Sitting of 8 May 1893

CHESHIRE LINES RAILWAY BILL.

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Hill he now read the third time."—(Mr. M. Lagan.)
  MR. WEIR: I object.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I hope my hon. Friend will not object to this Bill. It has been through all its stages, and has come down from the Committee without Amendment. I would point out to my hon. Friend that it is unusual, when a Bill has been through Committee, and has received the approval of the Committee, that it should be opposed in its final stage without any reason whatever being assigned for it.
  MR. WEIR: I object.
  *MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, that some hon. Members gave notice that unless between the First and Third Reading of these Railway Bills something was done in the matter of railway rates they would oppose the Bills on the Third Reading, and, if necessary, throw them out altogether.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member persist in his objection?
  MR. WEIR: I do.
  Third Reading deferred till Tomorrow.

MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD AND LINCOLNSHIRE BAILWAY BILL (by Order.)

  CONSIDERATION.
  Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into consideration."—(Mr. M'Lagan.)
  *MR. WEIRsaid, he objected to the Bill being considered. It was with extreme reluctance he opposed the measure; but it was in consequence of the failure of the President of the Board of Trade to give effect to the promise he had entered into with the House some weeks before Easter. The right hon. Gentleman promised at that time that, unless matters were satisfactorily arranged between, the traders and the Railway Companies, he would take such steps as might be necessary to compel the Railway Companies to consider the interests of the traders. What had the right hon. Gentleman done in this direction? Absolutely nothing! It was true that last Friday evening he put on the Paper a Motion for the appointment of a Committee to consider the question of Railway Rates and Charges; but he (Mr. Weir) and one or two other Members objected to the composition of that Committee, and, therefore, it stood over. For the benefit of the right hon. Gentleman he might tell him he would continue to object to that Committee unless its proposed composition were altered, and that he would stay every night, and all night, if necessary, for the purpose of doing so. The constitution of the Committee was most unsatisfactory, inasmuch as it was proposed to give Scotland only one Member—England was to have 12, Ireland 3, Wales land Scotland 1: he insisted that Scotland should have a larger representation. There were nine Scotch Members on the Treasury Bench—what had they to say to the composition of this Committee? How would they face their constituents if they allowed, without a protest, Scotland to be treated thus? Whilst there was only one Member for Scotland on the Committee, places had been found for four Railway Directors. With the names submitted to the House for the constitution of that Committee he and other Members, both behind Ministers and below the Gangway on this side of the House, thoroughly disagreed, and they did not intend to allow the Committee to be appointed in its present form. He begged to move the rejection of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Weir.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  MR. MUNDELLA: My hon. Friend objects to the consideration of the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Railway Bill, as it comes back from the Committee to the House, because he is not satisfied with the proposal on the Paper for the appointment of a Committee on Railway Rates and Charges. I fail to see how the hon. Gentleman finds any connection between the two matters. If all the Railway Bills before the House were rejected, it would have nothing whatever to do with the composition of the Committee. That Committee is composed, as old Members of the House know, of those hon. Gentlemen who represent the different sections of the House. The names are now before the House, and it is for the House to deal with them, and, if it is thought to be necessary to make alterations in its composition, the House will do it. But I do not see why the hon. Gentleman should oppose the consideration of this Bill on that account. The hon. Member for Peterborough has said that when we allowed the First and Second Reading of this and other Railway Bills, it was on the condition that something should be done in the matter of railway rates and charges. Something has been done, and we have proposed the appointment of this Committee to report to the House how these disputes between the Railway Companies and the traders shall be arranged. I hope we are not going to waste the time of the House this afternoon in the discussion of a Private Bill which has passed through Committee, and only comes before us for consideration. I hope the hon. Member will not persist in opposing this Bill.
  *SIR J. WHITEHEADsaid that, having taken some part in the House in the discussion of railway rates, he thought he ought to say that he sympathised, to a very great extent, with what had been said by the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty. But, at the same time, he could not help
  320
  saying that the course the hon. Member had taken in moving the rejection of the Manchester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire Bill did not altogether meet with his approval, or with the approval of those who were associated with him. In all probability, in the course of that Sitting, there would be an opportunity of discussing the Reference which had been put on the Paper with regard to railway rates, and also the names suggested. When that time arrived, he should probably have something to say upon the proposed constitution of the Committee, and also upon the terms of the Reference; but, in the meantime, he desired to make an earnest appeal to the hon. Member not to interrupt the progress of the Bill.
  *MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, this was their only way of dealing with the question of railway rates. If they allowed the Railway Companies to get all their Bills through they would then laugh at the House. He did not say the hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty should go to a Division on this Bill; but he did say he had done quite right in calling attention to the matter. In his opinion, they were being played with by the Board of Trade, and so long as they gave way to the officials of the Board of Trade so long would they get nothing done. He hoped the House would have the courage some day before long to throw out one of those Bills, and so teach the railway monopolists and the Board of Trade that the traders and agriculturists of the country were not to be played with.
  *MR. SPEAKER: Does the hou. Member withdraw his objection?
  *MR. WEIRsaid that, after the discussion which had taken place and the statement of the President of the Board of Trade, he would withdraw his objection to the Bill; but he would warn the right hon. Gentleman that he would oppose any and every attempt to appoint the proposed Committee unless the claims of Scotland were fairly considered.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered; Amendments made; to be read the third time.

QUESTIONS.

  NEWFOUNDLAND.
  SIR CHARLES DILKE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether there is now any objection to lay upon the Table of the House Papers relating to Newfoundland, and especially the important and satisfactory Despatch described in the telegrams from Newfoundland, which have appeared in the newspapers as having been recently addressed by the Marquess of Ripon to the Newfoundland Government?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): The Correspondence referred to is not yet complete, and it would be premature to present it. I should, perhaps, add that the telegram which appeared in the Press on the 29th ultimo is not complete, and is, therefore, not altogether accurate.

  THE CASE OF MR. SE YMOURLUCAS, A.R.A.
  MR. SAMUEL MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if any satisfactory reply has been received from Her Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid respecting the claim for compensation from Mr. Seymour Lucas, A.R.A.; and whether further steps will be taken to obtain justice from the Spanish Railway Company, over which the Spanish Government has control, for serious injury inflicted upon a British subject while travelling on a Spanish railroad near Burgos?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): This matter has engaged the constant attention of Her Majesty's Ambassador, who reports, under date of the 1st instant, that he has now some hopes of an amicable settlement.

  THE GAIRLOCH MEDICAL OFFICER.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he is aware that the Parochial Medical Officer at Gairloch has declined to act as District Medical Officer with the County Medical Officer for Ross and
  322
  Cromarty, chiefly because the latter is engaged in private practice; if so, what is being done to look after the health of the population and the sanitary condition of that district?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAX,): In reply to the hon. Member, I find, on inquiry, that the statement in the first portion of his question is accurate. The Board of Supervision is in communication with the District Committee on the subject. I may add that the County Medical Officer is by Statute Chief Medical Officer of the district.

  THE LANCASHIRE MAGISTRACY.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he can state how many County Magistrates within the Duchy have been brought to his notice as Chancellor for having refused to take the declarations of members of a different political Party at election time and registration time during his tenure of office; and whether there is any official record of such cases?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Mr. BRYCE,): The assumptions on which the hon. Member's question appears to rest are incorrect, nor would it be fitting for me to make such a statement as he asks for. There is no official record of such cases.
  MR. HANBURY: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain what assumption of mine is incorrect?
  MR. BRYCE: The assumption that there was any special reference to Lancashire, or to County Magistrates specially.
  MR. HANBURY: Then the right hon. Gentleman had no special information as to Lancashire Magistrates when he made that statement?
  MR. BRYCE: I never said anything of the sort. Such an inference would be quite unwarranted.
  MR. HANBURY: I have a right to ask this question. The right hon. Gentleman, speaking as the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, brought certain charges against certain County Magistrates. Were those Magistrates within the Duchy of Lancaster or not?
  MR. BRYCE: The limits of Order in answering questions are very narrow, and, therefore, I will only say that I did not bring any charges whatever. The statements I made were quite general.

  THE GOLD STANDARD OF BRITISH HONDURAS.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the reasons which induced Her Majesty's Government in 1887 to abrogate the gold standard for British Honduras, and to substitute there for a silver standard, composed of the coins of the Republics of Gautemala, Chili, and Peru, any longer exist; and whether a decision has now been arrived at with respect to the Petition from the Colony wherein the inhabitants unanimously and urgently pray Her Majesty to abolish the present silver standard and to restore the gold standard as it formerly existed?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I regret that I can only refer the hon. Member to my answer of the 13th ultimo, He will be aware that a question of such importance, presenting several points of difficulty, requires mature consideration before a decision can be taken; but the decision will now, I trust, not be long delayed.

