with legislative autonomy even in the most restricted sense of the word. There are, moreover, offences included in the legal category of sedition which are of a very trivial description—offences connected with riots, unlawful assemblies, breach of the peace, which, by very little legal

    359
    ingenuity under particular circumstances, can easily be enlarged into the crime of sedition. Therefore, whatever way you look at it, it is possible, by this Amendment, to deprive the Irish Legislature of the power of dealing with matters having nothing to do with the power or supremacy of the Imperial Parliament; and I trust, therefore, that the Committee will reject it.
    MR. CARSONsaid, that if the Amendment were useful for nothing else it was certainly most useful for this—that, by degrees, they were beginning to learn that it was absolutely impossible to distinguish between Imperial matters and local matters. In answer to an Amendment yesterday, dealing with offences on the high seas, they were told by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that they might rest perfectly content that that matter would not come within the purview of the Irish Legislature, because the Irish Legislature, under the same section, would have power only to deal with matters exclusively relating to Ireland or some part thereof. He should like to ask, did the crime of sedition relate only to Ireland or some part thereof; and if it was not a crime relating only to Ireland or some part thereof, he would like to know why the Government refused to accept the Amendment? The Home Secretary assumed to differ with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury; but, really, there was no difference whatever between them. The Home Secretary said that the crime of sedition would probably extend to such conspiracies as were formed to bring the Irish Government into contempt. He was prepared to admit that, but why was it sedition against the Irish Government? Because the Irish Government derived its functions from the Imperial Parliament, and it was in its relation to the Imperial Parliament, and not otherwise, that it became the crime of sedition. The Home Secretary used that argument for the purpose of showing that it was a local matter, and, therefore, within the purview of the Irish Legislature; and he asked, was it not an absurd thing that the Irish Legislature should not have the power to legislate in respect to matters which so directly concerned them? But they did not propose by the Amendment to take away from the Irish Government the
    360
    power of dealing with persons who entered into seditious conspiracies. But what they did say was that, as sedition went to the root of offences against the Crown and Imperial Government, it was a matter that should be reserved for legislation exclusively to the Imperial Parliament, and could not in any sense be looked upon as a matter local to Ireland. He was perfectly well aware that in the whole course of Criminal Law nothing could be wider in its application than sedition. He knew that in the case of the Queen against Parnell the indictment contained between 30 and 40 counts; and there was the greatest possible joy when, after the trial had proceeded about 10 days, the 19th count, which related to sedition, was struck out, as it would have enabled the traversers to go into the question of the government of England and the government of Ireland and the entire relations between the two countries. Was not a matter of such far-reaching importance—a matter which was Imperial and not local—a proper matter to reserve exclusively to the Imperial Parliament? He considered the argument of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bury (Sir H. James) unanswerable. So far as sedition was a crime at all, it was a crime against the Imperial Government. The Solicitor General said that sedition might be closely allied to treason-felony. It might, and it might even be necessary in some cases to have in the indictment counts for sedition and treason-felony, or perhaps separate indictments; and he wanted to know who was to decide in Ireland that a particular crime was treason-felony or sedition? The Bill drew the greatest possible distinction as to the way in which the two crimes were to be dealt with. If the charge was treason-felony, the accused would have the right to be tried in the Imperial Courts, and he had the right of appeal to the Exchequer Judges, and even to the Privy Council. On the other hand, if it were a case of sedition, it would not be tried in that Court at all—it would be tried in another Court, and there would be no appeal. He would like to know who was to draw the distinction between the offences? They might have the Irish Attorney General saying—"I claim this man as my prisoner, as an offender against the Irish Executive, because his crime is the

    361
    crime of sedition"; and they might have the official, whoever he might be, responsible in Ireland to the Imperial Government saying—"I claim him as my prisoner, and that he be tried in the Imperial Court." Who was to decide between them? There had been considerable talk about friction between the two countries, but there would be no end of friction if these matters were not now made clear. He did not see any way in which matters relating to treason-felony could be placed in one category, and matters relating to sedition in another category, because his idea of sedition was that it was sedition because it was an act against the Crown and Imperial Government, even when directed against the Local Government, which derived its power from the Crown. Sedition, as an offence against the Crown, became analogous to treason-felony. He wanted to know were those matters going to be made clear, or were they going to be left in doubt, to be fought out afterwards? They would have to be determined at some time, and that, in his opinion, was the proper time for them to be determined. Of course, if the Government were determined to resist these Amendments simply because they were moved from the Opposition Benches, the Opposition would have to submit; but it was certainly their duty, on the assumption that the Bill would pass—which was, indeed, making a very large assumption—to point out that the Government were acting unwisely in leaving those matters unsettled, because it meant storing up trouble for the future.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 255: Noes 304.—(Division List, No. 119.)
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYmoved, in page 2, line 6, after the words "treason-felony," to insert the words "intimidation and unlawful assembly." He said he thought that the subject to which these offences related had met so far with very little respect and less logic from right hon. Gentlemen opposite. These offences belonged to the category of crime which unhappy experience told them had of late years been habitually used for political purposes. It surprised him that in defending their own Bill hon. and
    362
    right hon. Gentlemen so seldom thought of saying anything which would lead to the hope that they would ever pay any respect to the public opinion of Great Britain in these matters. He believed, from unhappy and recent experience, that no decision of the Irish Parliament in regard to those matters would ever command confidence in Great Britain. He moved his Amendment for this reason also—that these offences were allied to treason and treason-felony in their nature, and, further, because they did not exclusively apply to Ireland. They had been employed and had frequently tended to drive away from Ireland that influx of English wealth and capital by which alone the prosperity of Ireland could be permanently secured. He knew that to this Amendment, as to the Amendment with regard to the Law of Conspiracy, they would have applied the argument that it involved an indictment against the Irish people. If it did involve an indictment, the indictment would be levelled not against the Irish people, nor even against the Representatives in this House of the Irish people, but ultimately and with the greatest weight against those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen now upon the Treasury Bench who had always rushed forward with excuses, palliation, patronage, and every kind of apology, for those practices dealt with in the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 6, after the words "treason-felony," to insert the words "intimidation and unlawful assembly."—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment seems to feel that a decision has practically been taken upon it; but he said that, notwithstanding that decision, he intended to take a Division. The hon. Gentleman admits that we are all committed to the proposal that the Irish Legislature should be empowered to make laws concerning the much graver subject of criminal conspiracy, and yet he wishes to take from them the power of dealing with the lesser offences of intimidation and unlawful assembly. I do not think that I need labour the point to any great extent. The Committee have refused to take from the Irish Legislature the power of making laws regarding seditious assem-

    363
    blies, and yet we are asked to take away from them the power of keeping order in the streets of Dublin and Belfast. This is really a reductio ad absurdum. I must oppose the Amendment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The only argument the right hon. Gentleman has given the Committee is that because we have already committed a great blunder it is illogical not to commit a smaller one. I think it would be very difficult to prove that intimidation and unlawful assembly are less serious matters than unlawful conspiracy. I am not sure that the blunder that the right hon. Gentleman is now asking us to commit is really the smaller of the two, because I think that intimidation is the means whereby these unlawful conspiracies which have been the cause of so much evil in Ireland have been maintained and carried into effect. I might put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. The right Gentleman has thought fit to abrogate the Crimes Act, and takes credit to himself for now governing Ireland under the ordinary law. Yet, even under the ordinary law, the right hon. Gentleman has felt himself compelled to disperse assemblies brought together for purposes of intimidation. I wish that the right hon. Gentleman would give me a plain answer to the question whether the unlawful assemblies he has to deal with are not in harmony with the public opinion of the district, and whether their action has ever been denounced by the Irish Representatives in this House? If the right hon. Gentleman's answer is in the affirmative, how can he reconcile it with his conscience to leave to the Irish Legislature and to Irish public opinion the manufacture of laws which would concern these unlawful assemblies? For my part, I am utterly unable to understand the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman in reference to this point. I perfectly recognise that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would be glad if these points were not brought before them, because they must have many an uneasy moment in dealing with them. We all know that I could prove over and over again, if I chose to do so, that Lord Spencer, the Secretary for Scotland, the Secretary for War, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and every right hon. Gentleman who has had anything to do with the government of Ireland in the
    364
    past has always recognised the fact that these unlawful assemblies do meet together for the purpose of intimidation, and in so doing they are only acting in conformity with the public opinion of the districts in which they are held, and are the methods advocated by the Nationalist Members of Parliament. That cannot be denied, and I defy any right hon. Gentleman opposite to deny the fact. In such circumstances is it not monstrous, is it not outrageous neglect of the duty which we owe to the Irish minority, to hand over to the Irish Assembly the power of dealing with the laws which relate to unlawful assembly and to intimidation? Hon. Members opposite know that they cannot touch this question, which their own constituents behind them regard as the great blot upon the Bill; and naturally, therefore, they avoid discussing it. I can tell hon. Members opposite that amongst the many evils connected with this Bill—with which the country was not slowly becoming acquainted—that which is taking the greatest hold of men's minds is that, Ireland being what it is, the Government are deliberately permitting the abrogation of those laws which are necessary to protect the lives and liberties of the loyal Irish minority.
    COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, it was only natural that Her Majesty's Government should strenuously oppose this Amendment. The Party to whom Her Majesty's Government proposed to confide the destinies of Ireland was one whoso character had been well known for some years, and at one time was certainly well known to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. That Party had based its policy upon, and had succeeded in its policy, by criminal intimidation. No doubt, Her Majesty's Government had consulted their Colleagues below the Gangway in reference to this Amendment; and possibly those hon. Members, who would form the Government of Ireland in the future, and had been the leaders of the criminal conspiracies in the past, would object to any concession on the part of the Government in the direction of restraining those peculiar habits by means of which they had captured the Liberal Party. It was the duty of every man in that Committee to protest to the best of his ability against handing over the lives and liber-

    365
    ties of the people in the West and South of Ireland, a defenceless population, to their hereditary foes. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary asked them not to deprive the future Government of Ireland of the power of keeping order in the streets of Dublin and Belfast. The people of Ulster knew that the aim and object of this Bill were to place their lives and liberties in the hands of the Nationalist Members, with the natural result that those lives and liberties would be stamped out. The Nationalist Members, if they had the power to do so, would make the Orange organisation a criminal conspiracy and its meetings illegal assemblies. As far as he was concerned, and he thought as far as his Colleagues were concerned, he could express his unbounded satisfaction that the Government had refused to accede to such a reasonable Amendment as thiis, because it left the Bill stained, in the eyes of every man who cared for liberty and freedom, with a blot which all the eloquence they heard from the Treasury Bench could not wipe away.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 192; Noes 212.—(Division List, No. 120.)
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYmoved the following Amendment:—
    Clause 3, page 2, line 6, at end, add "Repeal or Amendment of; 'The Explosive Substance's Act, 1883.'"
    The hon. Member said, this Amendment, to a certain extent, formed part of an Amendment which was discussed the other day relating to dealing with and handling arms and munitions of war and the manufacturing of explosive substances; and as regarded explosive substances the Government opposed that Amendment on the ground that it would have disabled the Irish Parliament from making itself those necessary regulations which must be prescribed in the case of the lawful manufacture, for the legimate purposes of trade, of explosive substances. That Amendment, however, did not cover many things which the present Amendment did cover, and on that occasion no substantial answer was offered to the contention that the Irish Parliament ought not to have entrusted to it the power of relaxing the law which in the year 1883 was considered so urgent
    366
    by this Parliament that, as the right hon. Gentleman who was the author of it would well remember, it permitted it to pass through all its stages at a single Sitting. If he was asked why he said that the Irish Parliament would relax the standard of severity prescribed by that Act, he replied that the Irish Members had given them the fullest and most express indication of their intention of so relaxing it, because they had contended that offences against this particular Act were not to be treated in the category of ordinary crimes. They said that these offences were political offences. It was true, the Home Secretary had maintained the exactly opposite contention, and he moved this Amendment, because he wished to leave the subject to statesmen of his fibre and courage, and who had the same well-regulated notions of the distinction which should prevail between the enactments of the Imperial Legislature and those of an Irish Legislature. The Amendment did not interfere with any legitimate commercial manufacture. It dealt solely with those offences which, according to the argument of the Home Secretary, were such that if in open war a man was caught committing them his captors would be justified in hanging him to the nearest tree.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 6, at end, add "Repeal or Amendment of 'The Explosive Substances Act, 1883'"—(Mr. Stuart-Wortley.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Hon. Members ask that their Amendments should be treated seriously; but it is difficult to treat an Amendment of this kind seriously, and it is impossible to conceive how anyone can move an Amendment of this kind in a serious manner. What is this proposal? You say the Irish Government shall not have the power to repeal the Explosive Substances Act. What is the Explosive Substances Act? It is an Act which punishes persons who use or manufacture explosives for evil or murderous purposes. How can anybody seriously pretend that that is a thing that the Irish Parliament is likely to do? Why do you not put in that the Irish Parliament shall not repeal the Acts against murder? Or against bigamy, or