  THE INDIAN SALT DUTY.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has yet received a Memorial from the fishing people on the Kanara coast protesting against the prohibition of the manufacture and use of earth salt for curing fish; and whether, seeing that the curing of fish by salt is the only means of livelihood for thousands of the poorer fishers on the Kanara coast and that great distress must result should the prohibition take place, the Secretary of State will at once communicate with the Governor of Bombay, directing him not to proceed with such prohibition until the whole facts have been considered by the Secretary of State?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. G. RUSSELL,): No, Sir; no such Memorial has been received by the Secretary of State; and, so far as he is aware, there has been no recent change of the law on the subject of the use of earth salt, either in South Kanara, which
  324
  belongs to the Madras Presidency, or in North Kanara, which belongs to the Bombay Presidency. My hon. Friend's question will be forwarded to the Governments of Madras and Bombay, with a request that they will report whether any representations have been received or any fresh orders issued on the subject.

  THE BHOPAL-UJJAIN RAILWAY.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India whether the Secretary of State has decided that the proposed line of railway from Bhopal to Ujjain shall be on the metre gauge, and that the greater part of the money will be provided by the Gwalior State, with a view to opening direct communication between Ujjain and the capital; whether he is aware that the line already running between Gwalior and Bhopal, as well as the trunk line from Bombay to Bhopal and Gwalior, is made on the 5·5 feet gauge, thus necessitating a break of bulk on all traffic coming to Ujjain by the new line; and if protests have been lodged by both the Begum of Bhopal and the Maharajah of Gwalior: and, if so, is it intended to insist on the decision of the India Office to lay the metre gauge between Bhopal and Ujjain?
  MR. G. RUSSELL: No, Sir; no decision has yet been made as to the gauge of the line by which it is proposed to connect Bhopal, on a broad gauge railway, with Ujjain, on a narrow or metro gauge railway. The Gwalior State offered to provide funds for a metre gauge line. The answer to my hon. Friend's second question is, Yes. The Secretary of State has no knowledge of the protests referred to by my hon. Friend.

  THE KANAKA LABOUR TRAFFIC.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the account of an interview with Mr. Robert Louis Stevenson, in The Sydney Presbyterian of 25th March, relative to the Kanaka labour traffic, wherein he states that there is the greatest difficulty in any possible supervision of the labour traffic by the Queensland Government as it is impossible for a Government Agent to know the 80 languages which are spoken in the islands; and whether he is aware

  325
  that, in many cases, the labourers are returned to the wrong places, which involves their death, and which no Government Agent is sufficiently well-posted to prevent; and that it is the custom, when it is desired to compel labourers to re-volunteer, to bring the ship up opposite an enemy's bay, and tell the men they are to be landed there where their lives would be in danger, and give them, as a forced alternative, the choice of re-indenturing; and what steps are in contemplation to deal with these evils?
  *MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: I have read the interview referred to. As far as I can understand Mr. Stevenson's views, be is in favour of "recruiting" under proper supervision. The statements made by him in regard to the labour traffic appear to be founded on hearsay evidence, and seem to refer to the recruiting as carried on under the old system, which unquestionably led to much abuse. Papers are now being printed, and will soon be circulated, which will, I hope, prove to my hon. Friend that the conditions have been entirely altered, and that the greatest care is now taken to insure that cruelty, coercion, and kidnapping shall be eliminated from this labour traffic. I may add, as regards recruiting by foreign vessels in places under British protection, that Her Majesty's Government are considering how unsuitable practices can be prevented, and are in correspondence with the High Commissioner for the Western Pacific, who is shortly to visit the Gilbert Islands and to report upon the question after consulting with the Native Chiefs.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: Can the hon. Gentleman say when the Papers will be presented?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The printers are now dealing with them. I do not know how long it will be before they are ready, but I will inquire.

  THE DEATH DUTIES.
  COMMANDER BETHELL: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the amounts of the Succession and Estate Duties paid respectively by land and other real property in each of the three divisions of the United Kingdom?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): The figures can only be given
  326
  approximately. As nearly as I can state them, the amounts of the Succession and Estate Duties paid by land and real property, including houses, for 1892–3 was £1,245,000 (Succession Duty, £1,166,000; Estate Duty, £79,000). Of this sum, about £1,020,000 falls to the share of England, about £100,000 to Ireland, and about £120,000 to Scotland.

  TRACT DISTRIBUTION IN MALTA.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware that recently an English lady was taken into custody in Malta, detained for 24 hours, and then given only a single day for leaving the island, merely for having distributed a number of religious tracts while travelling through the island; and whether any steps will be taken to prevent the repetition of such an occurrence?
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: Perhaps I may be allowed to answer tin's question. There is no truth, as far as we are aware, in the statement. In March, 1891, two Protestant ladies who had been distributing scriptural cards in the streets of Valetta were detained for about two hours in the police station to protect them from molestation by the people, who had been informed that the cards were intended to Protostanise them. Last March one of these ladies, Mrs. Lundin Brown, requested the Governor to provide a military escort to protect her during her stay in Malta with a view to the distribution of similar literature. The Governor very properly refused the military escort; but a plain clothes policeman was ordered to watch unseen to protect her from molestation should she carry out her intention. But shortly afterwards she left the island without anything further coming to the know-lodge of the police.

  CIVIL SERVANTS AS COMPANY DIRECTORS.
  MR. FISHER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether it is now the established practice of the Colonial Office to forbid the Chiefs of Departments and other highly-placed officials from seeking election as Directors of retail trading companies in which their subordinates, whose promotion depends upon their recommendation, are

  327
  shareholders; and, whether, in the interest of the Public Service, he is prepared to issue a Treasury Minute, whereby in future no high official in any branch of the Civil Service shall act as a Director of such a retail trading company?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The whole question of Directorships held by Civil servants was carefully considered by the late Government upon the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Civil Establishments, with the result that the following Rule was laid down by Order in Council, namely:—
  "No officer shall be allowed to accept any part in the management of any society or any trading, commercial, or financial company of whatever description which would require the attendance of such officer at any time between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m."
  I agree with this Rule, which is based on the principle that Government does not interfere with a Civil servant's employment of his time outside his official duties. The Rule in force at the Colonial Office, which is quoted by the Royal Commission in their Second Report, is within the limits of the Order in Council, and is, therefore, within the absolute discretion of the Secretary of State, or any head of a Department.
  MR. HANBURY: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of Civil servants engaged in the management of companies. Does the Rule exclude them from acting as auditors?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: It excludes them from acting in any capacity between the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m.
  MR. HARTLEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he thinks it is a desirable state of things that head clerks in a Department should be dependent upon the votes of their subordinates for the retention of their positions as Directors of trading companies?
  MR. FISHER: And would it conduce to the discipline of a Department that the heads of it should canvass their subordinates for Directorships in a Civil Service Company? That is the whole gist of my question, and the right hon. Gentleman has evaded it.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I deny that I tried to evade it. I answered it fully. I quite agree that no person in such a position ought to be allowed to canvass
  328
  his subordinates for such appointments, and that if in any Department such proceedings took place they ought to be stopped.

  NEW STEAM SERVICE BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND CANADA.
  MR. HOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is aware that a new steam service has been inaugurated between Australia and Canada, Sidney and Vancouver being the terminal points, and that the Canadian Government has promised a subsidy of £25,000; whether any application has been made for the Admiralty subvention to the steamers engaged in this service as armed cruisers; and, if so, whether any decision on the subject has yet been arrived at; and whether, having regard to the Imperial importance and the great commercial advantages of establishing direct and regular communication between Australia and Canada, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to co-operate with the Australian and Canadian Governments in promoting and encouraging the development of this new line of steamers?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): I believe the facts are as stated in the first paragraph of the question. No application has been made to the Admiralty in respect to this service. The third paragraph raises a large question of general policy, the decision of which does not rest with the Admiralty.

  PAROCHIAL CHARITY ACCOUNTS.
  MR. HERBERT LEWIS: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner whether Trustees of Parochial Charities are under a legal obligation to submit the accounts of such Charities to the annual meeting of the Parish Vestry; and, if that is the case, what steps can be taken to compel Trustees who decline or omit to fulfil their duties in this respect to submit such accounts to the inspection of parishioners?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. T. E. ELLIS,): It is provided by Section 44 of the Charitable Trusts (Amendment) Act, 1885, that in the case of Parochial Charities the

  329
  Trustees shall deliver a copy of the annual accounts of the Charities to the churchwardens of the parish or parishes with which the objects of such Charities are identified, who shall present the same at the general meeting of the Vestry of such parishes next after the time appointed for the delivery of those accounts, and shall insert a copy thereof in the minutes of the Vestry. Section 45 of the same Act provides that the Charity Commissioners may make such orders as they may think fit in relation to the delivery or transmission of the said accounts, and that such order shall be executed by all Trustees and persons from whom the accounts to which they may relate are required. In any case in which the duty thus imposed upon Trustees is shown not to be discharged by them the Commissioners will be prepared to take steps for making and enforcing the requisite order for securing compliance with the law.