    367
    against forgery? Forgery would, perhaps, more apply.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEY: They have not said that murder and bigamy are political offences.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: They cannot deal with the Explosives Act in England; and if it is going to be an offence in Ireland, against whom is this political offence to be? Why, against the Irish Government, against the Irish Parliament, against whom alone it can be used, and that is why I say the thing is not serious. It is, in fact, so absurd and so ridiculous on the face of it, that it is impossible to treat it seriously. If dynamite is used in Ireland for political purposes, it will be used against the Irish Parliament, and then you suggest the Amendment should be treated seriously. As far as my knowledge on this subject of dynamite goes, these dynamite attempts did not come from Ireland—they came from elsewhere. But when you suggest that when the Irish have got a Government of their own they are going to promote in Ireland, by repealing this Act, the practice of dynamite outrages, I must say it requires a great command of countenance to get up in the House of Commons and suggest it seriously.
    MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, when they remembered what was the historical connection of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken with this question, what must be within his recollection, and what was the nature of the Amendment now before the Committee, he thought hon. Members would find it difficult to regard the right hon. Gentleman's speech as a serious one. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the Explosives Act of 1883 as "his offspring," and no doubt the right hon. Gentleman was the undoubted parent of that measure. He held in his hand the speech of the father of this Bill upon the occasion of its birth on April 9, 1883. In introducing the Bill on that occasion, the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Harcourt) referred to the gravity of the subject, and appealed to the House to postpone all the other business to enable the Bill to be passed through all its stages. He referred to the urgency of the Bill, and asked the House to pass it through all its stages at one Sitting. That was the way in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarded this subject in April, 1883.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: So I do now. It was a serious matter, and not only do I think the Irish Parliament would not repeal it, but, if necessary, they would suspend the Standing Orders of the House in order to pass it.
    MR. DUNBAR BARTONthanked the right hon. Gentleman for emphasizing what he was going to say. He reminded the House that Ireland was the only part of Her Majesty's Dominions in which there had recently been dynamite explosions. There had been, within recent recollection, directed against the Imperial Government, three different explosions of dynamite in that part of Her Majesty's Dominions, and yet the Chancellor of the Exchequer said this was not a serious matter. ["No, no!"] There was something which had occurred within the last three days which would tell the right hon. Gentleman what was the feeling in Ireland with reference to this matter. What did they see in the newspapers of that morning? At a meeting of the Dublin Corporation it was proposed to present an Address of congratulation to Members of the Royal Family with reference to an approaching event. [Cries of "Question!"] It was the question. It was a direct answer to the right hon. Gentleman's statement that there was no necessity or urgency for dealing with this matter now. What occurred? The Sheriff of the City of Dublin (Mr. Clancy), in the course of the debate on the matter, asked the Corporation not to present that Address, because, among other things, the men who were in prison for dynamite explosions had not been released; and he wont on to state that the Home Secretary had, in the most callous manner, declared that the Government would not amnesty those prisoners. It was no answer to say that some or all of those prisoners were not actually convicted under this Act. Whether they were charged under this Act or not, or whether they were convicted under this Act or not, they were connected with these offences. Was it not a grave circumstance that in the Corporation of the City of Dublin, an official of that body, one who presumably would hold an important position under any Irish Government, brought forward such an argument successfully, and the Corporation refused to present an Address to Members of the Royal Family because, among other things, those dynamite

    369
    prisoners were not amnestied? Was there no seriousness in that matter? He said that if it was a serious matter in 1883, it was also a serious matter now. Recent events and recent words of Irish Nationalists showed it was an important matter. What could be done by an Irish Legislature if they were not restrained by this Amendment? If these men were not amnestied, the Irish Parliament would consider themselves justified, no doubt, in repealing or altering the provisions of this Explosives Act. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had forgotten that he had described certain things as grave in 1883, and that he then refused to trust to the Irish Nationalist Party. He tried then to induce the House and the country to believe that this was a serious question. The Amendment was a serious one, for it was directed not merely to the protection of the Irish minority and the Imperial interest, but to the defence of every tradesman and householder.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Householder!
    MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, yes; to the defence of every man, of every person who had property that could or might be destroyed by explosives. Why, the present law on explosives had been the defence of every householder in London and Great Britain, of every man who had property that could be destroyed by explosives. They had heard this matter argued from the point of view of trade, and it had been suggested that this Amendment would be an unreasonable restriction on Irish trade. Would it not be possible that, in the interest of the trade of Dublin, they would have a factory for the making of explosives? Could not the Act be repealed, and the factory started in the apparent interest of trade? If that were done, they would have planted in Ireland the means of destroying the homes and endangering the lives of British subjects on this side of the Channel.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, although he felt strongly on the subject, he would not have spoken but for the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, in arguing that dynamite could be used in Ireland only against the Irish Parliament, assumed that there was going to be only one Ireland in the future. Dynamite had been
    370
    used in the past against the English Government, who had surrendered to it; but there was a party in Ireland who had not the least intention of surrendering to it. The dynamite convicts would be released, and it was possible they might turn their attention from English to Irish people; and that was why they objected. That the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who once went about in peril of his own life, should pooh-pooh this danger to others was about the last thing he expected to hear.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I do not want to prolong the Debate. I only rise to point out that the answer to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's question why the exclusions were not made to include legislation on bigamy is that we have no reason to suppose that Irish sentiment on the subject of bigamy differs from English sentiment.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: Or in pocket-picking.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Quite so. But can the right hon. Gentleman say that Irish sentiment on the subject of dynamite does not differ from English sentiment? Both the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues have said that Irish sentiment—not merely sporadic sentiment, but organised sentiment—entirely differs from the sentiment that prevails in England. Hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have urged the release of the dynamite prisoners. In doing so, they have said, with truth, they have a strong objection to enforcing political opinions by the use of dynamite; but they know the persons whose pardon they demand do not take that view. Hon. Members act as the mouthpiece of men who think that dynamite attempts are the patriotic efforts of patriotic men, and that is a widespread sentiment in Ireland. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Home Secretary, and the Prime Minister know this.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No, I beg your pardon; I do not.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Very well; the right hon. Gentleman does not know. But his Colleagues know that that sentiment prevails. Well, now, is it not futile, if not disrespectful to the Committee, to say it would be as reasonable to propose excluding bigamy or pocket-picking? We bring forward a matter of fact importance. The Amendment is

    371
    undoubtedly of great importance, and, in certain not inconceivable complications, it might be of vital importance—and this is how it is received. If I advise my hon. Friend not to divide it is not because I think the matter of no importance, but because it is a question which has been raised before in connection with the manufacture of explosives; and as it has been to some extent discussed on a former occasion, it should not be necessary to put the Committee again to the trouble of dividing.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
    MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, he wished, in the absence of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Carson), to move to add at the end of Hue 6 "Procedure in criminal matters." The effect of the Amendment, if carried, would be to exclude from the powers of the Irish Legislature procedure in criminal matters. It could not be said of this Amendment that it indicated distrust of the people of Ireland, and involved a condemnation of the Irish character. All that was asked was that that which was the criminal procedure of the United Kingdom should continue to be the criminal procedure in Ireland, and that the Irish Legislature should not have power to alter it. When the Solicitor General came to deal with this question, he should be surprised to hear him say anything disparaging of the principles which governed the British Code of Criminal Procedure, and yet nothing could be more disparaging than for anyone to say that that Code was not good enough for the Irish Courts, and that it was one which the Irish Parliament should be invited to alter. The English Criminal Procedure Code was a model for all countries where the English language was spoken, including the United States and the Colonies, and there could be no suggestion that it was not a Code that might well and with advantage be preserved in Ireland. It would always be open, if any change was desired, that the change should be made here. The Committee did not know yet
    372
    what was to be the representation of Ireland in the Imperial Parliament, or if there was to be any at all; but it would always be open to the Imperial Parliament to alter the criminal procedure, and, therefore, there was nothing injurious or degrading in the proposal that the best Code of Criminal Procedure in the world should be continued in Ireland, and that the Irish Legislature should be restrained from interfering with it. Considering the close proximity of the two countries, it was most desirable, from the point of view of convenience, that the Code of Criminal Procedure should, as far as possible, be uniform. The Criminal Law and Procedure of Great Britain and Ireland was at present (with the exception of the Whiteboy Acts and a limited number of similar provisions) practically the same in both countries. He held that the question of criminal procedure was of the highest importance, inasmuch as it affected the liberty of the subject almost as much as the Criminal Law itself. The liberty of the subject was affected as much by a change in procedure as by a change in the law, affecting as it did the constitution of the Criminal Courts, power of arrest, examination of witnesses, committal of offenders, bail and recognisances. These were all vital questions of criminal procedure, and were regulated by the English Code in a manner highly satisfactory, and tending to preserve the liberty of the subject. In regard to the conduct of trials, the procedure included matters relating to the form of the accusation—whether by indictment, criminal information, or coroner's inquest. Those forms being known to our law, it was desirable that new ones should not be introduced, and yet new ones might be adopted by an Irish Legislature unless some such Amendment as this were introduced into the Bill. The method of quashing indictments was also connected with criminal procedure, also the method of conducting the trial and of examining witnesses. The Irish Parliament might desire to abolish cross-examination. They had had a remarkable instance of the tendency in that direction in Ireland in a Royal Commission—
    MR. SEXTON: That was on the part of an English Judge.
    MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, that no doubt it was an English Judge who refused to allow cross-examination; but that legal dignitary had admitted that in an Irish atmosphere he was not bound by rules of British procedure. That was a fair illustration of what would be the natural tendency if the Bill became law without this Amendment. An Irish Legislature would have the power of following the precedent set by that English Judge. Again, criminal procedure embraced questions relating to defence, and as to whether prisoners should be compelled or permitted to be examined in their own defence. There were also questions connected with the writ of error and the Court for Crown Cases Reserved. All these things were links in the chain on which the liberties of the people depended, and unless the Bill were amended it would be possible for any one of these points to be upset or altered by the Irish Parliament in a Bill of a single clause. In the Irish Parliament of 1689 all criminal procedure was suspended by the majority against their political opponents in the celebrated Act of Attainder passed by that Parliament and afterwards quashed. It was actually provided against 2,500 Protestant landowners, nobility, and gentry, that unless they came in within a certain time and appeared before the tribunal of the Irish Parliament, they should be then and there attainted, and be liable to be convicted in their absence and condemned to the confiscation of their property and to death. That was done in the Irish Parliament of 1689—the only precedent in Irish history, Grattan's Parliament having been the Parliament of the Protestant minority, and, therefore, one not likely to infringe the liberties of the minority. The present Bill would place the Nationalist majority in power, and he would be acting falsely if he did not say that he believed there was grave danger of the liberty of the loyal minority being infringed by alterations in criminal procedure. Hon. Members below the Gangway had threatened the loyal minority with vengeance for the course they had taken throughout these controversies, and that minority would be prepared to meet the revenge of the majority in the best way they could; but there was, unquestionably, no way in which hon. Members could carry out
    374
    their threats more easily, dangerously, or discreditably than by altering the criminal procedure, and such alteration it behoved them to take measures to prevent. There were only two precedents which could be fairly appealed to in this matter—namely, the distribution of powers between the Dominion Parliament in Canada and the Local Legislatures, and the distribution of powers between the Federal and the State Governments in the United States. In the British North America Act, the Local Legislatures had conferred upon them power over civil procedure; but special distinction was drawn between that and criminal procedure, which was distinctly reserved to that Central Dominion Parliament. The case was still stronger in the United States; and would anyone say that there should be less security for liberty in Ireland than was to be found in one of the States of North America? This Bill was, in effect, setting up a Constitution both for Ireland and for the relations between Ireland and England, and, therefore, ought to contain in it what was contained in the State and Federal Constitutions of America. Important limitations were imposed upon the State Legislatures with reference to such matters as bail, trial by jury, indictment and grand jury, speedy and public trial, depositions of witnesses, the compelling of the attendance of witnesses, and the rule that no man should be twice put in jeopardy for the same offence. All these matters were carefully dealt with in the Constitutions. And yet Her Majesty's Government were going in this Bill, in which they were setting up a Constitution for Ireland, to give absolute power in that country to alter the criminal procedure. The Solicitor General would say that sufficient protection was given in reserving from the Irish Legislature the power of making laws.
    "Whereby any person may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
    But the restrictions in the American Constitutions were in addition to this supposed safeguard, which would turn out to be a very vague and unsatisfactory protection. Criminal procedure went to the root of the liberty of the subject, were he great or humble. At present the criminal procedure of the realm