  INSUBORDINATION IN THE ARMY.
  MR. BROOKFIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is the case that during the last few months there have been several acts of open insubordination in the Army; whether the accounts of such acts of insubordination have in any, or in all cases, been exaggerated; whether any special steps are being taken to restore or improve the discipline of the Army; and whether the law provides any punishment for circulating exaggerated accounts of insubordinate conduct, to the prejudice of good order and military discipline?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMBELL-BANNERMAN,): I am inclined to think that some of the recent cases of insubordination, which have undoubtedly occurred, have excited somewhat exaggerated comment. No special steps are being taken, nor are any such steps considered by the Military Authorities to be necessary, for the purpose of restoring or improving discipline. I am not aware of any law of the nature indicated in the last paragraph of the question.

  PROMOTION IN THE POSTAL SERVICE
  MR. MAURICE HEALY: I beg to ask the Postmaster General
  330
  whether, Tinder the Regulations of the Post Office Department, post office employés transferred from one office to another are placed in the lowest class of the office to which they are transferred, irrespective of their classification in the office from which they come, and though the transfer may have been made for the convenience of the Department; whether, under this Rule, the person transferred, no matter what his length of service, is the junior for the purposes of promotion to the most recent appointment in the new office; whether this rule exists in any other branch of the Civil Service; and whether it is the case that it formerly existed in the Customs Department and was abolished with great advantage to the Service?
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. A. MORLEY,): In the Post Office the Rule is as stated in the first two paragraphs of the hon. Member's question. A contrary Rule—a Rule under which an officer transferred from one office to another should enter his new office according to his years of service—while an advantage to himself, would be a disadvantage, and, as it appears to me, an unfairness, to all those over whose heads he passed. At the same time, in the comparatively few cases in which an officer is transferred, not at his own request and not on the score of misconduct, the Department does what it can, with a due regard to the interests of others, to protect him from injury. I am not aware what the rule is in other Departments of the State.

  GARRYDOOLIS POSTAL SERVICE.
  MR. FINUCANE: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether he has received a Memorial signed by Rev. John O'Sullivan, Pallasgreand, and by about 40 of his parishioners, praying that a sub-post office be established at Garrydoolis, County Limerick; whether he is aware that the two nearest post offices—namely, Newpallas and Kilteely, are seven and five miles respectively from Garrydoolis; and will he remedy this inconvenience by granting the prayer of the Memorial?
  MR. A. MORLEY: Yes, Sir; the Memorial referred to in the question is probably one which I received from

  331
  the hon. Member himself on the 5th instant. I will have inquiry made into the subject.

  SLAVERY IN EAST AFRICA.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he bus any further information to give the House with regard to the escaped slave who was taken by the police of the East African Chartered Company from the protection of the British flag and ordered back to her owner by the administrator in the Company's Court, and finally released from enforced servitude by the missionary buying her freedom?
  SIR E. GREY: We have received no official Reports on this case. We understand that there has been Correspondence on this subject between the British East Africa Company and the Bruce Road Free Methodist Church, in which the question, which is connected with that of the reception of fugitive slaves at Mission Stations, has been discussed.

  THE IMPERIAL INSTITUTE.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will reconsider the proposal to charge the cost of bringing Native Indian troops to this country to form part of a London pageant to the Revenues of India, and charge the amount to the British taxpayer?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: My hon. Friend should address this question to the India Office. I have no cognisance of it. It has not been brought to the notice of the Treasury at all.
  MR. MACFARLANE: Has no Correspondence passed between the India Office and the Treasury on the subject?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am informed not.
  MR. MACFARLANE: Then I beg to give notice that I will call attention to this matter in Committee of Supply, and move the reduction of the right hon. Gentleman's salary by the amount, leaving him his remedy against the Secretary of State for India.

  THE DISPUTE ON THE LANGFORD ESTATE.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to
  332
  the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that, at a meeting held on 18th April at Hay's Cross, County Cork, at which the parish priest of Meelin. Father Keefe, and his curate, Father Brew, attended, a resolution was proposed to the effect that any man taking grazing on the Langford estate was as bad as the landlord, and should be treated accordingly; and that, on the same night as the meeting, 11 armed and disguised moonlighters entered the house of a man named Brosna, who had taken grazing upon the estate; that one of the moonlighters said, "We have you now, you grass grabber," and, despite his brave resistance, Brosna was terribly beaten, had one eve destroyed, and barely escaped with his life; whether it is true that the moonlighters, after Brosna's escape, fired shots in the house, smashing the contents; whether Brosna's servants had been terrorised into leaving Brosna by a threat that their father would be murdered unless they did so; and whether he has any evidence that the outrage was a consequence of the meeting referred to; if so, whether any of the persons present at the meeting will be prosecuted?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The meeting at Hay's Cross was, I am informed, secretly convened, and there is no evidence yet forth-coining as to what happened at it. It is believed, however, so far as the police have been able to learn, that a resolution of the purport indicated in the question was adopted at the meeting, and they believe that there is some connection between the outrage and the proceedings at the meeting. At the same time, it should be stated that the police have reported that the two clergymen referred to in the question have always condemned outrage, and that their object in attending the meeting was, it is believed, to expedite a settlement between Mr. Langford and his tenants. The police are using their best endeavours to trace and bring to justice the perpetrators of this cowardly and brutal outrage. It is hoped that the result of intelligent police action will be successful in this matter.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER, who was nearly inaudible in the Gallery, was understood to ask whether there was any evidence to show that the two rev. gentlemen were present at the meeting, and that

  333
  they protested against the passing of the resolution?
  MR. J. MORLEY: As I have said, there could be no evidence whether they did or did not protest against the passing of the resolution, as the meeting was a secret one. The police, however, knew that they did attend the meeting.

  MOONLIGHTING IN COUNTY CORK.
  MR. ARNOLD-FORSTER: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland how many cases of moonlighting, agrarian and non-agrarian, took place in County Cork between 22nd August, 1892, and 1st May, 1893, and between 22nd August, 1891, and 1st May, 1892, respectively; and if he can account for the great increase in moonlighting which has taken place in the Counties of Clare, Limerick, and Cork since August last?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The Outrage Returns do not distinguish between oases of moonlighting and other outrages; but an examination of the official record shows that in the County Cork the number of outrages committed between August 22, 1892, and May 1, 1893, and falling within the category of crime described as moonlighting, is 12, of which four were agrarian and eight non-agrarian. In the period from August 22, 1891, to May 1, the number of moonlighting outrages in Cork was five, of which three were agrarian and two non-agrarian; in the corresponding period of 1890–1 the number was 13. As regards the concluding portion of the question, experience shows that outrages in the Counties of Clare, Limerick, and Cork fluctuate from time to time, and are confined to a small area in each county. These outrages have all been designated in the Returns under some one of the following heads — namely, firing at the person, firing into dwellings, robbery of arms, house attack, intimidation, or aggravated assault. The number of moonlighting outrages in County Limerick were stated on Friday as follows:—From August 22, 1892, to April 30, 1893, nine agrarian, eight non-agrarian—total, 17; from August 22, 1891, to April 30, 1892, one agrarian, no non-agrarian—total one. As regards Clare, the number of such outrages between August 22, 1892, and May 1, is 19, made up of six agrarian and
  334
  13 non-agrarian cases, and in the corresponding period of 1891–2 the number was 10, consisting of six agrarian and four non-agrarian cases.
  [Mr. Arnold-Forster put a supplementary question, which was quite inaudible in the Gallery.]

  VACCINATION WITH CALF LYMPH.
  MR. WHARTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, in cases of primary vaccination and re-vaccination, when the Local Authority is prepared to pay the cost of obtaining calf lymph, the Local Government Board would agree to such a course being adopted, instead of insisting on the present system of arm-to-arm vaccination?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Sir W. FOSTER,): The Local Government Board are unable to signify any general agreement in the performance of vaccination with calf lymph which is procured at the cost of the Guardians. There is every reason to believe that extension of the use of preserved lymph as opposed to fresh lymph derived in the arm-to-arm system would lessen the amount of protection against small-pox which is at present afforded by vaccination. Pending the sittings of the Royal Commission who have been appointed to inquire
  "Whether any alterations should be made in the arrangements and proceedings for securing the performance of vaccination,"
  the Board do not consider it expedient to propose any change in the existing arrangements.

  RAILWAY RATES FROM WOOTTON BASSETT.
  MR. HUSBAND: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the rate for the carriage of milk from Wootton Bassett to Paddington during the month of April was 12½ per cent. higher than the rates in operation on 1st January, and that in spite of the Railway Companies' statement that the increase should in no case exceed 5 per cent.; and whether he will use his influence to bring about a return to the old rates?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): The answer is generally in the affirmative; but I have received letters from the Great Western Railway Company, dated 3rd and 8th of May, which show that they have reverted to the milk rates in force before 1st January last.
  MR. HUSBAND: At what date did the company revert to the old rates?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I cannot say; I shall be pleased to show the hon. Member the Correspondence.

  POLICE COURT BAIL.
  SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Joseph Green-way, who was committed for trial at Bow Street Police Station in June, 1892, and who subsequently absconded, surrendered himself at Bow Street, on the 5th October last, that Thomas Siers, of 15, London Street, stood bail for him in the sum of £250, and that such bail was estreated when Greenway absconded; and whether, in view of the fact that the said Thomas Siers informed the solicitor to the Treasury of Greenway's whereabouts as soon as he discovered, it, and thus did his best to assist justice, the whole or a portion of the amount of the bail can now be returned to Siers?
  MR. ASQUITH: The facts are correctly stated in the first paragraph. As to the second paragraph, it is true that Siers gave information to the police as to Greenway's address in America; hut this information led to nothing, as Greenway came over from America and surrendered himself. Siers made misleading representations to the effect that he had paid the whole of his bail of £250, whereas it turned out that £125 of the £250 alleged to have been paid by Siers had been found by Mrs. Greenway herself. Under these circumstances, the Treasury Solicitor advised that his want of good faith disentitled Siers to relief, and in this view I concur.

  CO-OPERATIVE STORES AND INCOME TAX.
  MR. E. H. BAYLEY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that the profits of the Civil Service Supply
  336
  Association, Limited, of Queen Victoria Street, were £46,700 for the year 1891, and that they were exempt from payment of Income Tax because the Association was registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts; whether he can state how many companies of a similar nature and similarly registered make profits of £10,000 and upwards per annum upon which no Income Tax is paid; and whether he will consider the desirability of so amending the law that the profits of such companies may bear their share of taxation?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The hon. Member has been misinformed. The Civil Service Supply Association, Limited, is not exempt, nor is any Society similarly constituted exempt, from payment of Income Tax.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES IN THE BALLYMENA UNION.
  COLONEL WARING: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that some time ago a Committee of the Ballymena Board of Guardians was appointed to inquire whether any and, if so, how many labourers' cottages were required in the electoral divisions of Portglenone, Lisnagarrow, Ahoghill, and Ballyscullion, and that Committee reported that 28 such dwellings were necessary; whether any, and if so how many, have since been built; and, if not, why is it that the provisions of the Labourers (Ireland) Acts are disregarded in the Ballymena Union; and what steps he will take to remedy this neglect?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I understand that the Guardians of the Ballymena Union did adopt the Report of a Committee which recommended the erection of 28 cottages in the Union, but that the Guardians, in view of the Reports made to them by the Medical Officers of Health relative to the dwellings of the various applicants for cottages now consider that six cottages will be sufficient to meet the requirements of the district. The scheme for the erection of these cottages has not yet come before the Local Government Board, who do not think they can properly interfere with the action of the Local Authority in this matter at the present stage of the proceedings.

  COUNTY CARLOW POSTAL SERVICE.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Postmaster General whether the telegraph will be extended from Kiltegan to Hacketstown, County Carlow, in accordance with the promise given last November?
  MR. A. MORLEY: Steps are being taken to carry out the extensions referred to. As the hon. Member was probably aware, it was necessary to postpone the work until the commencement of the present financial yaar.

  ARBITRATION IN LABOUR DISPUTES.
  MR. HOWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that there are several Acts and portions of Acts still in force relating to arbitration and conciliation in the matter of labour disputes, and that these Acts are inoperative, the provisions relating to the intervention of Magistrates and Justices of the Peace being no longer applicable to such disputes now that the Masters and Servants Acts have been repealed; whether he can see his way to propose the repeal of these practically obsolete Statutes, or their consolidation into one amended Act; and whether the Government will consent, if the House so agree, to refer his Bill, and the other Bills now before the House on the same subject, to the same Committee, with the view of securing such legislation as may accord with the changed conditions of labour?
  MR. MUNDELLA: If the Bill which I have introduced is referred to the Standing Committee, I shall offer no objection to Amendments repealing such of the Acts referred to as are obsolete and inoperative. And I should quite willing that the Bills introduced by private Members should be read a second time and considered by the same Committee. I am only desirous that we should as soon as possible provide legislation that will facilitate the settlement of labour disputes.

  THE ATTACK ON THE REV. F. B. WALSH.
  SIR ELLIS ASHMEAD-BART-LETT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to the report in The Times
  338
  of 29th April of an attack upon a clergy-man, from which it appeals that—
  "The Rev. F. B. Walsh attended an anti-Home Rule meeting at the Town Hall. Bermondsey, but took no part in the proceedings. After the meeting Mr. Walsh was proceeding in the direction of his home, St. Anne's Vicarage. He was followed by a mob, who shouted, Here is one of the d—d lot, let him have it.' The crowd of roughs closed upon him and storied him. Mr. Walsh was most severely and cruelly assaulted, and was rescued by two policemen and conveyed to the house of the nearest surgeon where the wounds were dressed and sewn up Mr. Walsh is seriously ill and in bed;"
  what, steps are being taken to discover the perpetrators of this assault; and whether any reward has been offered for their discovery?
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes: my attention has been called to the report referred to by the hon. Member. The facts as stated in the first paragraph of the question are considerably exaggerated. The statement made by the rev. gentleman to the police shows that when about halfway down Alscot Road something struck him on the head, and on his turning round he was struck on the eye, he believes by a stone. Two police officers came up and assisted him, but there was nothing that in any way could be termed a rescue, as he had not noticed that he was followed, and was not surrounded, nor was anyone near him. He has no idea by whom the stone was thrown, and can give no further information concerning the occurrence. Every endeavour has been made by the police to discover the offender. It is not the practice for the police to offer rewards in such cases.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Which of the facts are exaggerated? I am informed by the relatives of the rev. gentleman that Mr. Walsh had been very seriously injured and is still confined to the house.
  MR. ASQUITH: The extent of the exaggeration will be found by comparing the statements in the first paragraph of the question with those I have just read.

  THE NEW LABOUR BUREAU.
  MR. ERNEST SPENCER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade when he will be able to lay upon the Table his promised Memorandum on the functions and powers of the Labour Bureau, or as it is now

  339
  termed the Labour Department, of the Board of Trade, and the mimes and addresses of the newly appointed Local Labour Correspondents; and whether he will also give, where possible, the politics of the latter?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Return was ordered and presented on the 28th ultimo. I hope it will be circulated in a day or two; I have made no inquiry into the politics of the persons named in the Memorandum, and I have no intention of doing so.
  MR. E. SPENCER: Would the right hon. Gentleman have any more difficulty in doing that than the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster found in the case of the Lancashire Magistrates?
  MR. BARTLEY: Is not the correspondent at Sheffield the right hon. Gentleman's chief organiser in that district?
  MR. MUNDELLA: No, Sir.

  RAILWAY RATES AT WEST BROMWICH.
  MR. ERNEST SPENCER: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that, in spite of the Railway Companies' statements that they were revising their rates so that the increase should in no case exceed 5 per cent., the rates on bricks sent out from the West Bromwich district showed an increase from 12½ per cent to 20 per cent.; and whether he will call the attention of the Company to the matter?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have already stated to the House the information which I possess as regards the rates in the Staffordshire district in reply to a question from the hon. Member for North-East Warwickshire. The Company propose to receive a deputation from the Brick-makers on the subject, which I hope will lead to a satisfactory result.

  THE ALLEGED OVERCROWDING OF SCOTCH PRISONS.
  MR. WILLIAM WHITELAW: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland whether, in veiw of the information supplied by the Fourteenth Report of the Scotch Prison Commissioners in regard to overcrowding in Scotch prisons, he will grant a Return showing the number of prisoners in the 11 largest Scotch prisons for each week, from 1st April, 1891, to 31st March, 1893?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The Prison Commissioners, to whom I have referred this question, are unable to discover that the information supplied in their 14th Report indicates any overcrowding in Scottish prisons. Such overcrowding, as already pointed out in the detailed reply to a previous question put to me by the hon. Member, does not exist. If the hon. Member will submit a statement to me of the overcrowding to which he refers I will send it to the Prison Commissioners; but till then a detailed Return which would involve considerable trouble seems uncalled for, and I am not prepared to grant it.

  H.M.S. "WARSPITE."
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether H.M.S. Warspite is to replace the Triumph at Queenstown; and whether the repairs necessary for this vessel will be done at Haulbowline?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: Yes; the Warspite will be the guard ship at Queenstown. I would refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on the 4th instant, as to the repairs of the Triumph, to a similar question addressed to me by the hon. and gallant Member for East Cork.