    375
    afforded equal protection to all the inhabitants of Great Britain and Ireland. In Ireland they enjoyed all the protection the people enjoyed in Great Britain; and he trusted that the Government would not place it in the power of the Irish Legislature to diminish the protection which that procedure supplied.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 6, after the words "treasonfelony," to insert the words "procedure in criminal matters."—(Mr. Dunbar Burton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR J. RIGBY: I cannot allow myself to be drawn into an indiscriminate eulogium of our criminal procedure as being the perfection of human wisdom. I think I should be borne out by almost the common consent of the authorities in saying that our Code of Criminal Procedure at present is singularly defective, singularly dilatory, and in many ways hardly creditable to our common sense as a nation. Having said that, no one will expect mc to pronounce an eulogy on our Code. If the right of altering in substance matters connected with the Criminal Law of the country is to be vested in the Irish Legislature, that fact almost of necessity takes with it that subsidiary matters of procedure must be settled by that Legislature also. The reference made by the hon. and learned Member opposite to the Federal Constitution of the United States suggests an altogether false analogy. I may have misunderstood the hon. and learned Gentleman; but I gathered from his remarks that he was of opinion that the Federal Government deals with the question of criminal procedure in the various States.
    MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, he had quoted the Constitution of California, taken from Mr. Bryce's book, to show that in the case of that State many subjects of criminal procedure were withdrawn from the cognisance of the State.
    SIR J. RIGBY: I gathered from the hon. and learned Gentleman that he suggested that the two precedents which should guide us in this matter were those of the Canadian Government and the Government of the United States of America. In the case of the Government of Canada, the control over Criminal Law is vested in the Dominion Parliament and not in the Imperial Parliament.
    376
    And as a corollary to that state of things procedure in criminal matters is vested in the same Authority as the rest of the law. I think, therefore, I have disposed of Canada as a precedent. The right to deal with procedure under that Act followed the right to alter the Criminal Law, and the same principle was adopted by the Government in the present Bill. I now come to the question of the Federal Authority in the United States and the States Authorities. One would suppose, from what was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that this important question of procedure in criminal matters was taken away from the States and given to the Federal Government. That is not the fact, or anything like the fact. The Federal Government has no right, as far as I know, to utter one single word about procedure in criminal matters in any State.
    MR. DUNBAR BARTON: I did not say it had.
    SIR J. RIGBY: No; but I am endeavouring to show that, because the hon. and learned Member could not say it had, his argument was without foundation. Precedent must have something to do with the case we are arguing, and the Federal Government has nothing to do with procedure in the States. The hon. and learned Member has quoted the case of the Californian Legislature. The Sovereign State of California—for Sovereign it is in this matter—has chosen to say that certain matters of procedure shall be taken out of the ordinary course of procedure in that State. The exceptional procedure they had set up they may, however, alter at any time by Constitutional Amendments; but, at any rate, it is to the State and not to the Federal Government that the right of altering criminal procedure is reserved. I venture to say there is not a shred of resemblance between the precedents the hon. and learned Member has put forward and the case under discussion. You are giving the power to the Irish Legislature dealing in substance with the Criminal Law, but by a strange inversion of ideas you assume that the form is more important than the substance. When the substance has been conceded, you treat it as a matter of vital importance that the form should be reserved.
    MR. DUNBAR BARTONsaid, the Solicitor General had admitted that the matters embodied in the Amendment were dealt with in State Constitutions. They were, however, also dealt with in the Federal Constitution; and if a State interfered with the Federal Laws respecting speedy trial, indictment by Grand Jury, and so forth, it could be brought up before the Federal Courts. If the Irish Legislature were allowed to alter procedure in criminal matters, the loyal minority in Ireland would have less protection than was possessed by the citizens of an American State.
    MR. RENTOUL, who was received with cries of "Divide!" said, he did not intend to detain the Committee long, but he was certainly not going to be put down by the clamour of the supporters of the Government. He did not at all attribute to the Irish Nationalist Members immense fertility in inventing wicked schemes in regard to criminal procedure, but he fancied that the Irish Nationalist Members might take certain views with regard to criminal procedure which to the loyal minority would be very abhorrent. They would need to invent nothing, but merely to be guided by precedents existing in other countries. For instance, they would be able to find precedents for majorities on juries deciding cases. He objected to their having the power to adopt such precedents, because he regarded them as very bad ones. They might also dispense with juries altogether, and substitute trial by Judges. They might apply the system of trial by two Magistrates to Ulster, and keep it constantly in force there on the plea that they were merely adopting a system inaugurated by the Imperial Parliament. MR. Justice Stephen, in his book entitled A General View on the Laws of England, pointed out that under the English law every man was believed to be innocent until he was proved to be guilty, whilst under the French law the opposite was the case. The Irish Nationalists had great respect for the French nation, and they might say that the French criminal system was quite as good as the English criminal system. If ever there was a book after reading which a man felt inclined to say, "Thank God, I am not a Frenchman!" it was this book of Mr. Justice Stephen's. In France, as soon as a charge was made
    378
    against a man, he was confronted with witnesses and cross-examined in his cell again and again. In fact, he was subjected to a system of torture which Mr. Justice Stephen declared to be a disgrace to the civilised world. He was not willing to confer power on the Irish Legislature to introduce such a system into Ireland, especially as he believed that the English system of criminal procedure, on which the Irish system was largely based, was one which more effectually than any other secured the conviction of the guilty and gave a chance of escape to the innocent. Believing, then, that the criminal system of England was a very good one, and that, with some few amendments, it would be the very height of human wisdom, he desired that it should be maintained.
    MR. CARSONsaid, he had put the Amendment on the Taper under the fullest souse of responsibility and in the belief that it would be of vast importance for the protection of Loyalists and others in Ireland. The Bill contained a declaration that no one in Ireland would be deprived of life, liberty, or property except by due process of law. That was what he ventured to style a mere paper section, which provided no safeguard unless the proper machinery were provided for giving effect to it. The Amendment was intended to carry into effect the declaration to which he alluded, and it was, therefore, of great importance as showing whether the safeguards were to be real or mere paper safeguards. The Government had excepted treason and treason felony, foreign enlistment, and coinage from the functions of the Irish Legislature, and he wished to know whether the Irish Legislature were to have full power over the procedure for giving effect to laws dealing with those matters? If not, the very safeguards that had been accepted would be rendered nugatory by the procedure of the Irish Parliament. He would take the case of foreign enlistment. Were the Irish Legislature to have the power of altering procedure in reference to the Acts dealing with foreign enlistment? Ought not the reason which caused the Government to except foreign enlistment induce them to take steps to prevent the Acts being rendered nugatory by procedure? The Foreign

    379
    Enlistment Act provided that if British subjects built ships for the purpose of supplying them to a foreign Power which was at peace with this country, the Secretary of State could step in and could either seize and detain them or could prosecute the builders for misdemeanour. He wanted to know whether the Irish Parliament was to have power to say that the ships might be supplied to the foreign Power for which they were built, and that the Secretary of State might prosecute for misdemeanour if he liked? He should like to know what grave complications might not ensue if the Irish Legislature were at liberty to take a course of this kind? With regard to the coinage, the Government had excepted that matter from the power of the Irish Legislature, but was that Body to have power to regulate the procedure in relation to offences against the coinage? They might as well never have excepted from the powers of the Irish Legislature at all the matters they had done unless they were going to take the further step which the Solicitor General had admitted was the natural corollary to the step already taken—namely, to withdraw the procedure, as well as the enactment of laws, from the Irish Government. He hoped, as regarded those matters which were of Imperial importance, he should have some answer. He should like to know whether the Government had considered the extent of the powers they were giving to the Irish Legislature when they said that the whole of the criminal procedure was to be within the purview of the Irish Legislature? When the Americans were enacting their Constitution they took the greatest possible pains to preserve the liberty of the subject by safeguards in criminal procedure, every one of which was taken from the English law. In the present Bill, so far as he could see, there was no safeguard in respect of any of those matters which were considered of vital importancce in the English Constitution, and which had been adopted by the American Constitution. Were they going to give to the Irish Government the power to do away with the indictment before a Grand Jury, which was one of the protections of the British Constitution, and which was one of the very first matters safeguarded in the American Constitution? If that power
    380
    was not to be ceded, were they going to take away the substance of that protection by altering the status of these Grand Jurors, who were looked upon, as they knew, by a certain section of the Irish people as forming part of the English garrison? They had a right to know if that was the intention of the Government. Another matter which seemed to him to be of vital importance was the question regarding searches and seizures. It was against these and many other abuses that the law of habeas corpus had been so rigidly adhered to in this country. Could anything be conceived as affording a greater opportunity for Executive tyranny than to allow the Irish Legislature to deal with these matters? In the American Constitution this was naturally one of the most vital safeguards. The American Constitution had a provision that such searches and seizures should be invalid unless made under a proper warrant. Was the Irish Legislature to have power to abolish those warrants, and so practically to do away with the writ of habeas corpus, because it was by a writ of habeas corpus that these different matters were tested? There were many other matters of a similar character which had been referred to by previous speakers. He might refer to bailable offences. One of the matters that Parliament had laid down by Statute referring to Ireland was that a certain number of offences should be bailable in all circumstances. Were they going to give power to the Irish Executive to take away that safeguard? Again, were they to have power to take away the safeguard of a man being tried only once for one offence; or of compelling a man to give evidence against himself? On the question of summary jurisdiction by negativing the Amendment which was proposed the previous night, they had left the appointment of Magistrates entirely with the Irish Executive. Were these Magistrates under the Irish Executive to be still limited by the same right of appeals to the Superior Courts that had existed hitherto, or was the Irish Legislature to have power to take away these safeguards and leave the Irish Executive with complete control over the matters which came under their purview? One of these Magistrates appointed by the Irish Executive might, say, preside at a

    381
    boycotting meeting, and the boycotted man might come before him for redress. Was the Irish Legislature to have power to take away the right of appeal which existed in almost every case, and to leave the boycotted man absolutely at the mercy of the Magistrate who presided at the boycotting meeting? It did strike him that these matters, and the way they were treated by the Government, were in strange contrast to the comparatively trivial matters which they themselves had thought it necessary to except. Take, for instance, the case of the coinage. He apprehended that any offence against the coinage must come within the Imperial Court provided by the 19th section. What right did that give? It gave the right of appeal to the Privy Council against any decision that might be given against a person tried for this common and ordinary offence in Ireland against the coinage. They gave all these safeguards, and imposed all these difficulties in connection with the conviction of that man, but a man tried for murder was left absolutely at the mercy of a Judge appointed by the Irish Executive and a jury, called according to Irish laws, without any appeal being given to a Criminal Court of Appeal or to the Privy Council. That occurred to him to be an absolute absurdity. Take, again, the case of the Merchandise Marks Act. For any offence under that Act a man might insist on being tried before this Imperial Court of Exchequer Judges, with an appeal to the Privy Council, whereas in a case of sedition a man would be left to the mercy of the Irish Executive and of an Irish tribunal without any appeal whatever. These were matters which showed that, while the Government were quite willing to hand over the Loyalists of Ireland in all these matters to the tender mercies of the Irish Executive, they were absolutely unwilling in comparatively trivial matters relating to Imperial affairs to entrust their own law to be administered by exactly the same tribunal. He now came to a matter which was of even graver importance than any of the matters he had been already dealing with, and a matter into which it would be necessary for him to go into some considerable detail. [Cries of "Divide!"] He could assure hon. Members that if they thought that these
    382
    safeguards they had now had for several hundred years were to be left to the mercy of the Irish Legislature on a few moments' debate they were greatly mistaken. Had the Government considered the condition of the procedure in relation to criminals as between Great Britain and Ireland as it at present existed, and as it would exist under the Bill in reference to the backing of warrants? How were Irish warrants in future to be enforced in England?
    An hon. MEMBER: Next Amendment.
    MR. CARSONsaid, it was included in this Amendment, and the reason he had put it down as a separate matter was this: They were very often told that one Amendment was too wide, and if they had a more restricted Amendment the Government might assent to it. Therefore, it was in order that he might not be told he bad been guilty of negligence in drawing his Amendment, he had done his best to try and carry out the view of the Government, and specifically to draw an Amendment on a specific matter. Suppose a crime was committed in Ireland and the criminal came to England, what was to be the procedure? Having established Irish Courts solely under the control of the Irish Executive, was criminal process, issued by the Irish Courts, to have the same force in England as it had had hitherto, when these matters were under Imperial control? Let them see how the matter worked out at present. The Irish Magistrates issued their warrant; it went to the Inspector General, who backed it and sent it over to England for execution. Was that to be the procedure in future? There must be some regulation of process between the two countries. It was plain, however, that this was not to be the procedure in future, because the office of Inspector General was to be abolished; and he wanted to know what authority was going to be substituted? At present he saw nothing in the Bill. This was an important matter to people resident in England, because, of course, the Inspector General being an Imperial officer, as he had to back the warrant, there was a certain amount of protection that he would only back proper warrants, or warrants not maliciously issued. What was to be the substitution for that? As that affected people living in this country,

    383
    was it to be regulated by the Imperial Parliament or by the Irish Executive? If it was to be left to the Irish Legislature, all he could say was that it was a very serious matter, looking at it from the point of view of persons living in this country, that they were to have no Imperial officer intervening between processes issued by these Magistrates, who were under the control of the Irish Executive, and the arrest of the person who was to be arrested under the warrant in this country. That was a matter which ought to be determined. If English Members were quite prepared to concede, as a purely Irish matter, to the Irish Legislature and Executive the power to issue warrants which were to run and have force in England, then, of course, let them do it with their eyes open. He came to a question of equal importance—namely, how were English warrants to be enforced in Ireland? Take the case of a criminal committing an offence in England which might be no offence in Ireland. He went to Ireland, and the Irish Executive might not be too willing to give up persons to the English Executive in relation to a matter which was not an offence at all in that country. How were the Government going to deal with that question? Was it to be left to the Irish Legislature? There might, of course, be an Extradition Treaty. Was such a Treaty to be arranged? Of course, it was absurd to suppose that there would be a Treaty; but still the Committee ought to be told how the subject was to be dealt with, because the Bill contained no provision in relation to it at present. At the present moment the way the matter was done was this: the English warrant was sent over to Ireland and endorsed by the Inspector General, who forwarded it to the place where it was to be executed. But the Inspector General would be abolished; and were they going to give the Irish Parliament or Legislature power to render the procedure entirely nugatory and void, by passing an Act, that these warrants should not run in Ireland? If they were going to have no way of capturing offenders who had committed crimes in England, and who had taken refuge in Ireland, it would not add to the amenities of Irish society to have all these refugees coming over there. He had been unable to see from the Bill how
    384
    these warrants as between the two countries were to be executed at all, and it was important to know how these matters wore to be regulated in future. He could only hope that the points he had raised would be met by some arguments dealing with and pointing out how they were to be regulated in future if this Bill should ever, unfortunately, become law. He knew the favourite answer was that they were to trust this great Irish Parliament. But they had asked over and over again, on what was that trust to be founded? Was it to be based upon the past conduct in relation to the Criminal Law of the Leaders of the Irish Nationalists? Was it to be founded on the fact that over and over again they had stated that when they came into power they would repay them (the Unionists) for matters that had happened in the past? Was it to be founded upon declarations of right hon. Gentlemen opposite? All he could say was that he remembered very well a speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, in which he said if he was to govern Ireland according to Irish ideas he would not govern it at all. If criminal procedure was to be adapted according to Irish ideas, so far as they knew them, there would be no criminal procedure at all, or it would be turned into channels which hon. Members opposite could scarcely contemplate with equanimity.
    SIR J. RIGBY: I hope to be able to answer those points in the arguments of the hon. and learned Gentleman which appear to me to have reference to this Amendment, and as regards any points which do not appear to me to concern the Amendment I shall pass them by. Now, first I would say that, with regard to the general argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman, it appears to me that it disregards the extent of the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member appears to think that a general Amendment, applicable, it may be, to hundreds of thousands of cases, is sufficiently supported in argument by pointing out here and there a case in which it might be reasonable enough to introduce some change. He began about procedure in criminal matters, and certain instances are taken in which it is said that it would be desirable that that procedure should be taken out of the hands of the Irish Legislature. The

    385
    right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury introduced an Amendment into Section 3 of the clause, having reference to procedure in regard to a very wide class of offences; but when we came to the point he told us fairly and candidly that what he meant was something quite different. The right hon. Gentleman said he did not intend that the procedure in cases under the Extradition Treaty, which is a fundamental part, an essential part, of the Bill should be interfered with. The moment that was pointed out the Government endeavoured to meet it fairly; but now the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin has gone back to the point of the Extradition Treaty.
    MR. CARSON: I did not go back to the Extradition Treaty. I referred to the Foreign Enlistment Acts.
    SIR J. RIGBY: The Foreign Enlistments Act is equally covered by what has taken place before. Then it is said that if the whole of the criminal procedure were handed over to the Irish Legislature, some classes of offences would be covered that ought not to be covered. But, that being granted, it does not form the slightest argument for debating the particular Amendment; because the argument, if it has any value, must extend to the whole of the indictment you are presenting. The hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that difficulties will arise in eases of treason and treason-felony, which we have excepted from the jurisdiction of the Irish Legislature; that there is a want of logic in our position, because we are separating the right to deal with the substantive crime from the right to deal with procedure. I deny that there is any want of logic in the position which the Government take up in this matter, when it is laid down in the Bill that there shall be no legislation at all from the Irish Legislature with reference to treason or treason-felony. There is a special provision in the Bill that the Legislature shall not pass any law in respect of treason-felony. It is totally excluded in all its bearings. The exclusion is not limited to any particular Act. The exclusion is general, as it is intended to be; and if there is in
    386
    any Act about treason or treason-felony a matter of procedure which is enacted especially in reference to that particular crime, that matter of procedure can no more be dealt with by the Irish Legislature than the substantive form of the crime itself. I say that where we have given the whole dealing with the Criminal Law to a particular Legislative Body, it follows, as a logical conclusion, that we ought not to sever the jurisdiction into two parts—the one relating to substantive offences or crimes, and the other relating to the way in which the Courts of the country should carry out the Criminal Law with respect to those crimes. I do not think that there is any need for me to establish that further. I find that difficulties are suggested. I will take one case which the hon. and learned Member pressed on me a great, deal. The hon. and learned Member asked—"How are you going to deal with the important question of the manner in which warrants issued in England are to have effect in Ireland; and how, in the opposite case, are warrants issued in Ireland to have effect given to them in England?" There is not much difficulty about the matter. The execution of warrants in England or Ireland rests on the substantive enactments of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and Clause 36 of the Bill provides a remedy for any defect that may be discovered afterwards, for it says that where it appears to the Queen in Council, before the expiration of a year after the appointed day, that any existing enactment respecting matters within the powers of the Irish Legislature require adaptation to Ireland, then Her Majesty may, by Order in Council, make that adaptation. One of the possible cases indicated is the required substitution of the Lord Lieutenant in Council, or of any Department or officer of the Executive Government in Ireland, for Her Majesty in Council, or a Public Department or officer in Great Britain.
    MR. CARSON: He would be an officer of Ireland.
    SIR J. RIGBY: He would be an officer of the United Kingdom. ["No!"] I do not know what the hon. and learned Gentleman means. An officer holding under the Crown in Ireland cannot be described as an Irish officer in any accurate

    387
    sense. He is an officer of the Crown, and if one officer disappears under this Bill you will have another in his place. I will not be drawn into an argument on the precise wording of the section. The section, according to the reading of it, provides for the particular case before the Committee; and, if it does not, it can be made to do so by two words of an Amendment put in in the proper place. As to an order made in England for execution in Ireland, that certainly does not concern Ireland exclusively, and the Irish Government will have no sort of jurisdiction. The Imperial Statute will still make it obligatory on the parties in Ireland to give effect to warrants issued here, and therefore the whole objection that has been raised falls to the ground. At any rate, a defect in this matter can be made good by an Amendment under Clause 36. Then I come to cases of seizure and inquiry. These are matters, not of mere procedure, but of substantive right. A particular proceeding is a trespass or not a trespass according to the substantive law.
    MR. CARSON: According to procedure, it is a trespass or it is not a trespass.
    SIR J. RIGBY: No; but, according to substantive law, if the law says one may do a thing it is no longer a trespass. A trespass on a man's house in violation of the law is not a matter of procedure; but it is a most important matter of civil law and civil right. If a man under a general warrant invades one's house he may be treated as a criminal trespasser or an ordinary wrongdoer. But for such an offence, even though the question of procedure in criminal actions were entirely taken out of the hands of the Irish Legislature, there would be a remedy under which a jury fixing civil damages would be instructed by the Judge to give exemplary damages—not merely damages corresponding with the amount of the injury done, but with the right interfered with. I think now that I have really gone over the important parts of the matter. I have dealt with what I conceive to be the entirely irrelevant arguments as to seizures under general warrants. This is a substantive part of
    388
    the law, and, if it were not, the exclusion of criminal procedure from the jurisdiction of the Irish Legislature will not put the subject-matter out of their jurisdiction in other respects; because, even though Parliament were to take away the right of criminal procedure from the Irish Legislature, there will still remain the right of civil action, which in this case would be vastly more important. If a Secretary of State seizes papers improperly, it is not the criminal procedure against him that he has to dread, but the likelihood of being mulcted in damages. Again, I say, you have to inquire whether a matter is one that exclusively relates to Ireland. If it does not relate exclusively to Ireland there is no foundation for any legislation on the part of the Irish Legislature.
    SIR H. JAMES: I will endeavour very briefly to deal with the chief points brought forward very ably by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General. For a great many years I have known what a formidable opponent my hon. and learned Friend is, and also how reasonable he is; but I must say it is difficult to please my hon. and learned Friend tonight. When the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin brings forward a general Amendment my hon. and learned Friend says that deceit lurks in generalities. But when the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin puts down a detailed Amendment the Solicitor General says—"How can we discuss measures of general importance upon this special Amendment?" The fact is that we must strike a balance between the two considerations, and see whether the general effect of an Amendment is, on the whole, for good or for evil. I can well admit that there are matters, such as one man striking another at a fair, which should be left to the jurisdiction of an Irish Legislature; but I am now asking the Committee to look at graver matters and their consequences, and it is these graver matters and their consequences that should incline the balance. We have to deal with the prohibited cases in Clause 3; but we have to deal with a number of other cases, not only

    389
    of cases prohibited by Clause 3, but with the others that do not come within the general statement of the Act as being an Act to deal with the good government of Ireland; therefore my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary said that piracy could not possibly come within this Act at all. Everything that occurs outside Ireland is prohibited to be dealt with by this Act. Why is that? It is because you will not trust the Irish Legislature to deal with these matters. But you go further; you will not trust the Irish Judicature to deal with them. You say—"The Irish Judges shall not be trusted to deal with these grave and important matters." And you refuse to them the power of trying, and give this power to two English Judges. But what is the use of that if their procedure is to be controlled by the Irish Legislature; and on this Bill the whole of the argument of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Carson) is admitted. The admission that is made in this Bill exists in Clause 19. In Sub-section 3 of Clause 19 it is forbidden that any
    "Alteration of any Rule relating to such legal proceedings as are mentioned in this section shall not be made, except with the approval of Her Majesty the Queen in Council."
    Yes; you will not trust the Judges with the ordinary power of making their Rules of Procedure; you will nor, allow the Irish Executive to revise these Rules; I but you are going to give that power to the Irish Legislature. You are going to give them the power to control all the proceedings of the English Judges when trying treason and treason-felony, and, at the same time, you say you will not trust the Judges to make their own Rules in the smallest matter of procedure. Where is the consistency of that proceeding? That is not our argument; it is the argument of the framers of the Bill. You will not trust your Irish Judiciary to conduct their own procedure, but, at the same time, everything of substance is to be governed by the Irish Legislature. It will render the administration of justice not only a fiction but a farce. Now let me deal with what my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General
    390
    says. He admits the wisdom of the contention of the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Carson), for this reason. He says—"When you tell me the Irish Legislature ought not to interfere with criminal procedure in treason and treason-felony I think you are right; but that is provided for by the Bill." With great deference to him, I think he is wrong. If an Act says a Legislature is not to deal with treason and treason-felony, that does not prevent them dealing with criminal cases. It might be enacted that men condemned to death should be admitted to bail. That would not touch treason or treason-felony within the meaning of the Act; but it would mean that the procedure was a procedure perfectly inapplicable to the administration of justice. Again, you can legislate by saying that, after committal for trial, all such persons shall be allowed to come and go as debtors did in the olden time. That would not be legislation applying to treason or treason-felony, but the traitor would escape through it as much as if you said treason should not be an offence at all; and, as I understand the hon. and learned Solicitor General, he thinks the procedure in relation to such cases should not be within the power and cognisance of the Irish Legislature. As this Bill stands, all that safeguard is reduced to nothing, because although if says "you shall not deal with certain criminal offences," yet you allow this Legislature to deal with criminal procedure which renders the prohibition perfectly rugatory. The balance of convenience, of right, and of the necessity for maintaining the law against the criminal is in favour of the criminal procedure being vested in this Parliament.
    THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I have heard with respect the observations of my right hon. and learned Friend, and I entirely accept the principle with which he started—namely, that, in judging of the reasonableness of an Amendment of this kind, which proposes to exclude from the jurisdiction of the Irish Legislature the dealing with procedure in all criminal matters, we must strike a balance; we must consider upon the

    391
    one side the number of cases that ought naturally to be within the cognisance of the Legislature such as it is proposed to create, which this Amendment would exclude, and on the other side the cases which, according to the view of my right hon. Friend, it would be unsafe to entrust to the jurisdiction of the Irish Legislature. I venture entirely to controvert and to deny the proposition which my right hon. Friend expressly states lies at the root of his argument, that the matters in this 3rd clause withdrawn from the cognisance of the Irish Legislature are so withdrawn from any want of trust in regard to the Legislature itself. That is not the principle on which the 3rd clause proceeds. The 3rd clause is nothing more than the application and development of the principle already laid down in the preceding clauses. What is that principle? That the Irish Parliament shall have power to legislate in relation to matters which concern, and concern exclusively, the peace, the order, and the good government of Ireland; and when you find certain matters which do not exclusively concern the peace, good order, and government of Ireland, and dealing with those, and specifically enumerating them, say they shall not be within the power of the Irish Legislature, you are acting, not in a spirit of distrust, not by way of qualification or reservation of powers already granted, but by way of rendering more specific a limitation already made. That being the case, when we come to any particular Amendment on the 3rd clause, what we have to consider is not whether our confidence in the Irish Parliament would lead us to entrust this particular matter to them, but what we have to consider is whether the Irish Parliament, having a limited purpose and a purely local jurisdiction, the matter in question is one which, having regard to the scope of the activity, and jurisdiction of the Irish Parliament, ought to be excluded from it. I propose to apply that test to this particular Amendment. Here you are creating a Legislature with power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland, and you seriously propose to exclude from the jurisdiction of that Legislature the whole sphere of criminal procedure. Was ever such a proposition before seriously propounded for the consideration of a Legislative
    392
    Assembly? I am not going to argue the question whether the Irish people are fit to be entrusted with the enactment of the Criminal Law, and I am not going to argue it, for the simple and sufficient reason this House has decided that question by passing the Second Reading of this Bill—[Cries of"No!"] Yes; and also in the 1st and 2nd clauses, as my right hon. Friend reminds me, which this Committee has already assented to, and I deny your competence to introduce an Amendment into the 3rd clause, after the 1st and 2nd have been assented to, which would render nugatory and absurd that which you have already passed. The matter becomes a very simple one: Are we, or are we not, having declared this Legislative Body fit to pass laws, to exclude from its power the whole question of criminal procedure? The proposition only needs to be stated to answer itself. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who have discussed this Amendment, have mentioned a number of cases with reference to extradition, foreign enlistment, warrants issued in this country and running in Ireland, and have exercised a great deal of imaginative vivacity and vigour in regard to possible consequences ill the way of friction. The simple answer to all these arguments is that the cases to which they refer are cases excluded from the competence of the Irish Parliament, cases which depend on the legislation of this Imperial Parliament. If you give to a Legislative Body power of making substantive law, you by necessary implication give to them the power of regulating the procedure by which that law is carried out. And the converse, or rather the corollary, is equally true—if you withdraw the power of making substantive law, you withdraw from them the power of regulating the procedure. I have only one other observation to make, that if there be any doubt about the matter—which I cannot conceive any lawyer entertaining—it is specially provided for in the 19th clause of the present Bill where a special tribunal is created, consisting of the Exchequer Judges, to whose exclusive jurisdiction is entrusted the decision of all questions which touch any matter not within the powers of the Irish Legisla-