  THE INDIAN BUDGET.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he can state about what time it will be possible for the Indian Budget to be brought before the House; and whether, in view of the large deficit budgetted for and the important debate which has taken place in the Viceroy's Legislative Council on the present condition of Indian finance and the possibility of large retrenchment and reduction of expenditure, he will arrange that two days shall be given for the discussion of the Budget?
  THE FIRST LORD OP THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): The hon. Member will agree with me that it is rather early for the Government to attempt to allocate a particular date for the Indian Budget at this period of the Session. I do not, however, entirely abandon the hope of taking it somewhat earlier and at a more seasonable period than in recent times had been the case. With regard to the discussion itself, I

  341
  think it would be premature to attempt to determine at present the exact length of time over which the discussion ought to extend. In the view of the Government, the House will not be prepared for that discussion until the Report of the Committee now sitting has been received.
  LORD E. CHURCHILL: Will the right hon. Gentleman use his great personal influence to expedite the Report referred to? The delay is causing the greatest possible uncertainty in India, and no thorough discussion can take place until the Report of the Committee on Indian Finance has been presented to the House.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I agree with the noble Lord, and if I can do anything in that direction it shall be done.

  THE WHITSUNSIDE RECESS.
  MR. J.E.ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he can now, for the general convenience of Members, state when the Government propose that the House should adjourn for, and reassemble after, the Whitsuntide Recess?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It is the intention of the Government to propose to the House that we should sit next as usual in point of time, but that the Morning Sitting on Friday should be devoted to Supply, and that the House should then adjourn until Monday week following.

  THE HOME RULE BILL AND THE RETENTION OF THE IRISH MEMBERS.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Government intend to adhere to or to depart from the provisions of Clause 9 in the Government of Ireland Bill, dealing with the retention of the Irish Members?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: If it, is the intention of my right hon. Friend to ask whether we have finally made up our minds to adhere to or to depart from the provisions of Clause 9, he must excuse me if I point out that the regular and ordinary time of stating our intention is when we come to the discussion of the clause in the House. My right hon. Friend's intention must be to ask whether we intend to propose the clause as it is.
  342
  My reply to that is that we do intend to propose it, and to submit it to the House. There are a number of points of difficulty in relation to it, the merits of which we have endeavoured to set forth as fairly as we can. We will profit by the discussions, but we have at present no intention of recommending any change.

  OMNIBUS DRIVERS' LICENCES.
  MR. SAMUEL MONTAGU: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether be is aware that drivers and conductors of omnibuses and tramcars must obtain the renewal of their licences at Scotland Yard, which in many cases entails an annual loss of a day's work or the payment of one or two shillings to a messenger; and whether he can arrange that such licences may be renewed at the police station in the district in which the licence-holder lives?
  THE SECRETARY OK STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I understand that it is not necessary for a driver or conductor to attend at Now Scotland Yard in order to obtain a renewal of his licence. The practice is for a renewed licence to be sent to the police station nearest to the address of the licensee, together with the amount (5s.) payable for such renewal. A memorandum is sent to the applicant to the effect that the licence has been so sent, and that it will be given him on production of his badge and delivering up the memorandum.

  BORSTAL PRISON.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the grievances of the officers of Borstal Prison have been brought to his notice; and whether he will kindly promise to consider them; and, in that case, when he expects to be in a position to give a reply upon the subject?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have looked into the facts in connection with the officials of Borstal Prison to which the noble Lord has drawn my attention, and do not find any ground for complaint. The Committee of 1891 went carefully into all the representations brought to their notice, and reported that, in their opinion, the hours of duty for convict prison officials were not excessive. In

  343
  this opinion I concur. The system in force at Borstal is the same as at other convict prisons. I have directed a full reply to be sent to the noble Lord upon a number of specific points which he has brought privately to my attention. If the warders have any special matters of complaint, their proper course is to bring them in the first instance to the notice of the Visiting Director, who visits the prison every month.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNE: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he admits the allegations I have brought before him are founded on fact, and that the state of things entirely differs from the time tables set forth in the last Report of the Director of Convict Prisons?
  MR. ASQUITH: I must refer the noble Lord to the detailed answer.

  FUSSELL'S CHARITY, SOUTH WRAXALL.
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: On behalf of the hon. Member for West Derby Division of Liverpool, I beg to ask the hon. Member for Merionethshire whether the Charity Commissioners can see their way to appoint three additional Trustees in the case of the Fussell's Charity, South Wraxall, as indicated in their letter of 18th January last to Mr. Pinckney, as it appears that is the only way the present unfortunate deadlock can be terminated?
  MR. T. E. ELLIS: The Charity Commissioners have already intimated to Mr. Pinckney that they are prepared to proceed with the appointment of additional Trustees of the Fussell Charity. But, in order to enable such Trustees to take part with the Incumbent and Churchwardens in the selection of beneficiaries, it is considered to be advisable that the appointment should be effected by way of scheme. The Commissioners have requested Mr. Pinckney to apply for such a scheme, which he declines to do; and in these circumstances the Commissions are unable to proceed with the matter.

  THE EXPLOSION AT DUBLIN.
  MR. WRIGHTSON: I wish, in accordance with private notice, to ask whether the Chief Secretary has any information to give to the House with reference to the dynamite explosion which occurred on Saturday night at the Four Courts in Dublin?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am sorry to say that I can add nothing to the information which is given to the public in the ordinary prints. An explosion took place in the Four Courts on Saturday night. It seems to have been of precisely the same kind as we had experience of in the Castle in December, 1891, at the offices of The National Press in Abbey Street, and near the Castle, in Exchange Court, on Christmas Day last. We are taking every possible measure to obtain some clue to the perpetrators of the outrage. One of the officers of the Home Office leaves for Dublin to-night. It is premature, however, to assume that it is a dynamite outrage; that we cannot state until this officer has examined the spot. The Police Authorities are not without hope of being more successful than on previous occasions.

  THE VALUE OF IRISH SECURITIES.
  MR. BODKIN: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer a question of which I have given him private notice, and from which I have done my best to eliminate all matters of a controversial character—namely, whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the bulk of Irish securities, especially those of Guinness, the Bank of Ireland, the Great Northern of Ireland Railway, and the Belfast and Down Railway, have rapidly and continuously improved in the market since the passing of the Second Reading of the Bill for the Better Government of Ireland; and whether such improvement is not, in his opinion, due to the confidence inspired by the immediate prospect of the better government in Ireland; and whether the Government will justify that confidence by pressing forward the Bill now before the House with all convenient speed?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: These are matters about which I have no official cognisance, and I hope that the hon. Member will not, like a previous Member, move the reduction of my salary on account of my ignorance.
  MR. BODKIN: These are matters of public notoriety.

  MOTIONS.
    IRISH EDUCATION ACT (1892) AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.

      LEAVE. FIRST READING.
      MR. J. MORLEY: I have to ask the House to be good enough to give me leave to bring in a Bill, the object of which is merely to remedy certain minor defects in the machinery for the provision of school sites which have been discovered in the Education Act passed by the right hon. Gentleman my Predecessor in 1892. These difficulties are of a formal character, and the object of the Bill, which I will explain more fully in a Memorandum to be affixed to it, is to substitute the machinery of the Labourers' Dwellings Act for the machinery now in the Bill in certain small matters, such as the giving of notices, the publishing of advertisements, and the method of confirming orders.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend 'The Irish Education Act, 1892.'"—(Mr. J. Morley.)
      Motion agreed to.
      Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Morley and Mr. Arthur Acland.
      Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 344.]

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

      COMMITTEE. [FIRST NIGHT].
      Order for Committee read.
      *MR. SPEAKER: There are three proposals to instruct the Committee standing upon the Paper. The first stands in the name of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington, to confer on the Committee the power to suspend the operation of Standing Order No. 35, and to allow the Motion to be revived that the Preamble be postponed. The first observation I have to make is that technically it is out of Order, inasmuch as it empowers the Committee to do what I have never heard of this House empowering a Committee to do—to alter
      346
      or suspend a Standing Order of the House. A Standing Order can be altered by Resolution of the House, but a Committee cannot do so, and it has never been delegated to a Committee to exercise such a power. Looking at the importance of the substance of the Instruction, I am bound further to observe that the object of the noble Lord is clearly to promote a discussion on the question of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, and he proposes to take that discussion at once on the question that the Preamble be postponed. Before 1882, when the Standing Order was passed which directed that the Preamble should stand postponed, so that it should, as a matter of course, be taken last without the possibility of discussion, great abuses had sprung up in this House from a repetition of Second Reading Debates, sometimes of great length, on this usually formal Motion on the Preamble; and it was deliberately enacted by the House that the Preamble should stand postponed without any Motion, and be always and without question, as it was usually, taken last. The object, of course, was to enable any alterations to be made in it consonant with any alterations made in the Bill in the course of the Committee. It would be impossible to discuss the Preamble first and then to amend the Bill, as it might well be that the Preamble would not be consistent with the alterations made in Committee. That is the object of postponing the Preamble, and I am afraid it is not within my duty to sanction such a grave departure from ordinary practices as to deliberately undo the Standing Order of this House relating to the conduct of Bills in their passage through this House. This is my reason for saying that the first Instruction is out of Order. With reference to the second Instruction, standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Hammersmith (abolition of office of Lord Lieutenant), I think it is competent for the hon. and gallant Member in Committee to do what he proposes in this Instruction, to abolish, if he pleases, the office of Lord Lieutenant, and to transfer the office hither to performed by the Lord Lieutenant to the Crown. With reference to the next Instruction, standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Deptford, to re-establish the House of Lords in