    393
    ture and in relation to all legal proceedings that come before the Courts so constituted—
    "Which are instituted at the instance of or against the Treasury or Commissioners of Customs, or any of their officers, or relate to the election of Members to serve in Parliament or touch any matter not within the powers of the Irish Legislature, or touch any matter affected by a law which the Irish Legislature have not power to repeal or alter."
    I trust I have sufficiently disposed of that question. I can only say, in regard to the substance of this Amendment, that the Government, so far as they are concerned, would regard it as absolutely and completely defeating and frustrating the enactments to which this Committee has already assented.
    MR. GOSCHEN: When the Solicitor General was speaking, if the veracious chronicler of The Daily News was in the House, he would have stated the hon. and learned Member the Solicitor General was received with cries of "Divide." There was no desire to hear his answer—[Cries of"Divide!"] If I am received with cries of "Divide," I am merely sharing the fate of the hon. and learned Solicitor General; they had no desire to hear him, and even when the Home Secretary rose there was a cry of "Divide"—[Cries of"Divide!"] Yes, you prefer—Cries of"Divide!" and "Question!"] Hon. Members in all parts of the House must have seen the deep attention with which we listened to the hon. and learned Solicitor General and to the Home Secretary, and surely they will not think it necessary to refuse the same courtesy to me. But I wish to point the attention of the Committee to the fact that hon. Members opposite prefer silence and voting to the arguments even of their own Solicitor General—even to the best arguments that can be produced by their own side. I do not think the hon. and learned Solicitor General added much to the knowledge of the Committee upon this—[Cries of "Oh, oh!"] No; and it is proved it was not so, because, eager as hon. Members are for a Division, it was thought necessary the Home Secretary should follow the hon.
    394
    and learned Gentleman in order to put the matter right. Well, did the Government feel that their case had been inadequately stated? [Cries of"Divide!"] I hope I shall receive the same courtesy that has been extended to right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. I wish to make good my point why I say hon. Members opposite were not satisfied with the answer of the hon. and learned Solicitor General—[Cries of"Oh, oh!"] What is the good of saying "Oh, oh"? they were not satisfied, because, instead of dealing with the merits of the case, he used an argument which has been continually used in this Debate—and which by this time, I hope, is thoroughly discredited—saying, "Your Amendment not only deals with the particular point you raised, but it goes too far."
    SIR J. RIGBY: Dealing with this Amendment?
    MR. GOSCHEN: Yes; he used the argument that has been used over and over again in our Debates—namely, that they go too far, and the hon. and learned Gentleman said they admitted there was a certain force in the arguments that had been urged, and when they came to a certain point possibly they would deal with that particular point. On every Amendment moved from this side of the House we have a confession from the other side of the House. [Cries of "No, no!"] Yes; it is generally said, "You go rather too far; but if you confined your Amendment to a particular form, we would have dealt with it in the Bill." [Cries of "No, no!"] I state that as an absolute fact; time after time the Government say, "There is a point in the Amendment, and possibly we will deal with it by-and-bye."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No.
    MR. GOSCHEN: The First Lord of the Treasury says, "No," but I wish to ask whether he heard the hon. and learned Solicitor General admit there was one point—that there were certain cases contemplated by this Amendment that was serious, but the Amendment went so far—[Cries of "Question!"] Am I misrepre-

    395
    senting the hon. and learned Gentleman? I say, let the Government put on the Notice Paper of the House the Amendments, which they are prepared to admit as the necessary result of the debates, and which have been discussed. The First Lord of the Treasury said he never remembered a case where Amendments had been submitted to the House in a manner as on this occasion—Amendments which require amendment in the course of a Debate. We amend the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman. He admits, or his Colleagues admit, it requires amendment in many cases—["No!"] Yes; you have admitted arguments, and you would have admitted more but for your fear of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. A change has come over the spirit of the dream since we saw those expressions of dissatisfaction, and we have not seen the same disposition to admit most reasonable Amendments which have been moved to-night since the warning which right hon. Gentlemen received. Now, it is admitted that there are certain points that have been urged on this side of the House that require the attention of the Government; but, says the Home Secretary, "we have to look to a balance in these matters"—I think that was the phrase used—"that you will take away so much from the Irish Parliament if you accept this; that it would outweigh the advantage that would ensue if you deal with particular points, to which we, on this side of the House, attach particular importance." Now, I wish to know why is the balance always to be decided in favour of the Irish people as against the English? Why, at all events, do right hon. Gentlemen not admit it, and meet us by saying, "We see there is a certain point in your arguments; we will admit so much of your Amendment, but we cannot admit the rest"? That would be a fair way of dealing with the Amendments proposed. But, instead of that, on every occasion right hon. Gentlemen opposite take advantage of what they call the width of the Amendment, in order to frustrate the legitimate object of the Amendments. I think that the British public will see through the attitude of the Government. They will see that when there is a balance, and the argument is in favour of some limitation, and there is a portion
    396
    of the argument that might be in favour of more freedom of the Irish Parliament, the decision is always given in the direction of the Irish people, and contrary to what may be considered the legitimate demands of the British public. It has been shown in this Amendment, as it has been shown in many others, that there are distinct dangers in the direction of confiding to an Irish Parliament the whole legislation with regard to criminal procedure. It is scarcely denied by the right hon. Gentleman opposite—their antecedents prevent them giving a denial to that general proposition—and far from attempting to meet that portion of the case they themselves consider legitimate, they say, "We must give entire freedom to the Irish Parliament to deal with criminal procedure." The hon. Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Carson) has shown conclusively the danger of confiding these powers to an Irish Parliament, and what answer has been made? No answer except that answer of the balance always to be given in favour of the Irish Parliament. I do not consider that by one single argument hon. or right hon. Gentlemen opposite have even attempted to minimise the dangers we have put forward; they have not attempted to show there are not certain dangers, but have had recourse to that device which they have followed on every occasion of saying that if we carry this Amendment we shall, forsooth, be limiting the powers of the Irish Parliament to deal with criminal procedure, and that is because we have passed the words that the Irish Parliament are to legislate for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland. I remember when we were discussing those words it was said they were formal words, that they were the common form put into all the Statutes, and we were rather constrained from discussing them because they wore common words; but now, because those words have been passed, we are told that we must give the Irish Parliament, constituted as it will be, and under the leadership which it will have, to give them full power to deal with criminal procedure in order to promote the peace, the order, and the good government of Ireland. Well, how far the measures which will be proposed by that Parliament will be in that direction

    397
    is a matter of controversy and prophecy upon which I will not enter. ["Hear, hear!"] Well, if hon. Gentlemen say "hear, hear!" I say it is wise not to enter on that matter, if that is the meaning of that cheer. If they say it is wise, I would answer at once and say we must judge, and the public of Great Britain will judge, the probabilities of the future by the action and the speeches of right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Bench. I leave that portion of the argument to the decision of the British public. "But," says the Home Secretary, "it, would be perfectly ridiculous, having given those powers for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland to the Irish people, to prevent them dealing with criminal procedure." Has the right hon. Gentleman remembered the 4th clause of the Bill, in which, after having confided all these powers to the Irish Legislature, the Government are going to curtail their action upon matters most interesting to the whole of the Irish people? The Irish Parliament is to be allowed to deal with criminal procedure, but it is not to be allowed to deal with education. I do not wish to use strong words, although strong words are sometimes used on the Government Benches, but is it not almost hypocrisy to say that it is a slight on the Irish people to prevent their dealing with criminal procedure, while you prevent their dealing with the education of their own children? No, Mr. Mellor, the Government are afraid of proposing to limit the powers of the Irish Legislature with regard to criminal procedure; and, if there was one subject in the world one would have thought they would have been asked by their own friends and the constituents of this country to be careful upon, it would be with regard to criminal procedure. One would have thought that would have been their attitude. But, no; they resist this Amendment, because they know the Irish Members would most indignantly repudiate any fetters being put upon them to prevent their dealing with criminal procedure. They have their views as regards criminal procedure; they have suffered under the present criminal procedure. As regards all these important points to which those who are interested in insisting there should
    398
    be safeguards in this Bill, for the minority have repeatedly called attention—all these are neglected by the Government, while they are prepared to put in safeguards on other matters. The right hon. Gentleman says that they repudiate all these Amendments, because they deal only with matters which concern the Irish people alone. But they must remember they have given pledges that there are to be safeguards for the minority in Ireland. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham pointed out yesterday, this is not only a question between Ireland and this country, but we have to be cautious for the minority in Ireland. The last three or four Amendments all had their bearing upon the safeguards for the minority in Ireland, and what we now declare is that the Government and their supporters neglect and refuse to embody in the Bill many of the most important proposals which have been put forward to defend the rights, liberties, and the property of the minority in Ireland.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 253; Noes 293.—(Division List, No. 121.)
    MR. CARSONmoved the following Amendment:—
    In Clause 3, page 2, line 6, at end, add "The execution and carrying out in Ireland of warrants for arrest in criminal process issued in Great Britain, and the execution and carrying out in Great Britain of warrants for arrest in criminal process issued in Ireland."
    He said, that as he had already spoken at some length on the subject, he was not going to repeat what he had said before. But the Committee would recollect that the Solicitor General had admitted the great importance of this matter.
    MR. S. EVANS: On a point of Order, Sir, I wish to ask you whether the Amendment is in Order, having regard to the Amendment on which the Committee has just divided, and what was stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman himself. He admitted that this Amendment was included in the Amendment on which the Committee has already divided. He said the first Amendment was a very wide one, and,

    399
    therefore, he had put down a narrower one, which was included in the first Amendment. That being so, I ask you whether the wide Amendment does not cover this Amendment?
    THE CHAIRMANruled that the Amendment was in Order.
    MR. CARSONsaid, he only wanted the matter settled one way or the other. The Home Secretary said this was not a matter which would be in the power of the Irish Legislature, as not being exclusively an Irish matter. The Solicitor General rather took another view, and stated that it would be regulated under a subsequent action of the Act. He failed to see how this was to be excluded unless they put in express words removing it from the power of the Irish Legislature; and if there was any doubt upon the matter at all, it was only reasonable that they should have it made clear on the face of the Bill. The Solicitor General said there was no necessity for the Amendment, because the question of the execution of English warrants in Ireland and of Irish warrants in England was not a question relating exclusively to Ireland, and, therefore, it could not come within the jurisdiction of the Irish Parliament.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 2, line 6, after the words "treason-felony," to insert the words "The execution and carrying out in Ireland of warrants for arrest in criminal process issued in Great Britain, and the execution and carrying out in Great Britain of warrants for arrest in criminal process issued in Ireland."—(Mr. Carson.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. TOMLINSON, who was interrupted by cries of "Divide!" contended that they had a right to know what would be the exact position of an Englishman desiring to execute a warrant in Ireland for a crime committed in England, and also what would be the position of an Irishman desiring to execute a warrant in England for a crime committed in Ireland. This was a very important question; but, so far as he knew, the Government had left it
    400
    as a matter of uncertainty, which it was desirable should be cleared up.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 246; Noes 282.—(Division List, No. 122.)
    MR. BRODRICKrose to move the following Amendment:—
    In page 2, line 6, after "alienage," to insert "the immigration and expulsion of aliens, the rights of aliens resident in Ireland."
    He said the Committee would recognise that the subject-matter of this Amendment was of considerable importance. He assumed that the last thing an Irish Parliament would do would be to adopt any system likely to irritate Foreign Powers; but then the Irish Parliament would not be aware of the Imperial position with regard to Foreign Powers, and he assumed that the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill would regard this as of first importance in regard to their relations with those Powers. If matters were left as they were great jealousy and suspicion would be created. It was absolutely impossible to let the Bill remain as it was. In the course of last year there was a very serious feeling aroused because the United States Government refused to admit immigrants on the ground that they were paupers; and they actually turned back men who had money in their pockets, and who had money to receive in America. They were sent back to Ireland, the action of the States causing great loss to those people. Supposing that occurred in the future, was the Irish Legislature to have the Foreign Office to fall back upon? He thought it would not, and, that being so, it might make laws prohibiting the admission of American immigrants. The Irish Legislature would, in fact, have power to pass measures which would give offence to every nation in Europe. If that might be the case as to immigration, what were they to say as to the expulsion of aliens? He wondered what those who were qualified to instruct them in history would say on this point? Were they to leave it in the power of an Irish Parliament to expel all aliens at the same time

    401
    that they allowed it to, possibly, complicate all their relations with foreign countries? It was absolutely necessary that the intention of the Bill and its provisions should give cohesion to one another. They could not allow the Irish Government to affect their relations with other countries. All the questions as to domicile, which they had been discussing to-night, would arise on this clause. [Interruption.] He regretted that the hon. Member for Mid-Cork (Dr. Tanner) was reduced to inarticulate efforts on this Bill. [Cries of "Order!"] But the hon. Member must know that the Amendment raised many points worthy of discussion, and that they could not hope to deal with them all in the course of the few minutes left before midnight. [Cries of "Order!"] It was his duty to enter at length—[interruption]—into the various questions. He had, however, no intention of prolonging the discussions in Committee. He had to point out that aliens resident in—
    Dr. Tanner rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put"; but the Chairman declined then to put that Question.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, he was anxious to point out to the Committee that legislation affecting aliens might be interfered with by the application of the veto, or by the machinery of one of the later clauses.
    It being Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES (IRELAND) ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 242.)