      347
      Ireland and to transfer the judicial business on appeals thereto, I think also that what he proposes may be achieved in Committee, and it will be in his power to constitute a House of Lords in any way he thinks expedient, and he may clothe it with any appellate or other jurisdiction he may think proper. On these grounds I am bound to conclude that all three Instructions are out of Order.
      LORD R. CHURCHILL: With great respect, and without challenging your ruling in any way, may I put a further question? Is it the effect of that ruling that no Standing Order passed by this House for the conduct of legislation can be suspended by the House? Would not an Instruction of the House to the Committee empowering it to suspend on a particular Bill a particular Standing Order be equal to a Resolution of the House itself, and was Standing Order No 35 when passed intended to be subject to no exception, but to be absolutely permanent and unchangeable in its effect; and whether, if the question of the supremacy of Parliament is not raised on the Preamble of the Bill, on what clause and when can it be raised? The only words in the Bill which refer to the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament are contained in the Preamble. I desire to repeat, Sir, that I put this question to you with the utmost respect.
      *MR. SPEAKER: I did not say that on no occasion could a Standing Order be abrogated. What I did say was that I had never heard, and that I am unwilling to set the precedent, of this House instructing a Committee to abrogate a Standing Order of this House ad hoc. If such a thing were done I think that it ought to be done by distinct Resolution, and not by merely an enabling power to overrule the Standing Order conferred by a contingent Motion. The other question of the noble Lord was as to when he can raise the question of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. I am bound to decide these questions only as they arise on points of Order; but I had the less compunction in deciding as I have done when I see the first Amendment in Committee on the Paper in the name of the hon. and learned Member for Deptford will enable the whole question of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament to be raised. Therefore, I think
      348
      that there will be no inconvenience to the noble Lord or to the House in the decision which I have arrived at.
      Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
      Bill considered in Committee.
      (In the Committee.)
      Legislative Authority.
      Clause 1 (Establishment of Irish Legislature.)
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg to move that Clause 1 be postponed, and if I am able to induce the Government to assent to that Amendment I would then follow it up by a consequential Amendment and move the postponement of all the clauses down to Clause 9, my object, of course, being that we should commence the discussion of the Bill at that very important point in the Bill. I thought that possibly I might have been spared the necessity of making this Motion by the answer I hoped to gain from the right hon. Gentleman just now. The question I put to the right hon. Gentleman was whether he intended to adhere to Clause 9 as it stands in the Bill? Of course, in putting that question, I was not seeking to pledge the right hon. Gentleman to every letter and comma of the clause; but it embodied one of the various suggestions that have been put forward from time to time for dealing with the question of the retention of the Irish Members, and I wanted to know whether the Government in principle adhered to that proposal and intended to make it a vital point of their policy, because, if so, we are discussing the provisions of the Bill in absolute ignorance of what the intentions of the Government are with regard to this important point. If we pass the 1st clause of the Bill and declare that there shall be a new Legislature set up in Ireland, we shall do so being utterly unaware of what is to become of the Legislature of Great Britain. Well, now, Sir, I maintain that it is the custom of Governments in this House to lay their whole policy before the House, and to adhere to and make vital all the essential points of that policy. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has, I suppose, more experience of the House of Commons than any other living Member; but it will, I think, puzzle his memory to

      349
      give us any case in which the Government have introduced a Bill of this considerable importance, but have kept an open mind upon one of its most vital and essential provisions. The only case which I can recall, as being in any degree a parallel, is the Reform Bill of 1867; and certainly I do not think that the analogy of that Bill is one that is likely to commend itself to my right hon. Friend. On that occasion the Government of the day, which allowed important clauses of the Bill to be altered in Committee, was strenuously accused by its own friends of bad faith; and, on the whole, the course which they adopted did not strengthen their position in this House, nor conduce to increase their popularity in the country. The point, therefore, I venture to put is that, with regard to the main provisions of this Bill, we have a right to know that the Government intend to adhere to those provisions. Otherwise we are liable, at any point of this discussion, to have an entirely new Bill sprung upon us. If that be true with regard to the main points it is exceptionally and especially true of Clause 9, because it is upon this clause, as it stands—that is to say, upon the particular principle which the clause involves—that the Government have obtained their majority in this House and have carried the Second Reading of the Bill. There are only three ways of dealing with this question of the Irish representation at Westminster.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: Order, order!
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The hon. Member is not the Chairman. The first way is by the total exclusion of the Irish Members.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise to Order. I desire to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is in Order in thus discussing the various ways of dealing with the representation of Irish Members in this House and in Dublin on a Motion to postpone Clause 1?
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Before you reply, Sir, to the point of Order, may I explain that my object is to show the essential importance of the clause in question, and of the undesirability of allowing any alteration to be made in it by the Government, and the necessity of knowing the course the Government in-
      350
      tend to take in the matter before we come to deal with the rest of the Bill.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is in Order. I think that he is justified in bringing this forward as a reason for postponing Clause 1 and the other clauses down to Clause 8 inclusive.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish, therefore, to know whether the Committee will be in Order in discussing Clause 9 before we come to it?
      THE CHAIRMAN: I have already said that the right hon. Gentleman is in Order.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have said that there are only three ways of dealing with the Irish representation. These are—(1) by exclusion: (2) by what is known as the plan of omnes omnia; and (3) by the plan proposed in the Bill. So far as regards the first of those proposals, which was the proposal of the Bill of 1886, that was so unpopular in the country that it was one of the causes why the Government of that day failed to obtain a majority, and there are hon. Members who are still Members in this House who are pledged in most positive terms by their election addresses not to accept——
      MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the election addresses of hon. Members constitute a matter for discussion upon a Motion to postpone the 1st clause of this Bill?
      THE CHAIRMAN: I really must point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is difficult for me to judge of a question of Order if he continually rises to Order himself. I have already said I think that the right hon. Gentleman is in Order. Of course, the right hon. Gentleman will not go into details in discussing the clause.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: The fact that so many hon. Members are pledged against total exclusion justifies the statement which I made previously—that if the Government were now to adopt that plan it would be practically a breach of faith, because they obtained their majority upon the assurance that they would not again proceed upon the principle of total exclusion. That is, therefore, excluded from their consideration. I come next to the second proposal, which is, that the Irish Members shall be retained for all purposes and in their full numbers.

      351
      In regard to that, I would point to a statement which my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury made some years ago. My right hon. Friend was then dealing with this very matter, and said, in the plainest and clearest of terms, without any qualification or addition—
      "I will never be a party to allowing the Irish Members to manage their own affairs in Dublin and at the same time to come over here and manage British affairs."
      That being so, and seeing that my right hon. Friend has never in the slightest degree varied that pledge, it appears to me that it would he incompetent for the Government at the last moment to adopt that plan. There remains only the plan embodied in the Bill. If my right hon. Friend, in answer to my question, had said that he intended to stand by the proposal in the Bill, I should not have thought it necessary at this point to deal with Clause 9. But this is not the position that has been taken up by my right hon. Friend, and I am therefore obliged to contemplate the possibility that, in spite of the pledges given by my right hon. Friend, and in spite of the pledges given by his supporters, the Government have in contemplation, at all events, the possibility that when we get into Committee on Clause 9 it may be altered in one of the two ways suggested. I should have been prepared to admit that Clause 9 contained an honest attempt, at any rate, to deal with the difficulty, by keeping Irish Members at Westminster without giving them power over British affairs. I do not say how far it would succeed in that object; but the clause as it stands was regarded as an endeavour by the Government to find a solution of what at one time we were told passed the wit of man, and it was on the faith of that endeavour that the House allowed the Second Reading of the Bill. Suppose the House were now told by my right hon. Friend that he intended to propose the absolute exclusion of the Irish Members, where would be the majority which he had on the Second Reading? It would be absolutely impossible, under these circumstances, for the Government to go on with the Bill; and, that being so, it is perfectly ridiculous and would be a waste of time for us to consider Clauses 1 to 8 until we know whether upon this point, which I have endeavoured to show is the real essence of the Bill, the Govern-
      352
      ment do or do not adhere to their original views. Surely it is not too much to ask my right hon. Friend. The Government have had seven years to consider this Bill. From the very first they have known that it was a very difficult matter. They have pledged themselves to give, and have, no doubt, given, their careful consideration to it. As a result they carried the Second Reading on the proposals before the House, and now, at the last moment, they refuse to say that the proposal in the Bill may not be changed, Let me point out what an important bearing this has upon the discussion of the Bill. The first operative clause declares that there shall be a Legislature in Ireland. The majority in this House have agreed to that, provided that the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament is not seriously interfered with, is not hampered or weakened, as it would be, either by the exclusion or by the retention for all purposes of the Irish representation. I should like to know whether the vote would be the same, if it is taken on the assumption that this clause is going to stand, or upon either of the other two assumptions I have put before the House? It is perfectly certain that if hon. Members kept to their pledges they could not vote for the 1st clause of the Bill if they knew that Clause 9 was going to be altered. Then there is the question of supremacy. Upon the question of supremacy, the Irish Secretary said that if you keep the Irish Members here for all purposes they will be supreme, not only in Dublin, but at Westminster. What is the use, therefore, of our discussing the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament when we do not know what the constitution of the Imperial Parliament is to be? I quite understand that hon. Members opposite (pointing to the Nationalist Members) do not want any discussion at all to take place upon the Bill. I quite understand that hon. Members on this side, too, would like to ram it down our throats. Well, let them try. We were told at the former stages to wait till we got into Committee to discuss the details of the Bill, and we are going to discuss them—and discuss them thoroughly—until you put the gag on us. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] In spite of the ironical cheer of my right Friend, I maintain that this is a perfectly legitimate question to raise,

      353
      and that it is raised on account of his refusal to give a plain answer to a plain question. We are no longer in the position we were in before. Whenever we attempted to discuss this Home Rule scheme we were told to wait until the right hon. Gentleman was in power. Sow the right hon. Gentleman is in power; he has produced his Bill; he is pledged to toll the House of Commons what his policy is; and when we have good reason to assume that he is contemplating, it may he, a change of policy, we have the right to ask from him an assurance that there is no truth in the rumours to that effect which we have seen in the 'public Press, and which he has refused, up to the present time, to contradict. I move that the clause be postponed.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 he postponed."—(Mr. J. Chamberlain.)
      MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I will not follow my right hon. Friend through all the details of his speech, because my duty would be to contradict almost every one of his assertions. The present proceeding of my right hon. Friend, who is admittedly within his liberty as a Member of this House without In-each of Order, appears to me to be a proceeding, the adoption of which would result in all effective and practical discussion upon all Bills whatever being rendered impossible. When some objection was raised to the course he has taken, my right hon. Friend immediately proceeded to charge those who objected to his course with entertaining an intention that there should be no effective discussion whatever on this Bill. Well, now, Sir, that is an intention which I should not be disposed to charge upon my right hon. Friend as his view or desire, but it is the certain and necessary effect of the Motion he has made. Is the right hon. Gentleman justified in setting up this or any particular clause of the Bill as the essence of the Bill, and saying that no progress can be made with the Bill until that clause had been disposed of? In my opinion, there are—I will not say bow many, but not less than six or eight —clauses in this Bill which my right hon. Friend might just as well have chosen as that which is the subject of this Motion, and which lie might much
      354
      better have chosen than the clause upon which he has based his Motion. My right hon. Friend asked that I should give a pledge to abide by all the essential points of Clause 9. Exactly so; and he reserves to his own breast to determine what are the essential points of the clause. My right hon. Friend chooses to refer to previous declarations and expressions of mine, and evidently reserves to himself, upon all important matters connected with this Bill, a universal, an infallible, and an exclusive power of interpretation. If I told my light hon. Friend that I intended to adhere to all the points which he considers essential in Clause 9, I should be liable to be thrown over by him the next morning by his informing us, with the same supreme authority which he has used to-day in all his interpretations, that we had broken faith with him in the promise we had given to adhere to all the essential points. My right hon. Friend says he does not know what is to become of the British Parliament. Nothing can become of the British Parliament at all. It can undergo no change from what it is now until some change is proposed by the Government, and until we come to the proposal of that change he is perfectly safe, and need entertain no apprehension at all. It seems to me that there are many clauses which might become with equal propriety the subject of the attack which he has made, but I cannot conceive any clause which he could have chosen with less propriety than Clause 9. I am entirely wrong, of course, because he says so, and my own poor private judgment must lurk in the shade until I receive the encouragement and guidance of my right hon. Friend. Here is a Bill which, in order to deal with it practically, we must take point by point, according to the natural order. The object of the Bill is to establish a Local Legislature in Ireland for Irish purposes. We have put that which is the object of the Bill in the forefront of the Bill. From the forefront of the Bill my right hon. Friend proposes to dislodge it, and why? Because of the opinion, widely entertained, that if a Local Legislature is to be established in Ireland, the consequence of that will he to raise the question of the modification of the position of the Irish Members in the British Parliament. How can you discuss the position of the

      355
      Irish Members in the British Parliament with reference to their having a Parliament established in Dublin until you have determined whether they are to have a Parliament established in Dublin or not? I desire to avoid hard words in this Debate; but I must own I felt I could not give a complete, an adequate, and a satisfactory description of the proposal of my right hon. Friend without using rather hard words, and I shall, therefore, leave it to stand in its naked beauty. If my right hon. Friend could by any possibility persuade the majority of this House to adopt his Motion, or to persuade the minority to adopt it—though there are some doubts even about that—he would then carry us to Clause 9, and we should find it necessary to make Clause 9 a contingent and hypothetical clause, because there is no purpose whatever in discussing Clause 9 unless and until we have decided upon a Local Legislature for Ireland. What a mockery to discuss Clause 9 now! I am now showing my great desire to meet my right hon. Friend. With the hypothetical acceptance of his Motion, we should absolutely begin the discussion of a knotty and thorny clause, by making it entirely dependent upon the adoption of this 1st clause which my right hon. Friend seeks to put aside. But we pursue what we think is the rational course, and the course agreeable to common sense, in putting into the first line of the Bill the main object of the Bill, upon which every other clause of the Bill is based. What can be more vital than the Veto Clause? [Opposition Cries of "What clause?" and "We can't hear!"] I do not believe that the two or three gentlemen who are attempting interruption are adopting a mode of expression which is agreeable to those among whom they sit. All the clauses of this Bill—the Retention Clause, the Finance Clause, the Veto Clause—are entirely dependent upon and consequent upon the establishment of a Local Legislature in Ireland. I say, therefore, that in point of reason the only course for us to take is, to consider, first, whether we shall or shall not establish such a Local Legislature, and when we have determined to have a Local Legislature in Ireland, then, and not before, will be the time to consider under what conditions it is to exist, and what changes, if any, it is to bring about in
      356
      the composition or the proceedings of this House. I must, therefore, object to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Before I deal with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, may I, just by way of explanation, say that I think the right hon. Gentleman misunderstood certain exclamations which came from hon. Gentlemen behind me, who had no desire to interrupt him? It so happened that the right hon. Gentleman very naturally turned to my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham, with the result that he could not be heard by some hon. Gentlemen near me; and it was for that reason, and that reason alone, they made the observations the right hon. Gentleman complained of. The right hon. Gentleman, under the excuse that the occasion is not propitious for dealing with the facts brought forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham, has really, in discussing this vital question, confined himself to generalities, and the value of those generalities may be judged from one of them. He said my right hon. Friend had asked the Government whether they meant to adhere to Clause 9 in all essential particulars. The right hon. Gentleman the Member or Birmingham is a judge of what are the essential particulars; but the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House said, "If we give the pledge required, we may find, in adopting some alteration, we have varied the clause in regard to something which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham declares to be essential." My right hon. Friend made it absolutely clear what he meant by essential conditions. He laid it down that there are three, and only three, ways of dealing with the Irish Members, and he asked the Government which of those three possible methods they were going to adopt. He did not ask to be informed as to the details by which any one of those methods could be carried into effect; all he asked —and the request was surely a reasonable one—was that we should know from the Government whether they meant to adhere to the discredited plan of 1886?
      MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I said we intended to propose the plan embodied in the Bill.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: My word was "adhere," and not "propose." My right hon. Friend wanted to know whether you adhere to the discredited plan of 1886, or to the little less discredited proposal of 1893, or to some possible proposal which may come on in June, 1893? Is that not a reasonable request? It is perfectly true that the Government cannot pledge itself to the details of any plan, and we do not ask them to do so. We make no unreasonable request. It is also perfectly true that the Government may be forced to recede from proposals which the right hon. Gentleman believes to be the best; but has a single word fallen from the Government indicating their own faith that the proposals embodied in this Bill are the best? We have fresh in our recollection the speech made by the Prime Minister on the First Reading, and the speech made by the Home Secretary on the Second Reading. Both dealt with Clause 9, and I venture to say the impression loft by both speeches was that, whatever views these two eminent Members of the Government might have as to the merits of other proposals, they were perfectly convinced of the demerits of the proposal they were laying before the House. If the Members of the Government obviously hate their own proposals, what ground have we for thinking that they mean really to vote for them? They are merely going to toss Clause 9 on the Table to be turned and changed at the will of the House without exercising their authority as a Government to retain it in the main in its present shape, and by so doing they are absolutely preventing the House dealing with clauses antecedent to Clause 9 in a rational and reasonable spirit. The right hon. Gentleman says—
      "This is a Bill for the establishment of a Legislature in Ireland; if you do not establish a Legislature in Ireland the whole of the rest of the Bill falls down by its own weight; therefore pass Clause 1, at all events, embodying that principle before you deal with anything else."
      I admit that Clause 1 proposes to establish the principle that there shall be a separate Legislature in Ireland; but on the clause other questions and one especially must be raised, and, as Mr. Speaker has pointed out, that question can be raised fully upon the very first line. On the very first line we shall have to discuss the supremacy of the Imperial
      358
      Parliament. Until we know what is to be that Imperial Parliament which is to be supreme, how can we discuss this question? Until we know what is to be the future constitution of the most important Member of the Imperial Legislature, how can we possibly discuss adequately the question of Imperial supremacy? The thing is absurd; and I venture to say that if the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind, firstly, the vital importance of the question of the supremacy; secondly, the impossibility of discussing the question of supremacy without knowing what is to be the constitution of the Imperial Parliament; and, thirdly, the ambiguous character of his own utterances on this question, he will feel that the doubt and uneasiness with which we are beset is based on reasonable grounds; and that the least he can do is to satisfy as that the Government do mean to bring forward on their responsibility some plan to which they mean to adhere, and that they will tell us what that plan is before we proceed with one iota of the Bill. I venture to say, with some experience of carrying difficult Bills through the House, that the Government will certainly not lose time by endeavouring to meet what I think even the right hon. Gentleman will admit, after reflection, is not an unreasonable request preferred by the whole of the Opposition on this matter.
      MR. J. PARKER SMITHsaid, the question was one on which the House was entitled to have something more than mere fencing. The Bill proposed to constitute an Irish Parliament, but it did something much more important than that; it proposed to alter the constitution and the nature of this House of Commons. Before they considered any question in regard to the Irish Parliament, they were entitled to know what the intentions of the Government were with regard to this Parliament; they were entitled to know which of the three alternatives the Government chose to stand or fall by. In his speech introducing the Bill the Prime Minister did not say that this principle was a vital principle; he merely said it was an important and organic detail of the Bill, and they were entitled to know what an organic detail was, and what a vital principle was. It was impossible to