    THIRD READING.
    Order for Third Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that before the Bill was read a third time he should like to know what course the Irish Government proposed to take with regard to it? It seemed to him that it would be
    402
    absolutely unworkable. It was a mere transcription of the English Bill, which would not fit in with any Act in existence in Ireland, and would require considerable amendment. He did not object to the principle of the Bill, but he could not assent to the Third Reading until he knew what steps the Irish Office proposed to take to amend it.
    MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, that certain Amendments were to be introduced in the Bill in another place to remedy the defects of which the hon. Gentleman complained.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, that, in view of that statement, he would not object to the Third Reading.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (POOR LAW) BILL.
  MR. Baldwin, Mr. Billson, and Mr. Brunner nominated Members of the Select Committee on Local Government Provisional Order (Poor Law) Bill, with Two to be added by the Committee of Selection.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL. (No. 374.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 7) BILL. (No. 375.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (DOUSING OF THE WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 370.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12.) BILL.—(No. 365.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 13) BILL.—(No. 366.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 14) BILL.—(No. 367.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 15) BILL.—(No. 368.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 16) BILL.—(No. 369.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.—(No. 290.)
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.—(No. 340.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.—(No. 360.)
  Reported, with Amendments [Provisional Orders confirmed]; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.
  WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.—(No. 337.)
  Reported, without Amendment [Provisional Orders confirmed]; to be read the third time To-morrow.

  LAND TENURE (ENGLAND) BILL. (No. 62.)
  Order for Second Reading upon Wednesday 21st June read, and discharged.
  Bill withdrawn.

  ELECTRIC POWERS PROTECTIVE CLAUSES.
  SIR JOHN MOWBRAYreported from the Committee of Selection, That they had discharged the following Member from the Joint Committee on Electric Powers Protective Clauses:—Sir John Lubbock; and had appointed in substitution: Major Darwin.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
  That they have agreed to,—Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill; Metropolitan Commons Provisional Order [Banstead] Bill.
  LAND TAX COMMISSIONERS NAMES BILL.—(No. 168.)
  Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment; read the third time, and passed.

  MIDWIVES' REGISTRATION.
  Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the question of the compulsory Registration of Midwives.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.—(Mr. Fell Pease.)

  FEUS AND LEASES (SCOTLAND).
  Ordered, That Mr. Hunter be discharged from further attendance on the Select Committee on Feus and Leases (Scotland).
  Ordered, That Mr. Thomas Shaw be added to the Committee.—(Mr. Marjoribanks.)

  PUBLIC LIBRARIES CONSOLIDATION (SCOTLAND) ACT (1887) AMENDMENT BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Cameron Corbett, Bill to amend "The Public Libraries Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1887," ordered to be brought in by Mr. Cameron Corbett, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Parker Smith, Mr. James Campbell, Sir John Lubbock, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, and Mr. Macfarlane.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 386.]

  WOMEN'S FRANCHISE BILL.
  On Motion of Dr. Clark, Bill to abolish the Elective Disabilities of Women, ordered to be brought in by Dr. Clark, Mr. Haldane, Mr. Justin M'Carthy, Mr. John Wilson (Durham), Mr. Charles M'Laren, Mr. Jacob Bright, Mr. John Burns, Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Webb, Mr. Cameron Corbett, Sir Charles Dilke, and Sir William Wedderburn.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 387.]
  House adjourned at ten minutes after Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
AUTHORISED COMPANIES (LIQUOR) BILL [H.L.] (No. 26.)

  SECOND READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE BISHOP OF CHESTER, in moving the Second Reading, said, he would try to be as brief as he possibly could, but his subject necessarily carried him to some extent into unfamiliar regions. He would especially avoid going again over the ground he traversed in moving the First Reading. The late Sir George Cornewall Lewis said that the practical experiments of one country served as the scientific experiments of its neighbours. Unfortunately, the practical experiments of other nations was a somewhat lengthy matter, which required somewhat fuller treatment than those within our own experience. He would explain at the outset the views of the authors and promoters of this Bill with regard to temperance legislation. They wore not under the delusion that it was possible to make men temperate by Act of Parliament, but they did believe that it was possible to clear away the obstructions which hindered those other influences—religion, education, and civilisation generally—which were themselves the strongest motive influences in creating temperance. They considered that that was a general belief, and it was surely acknowledged to be so when licensing proposals were before Parliament and the country in 1888 and 1890. It was remarked that at that time, although opinions differed, no one was found to say "Why can't you let it alone?" The revelations in Government Returns and elsewhere spoke so very strongly that it was felt, he believed on all sides, that things ought to be made better, if legislation could do anything in that direction. In a Parliamentary Return it was shown
  290
  that every year one person, on an average, out of every 173 was convicted of drunkenness, and that in boroughs the number of public-houses bore exactly the same proportion to their inhabitants; there was one public-house for every 173 inhabitants. Lord Randolph Churchill, in moving a Resolution on the subject, pointed out that, although a considerable reduction had been made in the number of public-houses, a further reduction was necessary; and the President of the Local Government Board had remarked that that was the opinion of all his Colleagues, as well as of himself. The principles of the Bill which he asked their Lordships to read a second time—its main novel features, if he might say so—were that it first of all placed very clearly before the mind of the country the idea that the entertainment of the people was of the highest national importance. All were agreed that the entertainment should be made as bright, wholesome, and serviceable as it could be; and, in order to do this, the Bill proposed to give a fair chance to that public spirit which, in other departments of life, had done so much to give greater purity and whole-someness to life. What would our social life be if everything was to be handed over to private enterprise, and public spirit were to be entirely put out of sight? This was a point on which the promoters of the Bill laid great stress. They thought it was desirable to let a little new blood, as it were, into our system of licensed victualling. That had been done with success in Scandinavia, and why could it not be done in England? He believed that it could be done with equal success in England if the experiment were properly tried, as it would be under this Bill. The measure did not, he ventured to say, in any objection able way interfere with personal freedom. It attempted to carry out the first recommendation of the Committee upon which sat the Bishop of Peterborough, the author of the famous paradox that "he would rather see England free than sober." He had carefully inquired whether any detrimental effects had followed the introduction of this system, and he had found none. The Swedes and Norwegians were as good sailors now as they ever were, and our own Army had not suffered any detriment from the introduction of what was practically the

  291
  Gothenburg system, and from its great development in India under the auspices of Lord Roberts. It was of the greatest importance that their Lordships should distinguish between the negative freedom—which too frequently usurped the title—and positive freedom. Negative freedom claimed the right to be what one liked, and to have no master but one's own mood, which was the freedom of the spoilt child, or of the rake, or anyone else who went the wrong way. Positive freedom—the power to be one's best and fullest self—could never be won except by self-discipline; and self-discipline, for the nation, must surely very often take the form of legislation. He had attempted, when he was introducing the Bill, to show what the growth of the Gothenburg system had been. Starting from 1879 it underwent a very thorough and searching examination at the hands of a Committee of their Lordships' House, and became the first recommendation of that Committee. Since that time the system had spread over Sweden and Norway. It had been adopted in principle by the Federal Government of Switzerland. At the International Alcoholic Congress, held in Christiania in 1890, the Director of the Swiss Federal monopoly said that the Gothenburg system was the best yet known solution of the question of intemperance. The evidence up to February last was satisfactory on the side of the Gothenburg system. Since then, however, he had received further information. A Supplementary Report had been received from Sir Francis Pluukett, Her Majesty's Minister at Stockholm, which was satisfactory as to Sweden. It stated—
  "I hear from all quarters that the system continues to be in Sweden as completely satisfactory as ever."
  As to the returns of drunkenness and pauperism, the Report pointed out that the weak point of any attempt to deal with the statistics of Sweden lay in the fact that the Gothenburg system at present had no control over beer and wine drinking, which had been growing, and had unfortunately even affected women—a perfectly new thing in Sweden. In Sweden the sale of beer was not under Government control, and [there was no Excise Duty on beer or malt; but the whole movement of opinion in Sweden and Norway was to bring beer and wine
  292
  under control as well as spirits, which were formerly the great national cause of intemperance. Passing next to pauperism, Sir Francis Plunkett referred to a pamphlet circulated by the Secretary of the County Brewers' Society. According to those crudely stated statistics, it would seem as though Sweden was in a bad state with reference to pauperism; but Sir Francis Plunkett had inquired of the Statistical Department, and had found that the reason of the great increase since 1887 was due to the Returns being now made out on a different basis from formerly. He had been informed also that in Norway medical relief such as was granted in our hospitals and dispensaries constituted pauperism; and, therefore, if our pauper statistics were treated on the same basis, they would soon mount up. Pauperism, it was further pointed out, existed in Sweden to a certain extent; but, as compared with the large British towns, the condition in Sweden was remarkable for the absence of any number of hungry and needy poor. All the Despatches from the Consuls and the Vice Consuls in Sweden continued to be satisfactory. Sir Francis Pluukett made this very significant statement—
  "In no place where the Gothenburg system of licensing had been introduced is any desire expressed to go back to the former state of things."
  He admitted that the corresponding Report from Norway was not a satisfactory one on the surface. Though the Consul General had sent a Report to the Foreign Office, which was on the whole unsatisfactory and disparaging to the system, he doubted whether they should be able to accept it as representing the real facts of the case. Last year the Consul General published a new edition of Murray's Guide to Norway; and if their Lordships compared the statements made in that book with those in the Report a year afterwards, it would be seen that there were some discrepancies not easy to account for. The Norwegian Government had recently forwarded to the Foreign Office a refutation of the Consul General's Report, describing it as being in a deplorable degree inconsistent with the facts, and, on the whole case, giving an entirely misleading conception of the later working of the Norwegian institution. The Burgomaster of Bergen, a Member of the Norwegian Parliament,

  293
  and Minister of the Government Department in charge of Licensing, bore out the view as to the value of the Gothenburg system and the untrust-worthiness of the Report. The leading British residents in Norway were at the present time drawing up a Petition to the Foreign Secretary asking him to withdraw the Report from circulation. He had, besides, a considerable body of testimony from Burgomasters, police officials, ecclesiastics, and other representative men in Norway, as well as that of the eminent American specialist, Dr. Gould, who had been sent over on behalf of the Washington Labour Department as President of a Commission to inquire into the conditions of labour in the great manufacturing countries of Europe. Dr. Gould had been studying the Gothenburg system, and his Report to Congress spoke strongly in favour of the system, described its beneficial effects, and stated that any failure was due rather to defects in the existing law—referring to what had been so frequently mentioned—the absence of control over the sale of beer and wine. The net result of the evidence in regard to the working of the Gothenburg system was decidedly favourable to it, and the system now stood in their Lordships presence, so to speak, in a stronger position by far than it occupied in 1879, when it was first recommended by the Committee of their Lordships' House—far stronger even than in February last. Passing to the provisions of the Bill itself, he explained that the Licensing Authority was untouched by it. With regard to the adoption or rejection of the system, why should not that be left to the people of the locality? It was felt that the burden of responsibility would be too heavy to place on the shoulders of the Licensing Magistrates, but why should not the County Councils have the right of adoption or rejection placed on their shoulders? The reason which decided them against that was the great desire to keep the County Councils free from any connection with the liquor traffic. They wished to keep the County Councils away from drink issues, and, therefore, they came ultimately to the conclusion that it was best to leave the decision to the people who were, after all, most affected—to those who enjoyed the local government franchise. It was not easy to find any method of deal-
  294
  ing with the subject which was free from difficulty; but, at all events, the authors of the measure frankly proposed to place the question before the people. It would be necessary, of course, to educate them in this matter. They were perfectly aware that the publicans and brewers had considerable advantage in commanding public opinion; but it seemed to them best to meet the public frankly—to trust them and educate them, feeling that when they had considered the question in all its bearings they would give the system a fair trial if it came to them under proper auspices. With regard to authorisation and control of the company, the authorisation rested with the Local Government Board, and the control with the Local Authorities, which were to be largely represented upon the Directorate, and which bad also the power of appointing auditors. Besides that, there was the important fact that the system was thoroughly open to public opinion, and those who studied the history of the matter—in Switzerland as well as in Sweden and Norway—would, he thought, be struck by the way in which public opinion was brought to bear upon any defects in the system, and upon those who were responsible for improving and amending it. He now came to the great difficulty which beset not only this Hill, lint all temperance reform—the question of compensation. There were those who held the doctrine of the immortality of licences, who said that licences were granted practically for infinity. The opposite extreme, of course, was no compensation. Was there not some solid ground to be found between these two extremes? They did not suppose that they had in that Bill found the best solution of the difficulty. They had endeavoured to find the best working hypothesis or method that they could. Throughout the length and breadth of the country there were vast numbers of persons who simply wanted to do what was just and equitable, if they could see clearly what was just and equitable. They wished to do what was just to the publican and just to the people. As to compensation, they all recognised that there was a reasonable expectation of continuance, and it had been stated that Probate was levied upon the principle that licences might last for ever. Capital had been

  295
  invested on this reasonable expectation. On the other hand, could it be said that the law contemplated the existence of mere "tippling" houses, or the tied house system, to the extent to which it had gone in this country? Again, with regard to notice to the licensed victuallers, he pointed out that in Mr. Bruce's Bill of 1871 10 years was made the limit, and since then licensed victuallers had had 23 years notice allowed to them. Then it must not be forgotten that licences were, after all, the property of the people for the good of the people, and that that lucrative monopoly had to be used and controlled for the benefit of the people at large. The proposal of the Bill was that five years' notice should be given, and that within that period the owners of a licensed house could compel the company to buy them up, just as the company could compel the publicans to be bought out. He did not say that was an ideal solution, but it was, at all events, the most liberal solution of the question at present before the country. It was, at all events, an honest attempt to provide a working hypothesis for the further discussion of this fundamental question. The Bill proposed that clubs should be registered; but as that subject was under the consideration of a Committee of the House of Commons, he did not regard it as an essential part of the Bill. The provision had been introduced because, from all sides, and certainly not least from the licensed victuallers themselves, the promoters were told that clubs were becoming a terrible source of mischief throughout the country. As regarded the reduction in the number of public-houses and the questions of interest and surplus profits, he left the Bill to speak for itself. The scheme came to their Lordships recommended by a Committee of that House. The authors and promoters desired that it should be made as effective and as equitable as possible, and he hoped their Lordships would look beyond the Mover of the Second Reading to those veterans (if he might so call them) in philanthropy, and in Parliamentary and licensing experience who had set their seal to the Bill, to the experience of Scandinavia, and of our own Army, and, above all, to the interests of those multitudes whose lives were so grey, and even ghastly in many instances. Surely their
  296
  Lordships would think any attempt to brighten and improve the lives of those multitudes worthy of attention.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Bishop of Chester.)
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLdid not intend to follow the right rev. Prelate into any details of the Gothenburg system. Like other Members of that House he had read a good deal upon the subject and of the evidence in favour of it, and had always thought that, theoretically, there was much to be said in its favour. In particular, it tended to concentrate the responsibility of those who sold liquor and enabled the virtuous feelings of the community to find expression in the management of those houses. If the right rev. Prelate insisted on pushing the Motion to a Division he should certainly not be inclined to vote against it; but he could not help asking him to consider the position of Parliament with reference to the whole question. This was the second attempt, and a most gallant attempt it was, from the Episcopal Bench to rescue this question from the hands of political Parties, and the object seemed to be rather to raise the general principle in that House, and to have the question of liquor legislation fairly debated there. Unfortunately, their Lordships knew that Debates in that House which were not followed by a Division were apt to fail, but on this occasion a special appeal was made to their Lordships which he thought they should recognise. The right rev. Prelate began by directing the attention of the House to the part which it was possible for legislation to take in the promotion of temperance amongst the people. That was a very large and most interesting subject—one of the most interesting social questions which could be debated in either House of Parliament; and it was one upon which there was more difference of opinion than at first sight appeared. He could not quite agree with the right rev. Prelate that the Gothenburg system left personal freedom untouched. That, he thought, could not be said in favour of any legislation which had been proposed on this subject. It certainly would put an end to the freedom of obtaining individual licences; and when a vote was

  297
  taken under the Gothenburg system, individual liberty with regard to the sale of drink was unquestionably interfered with. He was not one of those, however, who thought that a fatal objection. Probably, no Member of their Lordships' House entertained a stronger feeling than himself in favour of the general principle of individual liberty, and he ventured to assert that the onus probandi in such cases ought always to be laid upon those who wished to restrict individual freedom in any matter of trade and commerce. Still, there was no difficulty in making out a strong case for some limitation on individual freedom in regard to the sale of alcoholic drink. Their Lordships might easily reject the Bill of the right rev. Prelate, but they would not get rid of the subject. The subject was before them and before the people, and, what was more, it was in the hands of the political Parties, and notwithstanding all their efforts, the right rev. Bench would not be able to get it out of the hands of the political Parties. It affected too many votes, and was a burning question in too many eases, and he was not at all sure that this proposal would not increase the irritation and passion in regard to it. There were at the present moment five separate schemes dealing with the liquor traffic before the country.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSsaid, there were 11 altogether.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, his noble Friend on the Cross Benches was taking in a number of small local measures, but there were at least live large proposals before Parliament. First of all, there was the existing law, which, though it might require amendment, was founded on a very intelligible principle. Then there were the plan of the Government, the plan of the Bishop of London, the plan of the Bishop of Chester, and the Bill relating to the liquor traffice in connection with the North Sea Fisheries, which, though small in regard to the area of its application, was stronger than any he had seen in regard to the principles involved. That was a Bill which he presumed would pass, because it was backed by the Foreign Office, and it was not merely a municipal or national matter, but a Bill involving principles to which this country was bound by Protocol with foreign nations. All these five schemes were before Parliament, and
  298
  they ought to be considered more or less together. One feature common to all the plans was, that each assumed that it was right and practical on the part of Parliament to restrict the liquor trade. Individual freedom was not the principle adopted in any one of those schemes. It was not the principle of the existing law; it was not the principle of the Government plan; it was not the principle of the Bishop of London's Bill; it was not the principle of the Gothenburg system; nor was it, above all, the system which had been agreed upon with regard to the supply of liquor to the fishing fleet in the North Sea. Was there agreement in recognising the principle that the liquor trade should be put on another footing from any other trade? That was the fundamental principle before their Lordships, and upon that question they did not appear to be agreed. Many of their Lordships obviously thought that all legislation on this subject was absolutely useless; and the logical conclusion from that was that it was perfectly useless for Parliament to take any step in the matter at all. At once he would say that he did not agree with that view. Their Lordships had no doubt seen the letter of Lord Grimthorpe in The Times of that morning against the Bill; and if they read between its lines, it was plain that that noble and learned Lord was against all restrictions whatever in regard to the sale of drink. That was the feeling of a great many people in regard to this Bill. They said it would not stop drunkenness; then they said it was impossible to make men sober by Act of Parliament; then they referred to the great change which had taken place in the habits of the upper and middle classes, and hoped that change would come about for the working classes also. He entirely agreed in the desirability of that consummation. They all hoped that with change of opinion and change of habit, with more popular amusements, and by individual effort, the working classes might be ultimately weaned from the excessive use of drink. But their Lordships would be more sanguine than he was if they did not think that this consummation was still at a remote distance. It was said by some that excessive eating was as bad as excessive drinking. That was not so; ex-

  299
  cessive eating and excessive drinking could not be put on the same footing. Excessive drinking was a nuisance, whereas excessive eating was not. To put excessive eating and excessive drinking on the same footing was to deny obvious facts. In the management of their own estates their Lordships would admit that the prohibition of public-houses on them was a great advantage. On his own estate in Scotland, where he had considerable property on the shores of the Firth of Clyde, it was considered an element in the value of those lands that a leaseholder should be prohibited from selling drink, and a distinct additional value was given to property where no public-houses were allowed. A few years ago a very remarkable case was brought before their Lordships' House in their judicial capacity by a distinguished Member of the House. At first, under the feu charters of his estate, no one was allowed to erect a public-house on the property; but that clause had not been enforced for many years, and after a time a number of houses were devoted to the sale of drink. The proprietor at last said that the houses ought to be closed. The answer to that was, "You have condoned them now for so many years that you cannot shut them up." That case was brought before the Court of Session in Scotland, which held that the proprietor had lost his right to prohibit them; but he appealed to this House, and it was decided that he had not lost his right. He quoted that case to show that owners in the management of their properties were accustomed to recognise that the existence of public-houses was often considered a nuisance to those around, and a source of public inconvenience and danger, and that their absence increased the value of property. With regard to the question whether legislation could affect drunkenness or not, he had himself always gone on the principle that the exclusion of public-houses had a great effect in producing sobriety. He had never given sites for, or sanctioned the opening of, public-houses on certain parishes on his estate. He did not say that the prohibition of public-houses prevented drinking. It did not. He did not want to prevent people drinking in their own houses. What he wanted was to prevent
  300
  people drinking in public-houses, for public-houses were centres of temptation. He entirely agreed with the Bishop of London that every public-house was a temptation to a certain class of persons; and that if the number of public-houses were diminished, the chance of drunkenness would also be diminished. He could say that in the particular parish he had mentioned the absence of public-houses had had the best possible effect. Drunkenness was hardly known there. True, it happened to be an island, and could therefore be more easily defended, as the people could only get drink from Glasgow, but he believed that drunkenness was comparatively unknown in that parish. It was denied by some that the abolition of public-houses would have any effect in limiting drunkenness, but that, be thought, was a paradox, and it was not the principle of the existing law. The existing system recognised the principle of local discretion in restraint. It aimed at the limitation of drinking, and it allowed Local Authorities to exercise a very large discretion. Licences ought not to be suppressed without some compensation, but he did not think that the right to compensation for public-houses was the same thing as the right to compensation for private property. After all, a licence was a monopoly given to a particular man, and it was an immensely lucrative monopoly. Their Lordships all knew how it added to the value of houses. It increased their value many times over. He certainly could not approve the proposal to take the licensing out of the hands of the Magistrates and place it in the hands of the ratepayers by a Body popularly chosen. It would lead to a great deal of bribery and corruption. If this duty was to be placed upon any Local Body, it should be given to a Body chosen not for that purpose alone. He could not conceive anything worse than the constant agitation, loading to wholesale bribery and corruption, if this power were given to Bodies without any judicial control or any control except of the plébiseite. His own impression was that it would not act in favour of temperance. It might do so in certain parishes or wards; but to take the case of a large city like Glasgow, divided into a number of wards, the result would be one action in one ward and another in others. A

  301
  greater source of confusion he could not conceive. That was his great objection to the Bill, among others, into which it was not necessary then to enter. That was the proposal in the Government Bill. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) said the other night that he would vote for the Bishop of London's Bill because it contained the principle of local option.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: No; I think I said that it involved the principle of popular control.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that local option and local control were much the same thing. He had a great objection to the term local option, because it was very ambiguous. There was nothing of fair play or fair consideration in the Government Bill; it depended upon the will and decision of a mere majority of the ratepayers whether public-houses should exist or not. There was to be either total suppression or nothing. He believed such a Bill as that would never pass in this country. He certainly hoped it never would pass, because in the regulation of restrictions there ought to be some regard to legal rights for vested interests and for the feeling of classes who might not be represented by a bare majority of the people. There was more justice in the present Bill than in the Government measure. Passing to the Bill, which, he supposed, would certainly pass that House, as it was drawn up by the Foreign Office—the North Seas Fisheries Bill—that was a confession on the part of all the countries interested that free trade in drink was a great danger.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: That Bill is coming on to-morrow, and I would ask if it is in Order to discuss it now?
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was not going to discuss it; he was only discussing the principle of it—restriction. He imagined that would not be made a contentious matter on any side of the House.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I hope not.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLbelived it would not, as the noble Marquess had himself proposed it.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think it is of much more ancient date
  302
  that that. I believe that early in Lord Granville's career he proposed it.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, it was, at all events, a confession not only on the part of individuals but of nations—of Holland, of England, of France, Belgium, and Germany—that the free sale of liquor was a great public danger as regards the sailors of the fishing fleet in the North Sea.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The danger of shipwreck.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, yes; but there was many a shipwreck on land from this cause. Possibly there was never any Bill which had anything like the strength of that measure. It absolutely prohibited the sale of drink to the sailors of the fishing fleet in the North Sea, who were an enormous body of men. His own belief was that the existing system, with, some reforms, was better than any of the changes proposed; and that if there was to be any change at all, the Gothenburg system was likely to be a better solution of the difficulty than any other. His impression was that the present law, with comparatively few improvements, might be got to work smoothly and to good purpose. They should, however, get rid of the Inland Revenue Licence, for he did not see why there should be two Licensing Authorities. That system could not work well, and he believed that the licences given by the Inland Revenue were a serious impediment in the cause of temperance. He thought that in every locality there ought to be full and complete authority over the granting of licences in that place. Two, at least, of these pending measures involve the principle of a statutory maximum of the population. He did not know how that would work; but it was a plausible suggestion, and worthy of consideration. There might be imposed upon the Justices in every county a Parliamentary maximum as regarded population. That might be very easily grafted upon the present system. Lastly, the Legislature might empower the raising of a compensation rate. That moderate proposal, he believed, would be a better solution than any other. With regard to the Gothenburg system, he was afraid it was too theoretic and complicated for the English people to be induced to adopt it, as a practical people fond of going from step to step,

  303
  and not eager to adopt the ideas of other nations. He thought it would be difficult to import into this country a system which might work more easily in a smaller country like Sweden. If, however, the right rev. Prelate insisted upon going to the vote upon this Bill, he, for one, would not vote against it.
  LORD NORTONsaid, it seemed to him that no legislation on this subject could possibly succeed upon the principle of restricting liberty. It was impossible to restrict the legitimate use of anything, and what they should direct their efforts to was to prevent abuse. Their aim was to check drunkenness, and that would be best secured by preventing the abuse of the sale of alcoholic liquor. How was it possible for Parliament to regulate the supply of drink required in any particular locality? Nor, on the other hand, could they wait for the influence of education, which had done so much in stopping drunkenness in the upper and middle classes, which many years ago was quite as common as it is now in the lower ranks of society. We had almost led ourselves astray by the phraseology used in reference to this subject. Liquors were not intoxicating except to blockheads, who did not know how to use them properly. As the late Lord Bramwell used to say, "You might as well call water a drowning fluid." To endeavour to prevent the sale or use of intoxicating drinks altogether would be to undertake a senseless task. If their Lordships adopted the principle of confiscation, they were bound also to recognise the principle of compensation; but he held strongly to the view that if a licenceholder conducted his house in an illegal manner, or in a manner that was dangerous to the public, he ought to forfeit his licence without compensation. The Act of 1872 enacted that a tenant's licence after three convictions should be forfeited, and that he should be disqualified from holding a licence for five years. The premises also were disqualified. That was the right principle to carry out. A penalty for abuse, and that alone, would reduce the supply of drink to its legitimate limit. No arbitrary action of the wisest Body in the world could exactly adjust the supply to the demand. A far better method of dealing with the matter would be by introducing a short Bill (which he would be ready to attempt him-
  304
  self if necessary) to more effectually carry out the existing Act of 1872 by making the merely discretionary forfeiture absolute. So that ipso facto upon a third conviction for either rioting, or drunkenness on premises, or adulteration of drink, the licence would become void, and that which was aimed at would be done. If their Lordships would allow him to try his own hand in the matter, he would endeavour to show that it was possible by a short Act to carry out satisfactorily the existing law of 1872, and so stop the abuse which they all deplored.
  LORD THRINGpointed out, having drawn the Bill, that it was not a great measure, and certainly did not cover the vast ground which had been represented. It was confined to a very narrow compass, and was simply a Bill for improving the condition of public-houses. It proposed to make them refreshment-houses, and to take away the whole incentive for selling intoxicating liquors by the companies which were to be formed, putting in managers who would be paid a commission on the sale of non-alcoholic liquors only, and would receive nothing on the sale of alcoholic liquors.
  THE Marquess of SALISBURY: Are those the provisions of the Bill?
  LORD THRINGsaid, they would be provisions in the Articles which would accompany the Bill if it was passed, and which would be binding on the companies. He admitted freely that no better control than the Licensing Magistrates could be found, but everybody knew there were always difficulties in the way of forfeiting or even of endorsing licences. It was no doubt a serious matter, for a mere endorsement on a licence took £100, £200, or £300 off the value of a house, while the forfeiture of a licence might mean the destruction of property to the value of £1,000 or more. Licences consequently were not, as a rule, either forfeited or endorsed. If their Lordships desired to know whether the control of the Magistrates was sufficient, why did they not have a Return of the number of licences forfeited and endorsed? In either case, they would find that the number was very small. The companies formed under this Bill would get no mercy from the Justices, while the whole incentive to sell intoxicants would be taken away. During the last 30 years the Gothenburg system had

  305
  spread over the whole of Sweden and Norway, and the consumption of spirits in Sweden had diminished by nearly one-half, while the spirits now supplied were good and wholesome instead of being, as they formerly were, of the most destructive and dangerous kind. It would be open to each community to adopt the system if it so desired. There was no compulsion. If the measure failed, it would do no harm; but if it succeeded, it would go far to solve the great and serious difficulty of the liquor trade and to reconcile the conflicting interests of the teetotalers, the temperance advocates, and the publicans. He trusted, therefore, their Lordships would give the Bill a Second Reading.
  THE DUKE OF WESTMINSTERsaid, it had been stated that those who embarked in temperance legislation sought to navigate an ocean surrounded in every direction with rocks, and their Lordships certainly had an instance of that the other day in the rejection of the Bishop of London's Bill. In regard to civilising influences which some, and notably the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition desired should be loft to operate in this matter, they no doubt had been successful among the upper classes, who no longer drank to the extent they did in old times, and he believed that the middle classes were also now more temperate in their habits. It was suggested that the same influences would ultimately prevail amongst the lowest classes, where the greatest amount of intoxication now unfortunately existed, and that legislation was not to be depended upon to anything like the degree in which those civilising influences might be looked to. But many in this country held a firm conviction that, as legislation had effected very much in that direction already by Sunday closing, shortening of hours, and better police supervision, more might still be done. Public-houses were now much better conducted than formerly, and last, but not least, crime had diminished in a very remarkable degree. Of course, there were other influences at work besides Acts of Parliament, as far as crime went; but, still, legislation must be credited with having had a very considerable share in the improvement in these matters. He had never heard that the Forbes-Mackenzie Act had proved other-
  306
  wise than beneficial in Scotland, or that anyone desired its repeal. Then there was the Welsh Act of 1881, the working of which was inquired into in 1888 by a Committee which reported in favour of the continuance of Sunday closing in that country; and their Lordships had also seen the effect of the closing of public-houses in Ireland. Legislation had effected very much, and he thought more might still be done. The necessity for it was evinced by what occurred in the Police Courts, by the crowded state of our Lunatic Asylums, and by the reports of the clergy and Magistrates, and the public opinion in the matter was shown by the numerous Bills—no less than eleven—which had been brought forward dealing with this most difficult subject. The Gothenburg system was, no doubt, entirely new in this country; but we had the experience of Sweden, where its success had been tangible and undeniable. There was no reason why it should not be successful here. The Licensing Authority would be maintained, and the consent of the ratepayers would have to be got before the machinery could be put in motion. Its adoption would lead eventually to that reduction in the number of houses, which the advocates of temperance consider an essential element in the solution of this question. There would also be a restriction as to hours. This system was advocated by Lord Aberdare, probably the greatest authority upon these matters in their Lordships' House. It was only an experiment; and, as Lord Thring said, no harm would be done if it failed, while a great amount of good would follow if it should succeed. If the Bill were allowed a Second Reading, its provisions as regarded compensation, and in other directions, might be altered. The main principle of the Bill was public, not private, profit; and it was not a sweeping, but a moderate and careful reform.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSSreminded their Lordships that Lord Thring had informed them he drew the Bill. That ought scarcely to be an inducement to them to pass it, because for many years the noble Lord had been drafting measures—from the Irish Land Bill downwards; and most of our recent legislation containing evil principles

  307
  had been drafted by his noble Friend. This Bill embodied one of those principles. Had it been earlier in the evening he might have been tempted to enter more fully into the subject, and he would very shortly state his own feeling with regard to the Bill. He might use the words which, at the most eventful period in the lives of the right rev. Prelates, they were supposed to utter, no doubt, with much sincerity—nolo episcopari. His first objection to it was that it proposed to introduce a new system in this country from a country where the drunkards were 44 per 1,000 of the population, whereas the drunkards here were only in the proportion of five per 1,000. Further, this Gothenburg system only applied to spirits; but in this country drunkenness was not so much due to spirits as to beer. In Gothenburg, however, the beerhouses were called "temperance houses." Had the promoters of this Bill considered what effect it would have on the Revenue? Millions were raised annually for the Army, Navy, and Civil Services of the country by the Licensing Taxes, taxes which the people of the country, as a whole, would not be sorry to see increased. Under this Bill, however, his impression was that the money now raised by licensing would have to be raised by heavy taxation, weighing upon all alike, and this in the hope of making a few men sober who now got drunk. He hoped the right rev. Prelate would give the House some information as to the effect on the Revenue what he proposed on that point. This was a proposal which the House ought not to sanction, and he hoped that the Second Reading would not be assented to. He thought, however, that the legislative proposals of the right rev. Prelate stood out in admirable contrast with the proposed legislation of Her Majesty's Government on this question, by which they hoped to catch the Alliance Vote. In the legislation of the right rev. Prelate there was something like justice, something like Christian feeling shown in dealing with publicans. The principle of compensation was admitted. They were not looked upon by him as pariahs, and told to go to Jericho if they chose, which was the feeling of the Alliance people and the Rev. Price Hugheses and the Lawsonites, who viewed with indignation the proposal to grant publicans compensation.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My noble Friend behind me did not certainly give any great encouragement of the Bill passing into law, because I observed that he said it is a Bill which would not attract the support either of teetotalers or publicans. If that is the case, the chances of the Bill becoming law are, I fear, extremely small. My noble Friend referred to the literature dealing with the success of this system in Sweden and Norway. I have read the bulk of this literature, but am entirely unable to form a conclusion upon it. The opinions are so conflicting, and the conclusions drawn from the statistics are so diverse, that I confess they leave me without really any sound conviction on my mind. On the other hand, no doubt there is something attractive in this proposal; and the Committee, of which I was a Member, and of which the noble Duke on the Cross Benches was the Chairman, reported that they would be glad to see an experiment tried in this direction. That is an opinion which I have no doubt has had some effect upon those who have brought forward this Bill. Another point I should like to mention is this: Your Lordships will observe that the surplus profits under the Bill are to be applied to public objects—to recreation grounds, to libraries, to pensions for old age, or, indeed, anything that the Local Government Board may approve of. There is a clause providing that the Local Authority is to appoint one-third of the directors. It is alleged by some of those who do not believe in the great results claimed for Sweden and Norway as regards sobriety that the desire of the population to get the money which can be obtained over the 5 per cent, dividend for the purpose of applying it to those public objects, that it would neutralise the effect of this system; and that if you put one-third of the representatives of the Local Authority upon the Board of Directors, their interest would be directly to get as large an amount as could be obtained from the sale of liquors. It is not necessary, of course, that there should be representatives of the Local Authority appointed, but I point out that as part of the scheme of the Bill. I quite agree with my noble Friend the Duke of Argyll

  309
  that there is something rather undesirable in entertaining this scheme in the present position of matters. My noble Friend on the Cross Benches went to some extent into the question of the Government Bill. I need hardly say that I should not consider myself justified in discussing that Bill now, as it has been proposed, and is before the other House. I do not think this Bill, as far as I can judge, would be entirely inconsistent with the Government Bill. If the two measures were wholly inconsistent, it would be impossible that I could in any way give encouragement to this Bill. My feeling in the matter is precisely that of my noble Friend on the Cross Benches. I sincerely hope the right rev. Prelate will be content with the discussion which has taken place to-night, and that he will not press the matter further. If it should happen that the right rev. Prelate desires to press it to a Division, I feel, on the whole, as a Member of the Committee which reported that the experiment should be tiled, that I should not be justified in voting directly against the principle of the Bill. In saying that, I must add that I think, if ever the principle of the Bill comes to be translated into a law, it would have to be very carefully considered as regards details, and that the details in this Bill would not be those which, in my opinion, would work well. I think we might be justified in asserting so much as this: that this Gothenburg system deserves favourable consideration, and might possibly be tried as an experiment. Beyond that I cannot go, and I must say there are provisions in this Bill which, though they are introduced by my noble Friend Lord Thring, who is a most excellent draftsman, he would find would not work satisfactorily if they became law.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My lords, I am in the unusual position of agreeing almost entirely with all the noble Earl opposite has said. I am much puzzled with this Gothenburg system. All the witnesses appear to be bent on contradicting each other, and therefore it is impossible that we can form any opinion upon the materials put before us as the basis of this proposed legislation. On the other hand, the Bill attracts my sympathy in some respects. It is a very liberal Bill in the matter of compensation, and it therefore avoids the great rock on
  310
  which most of these Bills split. It contemplates no injury to private property or private interests; but I doubt very much whether it is a temperance Bill. My opinion is very much that of the noble Earl opposite, that supposing you could find companies who could undertake the great financial burden—which I exceedingly doubt there would be—you would find more liquor sold, though probably it would be of a better sort, and it would be consumed under more civilised conditions. I do not think the right rev. Prelate is so well acquainted with companies as perhaps are other Members of your Lordships' House, or he would find that not only would there be the one-third of the directors pressing the sale of drink in the interests of the Municipality, but that the other directors also would be pressed forward by their shareholders who desired their dividends, and they would all be desirous of selling the greatest quantity of liquor they could. I am aware that the dividend is limited to 5 per cent., but, still, the shareholders would wish to enjoy oven that 5 per cent.; and after the liberal compensation which they would be paying, and the consequent comparative limitation of houses, they would have difficulty in earning that 5 per cent., and they could only earn it by pressing the sale of intoxicating liquors. At first philanthropic consideration would prevent their doing so; but you would find, possibly, that the philanthropic and religious persons would sell out, and that other shareholders would take their place, and the company would become a commercial undertaking like any other. So that, in place of the efforts of the publicans, who are comparatively powerless under existing circumstances, you would have the efforts of a great and powerful company pressing in every way to the utmost the sale of intoxicating liquors. Therefore, I have considerable doubt whether the Bill would ensure the estimable objects which the right rev. Prelate has in view. I agree with the noble Earl opposite that the right rev. Prelate had much better, in view of the fact, as we all know, that such a Bill cannot possibly pass into law during the present Session, not to press it to a Second Reading. If he does, I should not vote against it, but I should do so on the distinct understanding that it is only on account of the peculiarity of the procedure

  311
  of Parliament we cannot investigate a Bill until we have read it a second time, but I do not think it ought to go a stage further without being referred to a Select Committee to examine into all these questions.
  On Question, resolved in the negative.

  BARBED WIRE FENCES BILL.
  Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments: The Report of the Amendment made in Committee of the Whole House and of the Amendments made by the Standing Committee to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 131.)
  BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 95.)
  Reported from the Standing Committee with further Amendments: The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House and by the Standing Committee to be received on Friday next.
  RAILWAY SERVANTS (HOURS OF LABOUR) BILL.—(No. 73.)
  Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment: The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Thursday the 15th instant.
  COUNTY SURVEYORS (IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 86.)
  Reported from the Standing Committee without further Amendment: The Report of the Amendments made in Committee of the Whole House to be received on Thursday next.
  SEAL FISHERY (NORTH PACIFIC) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to provide for prohibiting the catching of Seals at certain periods in Behring's Sea and other parts of the Pacific Ocean adjacent to Behring's Sea—Was presented by the Lord Rosebery (E. Rosebevy); read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 132.)
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL.—(No. 105.)
  Read 3a (according to Order): An Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.—(No. 106.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  COMMONS REGULATION PROVISIONAL ORDER (WEST TILBURY) BILL.—(No. 104.)
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  TREASURY CHEST FUND BILL.—(No. 111.)
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment: Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next.

  CANAL RATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  Message of the House of Commons of the 9th of May last with respect to the following Bills, namely:—

  Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order (Leeds and Liverpool Canal) Bill;

  Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order (Navigation of the Rivers Aire and Calder) Bill;

  Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order (Birmingham Canal Navigations) Bill;

  Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order (Grand Junction Canal) Bill;

  Canal Tolls and Charges Provisional Order (Warwick and Birmingham Canal) Bill;

  considered according to order:
  Then it was moved That a Committee of Five Lords be appointed to join with the Committee of the House of Commons, as mentioned in the said Message (The Chairman of Committees); agreed to: The Lords following were named of the Committee:

  E. Lauderdale.

  L. Lamington.

  E. Camperdown.

  L. Brassey.

  E. Northbrook.

  Ordered, That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman:
  Then a Message was ordered to be sent to the House of Commons, in answer to their Message of the 9th of May last, to inform them of the appointment of the said Committee by this House.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.