      359
      discuss the previous clauses of the Bill until they had a direct answer upon the questions put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. [Cries of "Divide!"]
      MR. JAMES LOWTHER: I rise to a point of Order. I wish, Mr. Mellor, to call your attention to the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Louth is interrupting and organising disorder. [Cries of "Order!"]
      MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask if it is in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to charge me with organising disorder?
      THE CHAIRMAN: All interruptions are disorderly. I hope hon. Members will remember the extreme importance of this matter.
      *MR. T. M. HEALY: I wish to ask you whether it is in Order for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Thanet to charge a Member of this House with organising disorder?
      THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman has made this statement. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to say anything with regard to it he is perfectly entitled to do so.
      MR. T. M. HEALY: Will it be in Order for me to tell the right hon. Gentleman it is untrue?
      MR. JAMES LOWTHER: On a point of Order, I beg to say that I distinctly heard the hon. and learned Gentleman say "Divide, divide!"
      THE CHAIRMAN: I said all interruptions are disorderly. I cannot say it s disorderly for an hon. Member to say "Divide, divide!"
      MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That being so, I wish to submit to you, Sir, if that is the only foundation the right hon. Gentleman has for his charges, that it would be seemly that he should tender game apology.
      MR. JAMES LOWTHER: Mr. Mellor, I distinctly heard the hon. and learned Member for North Louth leading a chorus of "Divide!" It was not the word "Divide!" pronounced once, but a chorus of "Divide, divide!" for the purpose of creating disorder.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that the charge he made against the hon. and learned Member for North Louth was that he called "Divide, divide!" That is not an uncommon expression in this
      360
      House. It may not be disorderly. It depends altogether in the manner in it is done. I think it is a very slight foundation on which to make a charge of that kind.
      MR. JAMES LOWTHER: The reason I made the statement—and I now repeat it—is because Members upon this side of the House during the present Session have been repeatedly subjected to interruption. [Cries of "Order!"] I have myself upon repeated occasions seen the hon. and learned Member for North Louth—[More cries of "Order! "]
      THE CHAIRMAN! Order, order! The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to bring general charges against the hon. and learned Member. It is altogether out of Order, and I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman's experience. I will do my best to preserve order in this Committee; but in order to do that I must rely upon the assistance of Members in all parts of the House. I think this question ought now to terminate.
      MR. PARKER SMITHsaid, that the heat which had been generated at this early period of the Committee did not seem to him the best augury. [Cries of "Question!" and "Divide!"] He was perfectly prepared for any amount of fair Parliamentary interruption; but when a question of vital importance was raised and discussed for something under an hour they were entitled to discuss it without disorderly interruption. The question that had been put was not one of detail, but one of vital principle, and it was one on which they were fully entitled to an answer.
      *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the Treasury Bench pretended that that Bill simply set up an Irish Assembly; he contended that it did more, and by Clause 9 proposed to alter fundamentally the constitution of the Imperial Parliament. Doubts had arisen in the public mind as to whether the Government intended to stand by the vital principle of Clause 9. If these doubts were not well-founded, if the Government intended to stand by the principle of Clause 9, why did not the right hon. Gentleman say so? Why did the Prime Minister completely burke the whole question? He thought they had a right to have an answer, and he hoped the Opposition would insist upon it.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 213; Noes 270.—(Division List, No. 67.)
      *MR. DARLINGrose to move the following Amendment in Clause 1, page 1, line 11, before "on," insert—
      "Without in any way whatever impairing, restricting, or altering the supreme power and authority of Parliament in all matters, as well local as Imperial, and over all persons in Great Britain and Ireland."
      He said he hoped the Committee would believe, although he had addressed the House on other occasions, that he felt very considerable diffidence in submitting to them any proposal whatever with regard to a Bill of the magnitude and complexity of the Bill now before the Committee. But he thought it would be the desire even of the Government themselves that anyone who could in any way improve the measure which they had submitted to Parliament should have the opportunity of doing so before the Bill finally took its shape; and he gathered that the Government themselves were not wholly precluded from making Amendments in the Bill on very important particulars, although at present they had not been able exactly to ascertain in what direction these improvements were likely to proceed. The argument had been used that it did not become those to amend the Bill who were resolved, when it had gone through Committee, to do what, they could to prevent it becoming law. He imagined there was little force in that suggestion, and he would like hon. Members opposite to apply to the Hill what a celebrated gourmand recommended should be applied to the dressing of the cucumber. This person advised that they should add a little salt, a little pepper, and a little oil in order to make it palatable and agreeable; and having done so they should throw the preparation out of window. If it happened that those for whose delectation this Bill was served up should treat it in the same way he did not think the Government would be surprised. The Amendment he proposed was one which was forced upon them by the fact that, perhaps, the most important provision of this Bill was put into that portion of it which was not an enacting part of the measure in any sense whatever; and it behaved
      362
      the English Members, at any rate, to see that no kind of uncertainty was left upon this point, because, as he understood it, the attitude of Members representing Irish constituencies was now entirely different, and the claim they made was entirely different from what had been the attitude of former Irish Leaders and the claim they made. Former Leaders, and particularly Mr. Parnell, claimed that the Parliament of Ireland should be absolutely, unfettered in every particular; free from tills Parliament, and free to shape the course of Ireland among the nations of the world. He did not know how many Irish Headers there now were, but one and all of them had abandoned the position of the late Mr. Parnell. [Mr. J. E. REDMOND: No, no!] Well, there was one of them—and he was bound to say he thought the most influential of them—who had not abandoned that position; and, that being so, there was all the more reason, therefore, for passing the present Amendment. He understood, at all events, that the great bulk of them had receded from the position of the late Mr. Parnell, and were content to take a Parliament subordinate to this Parliament, and which would have no power to deal with a large number of matters. That was a Parliament which Mr. Parnell certainly did not demand, and never would have accepted, because it was well known that Mr. Parnell claimed that Ireland would not take anything but a Parliament with—
      "Full and complete power to arrange our own affairs, and to make our land a nation; to secure for her, free from outside control, the right to direct her own course among the people of the world."
      That Bill did not offer them anything of the sort. It did not offer them a Parliament free from outside control, but it offered them a Parliament by a Bill the Preamble of which said the supreme authority of another Parliament should be preserved. It was because he wished that the position should be understood at the earliest possible moment, and not in a Preamble when the rest of the Bill was passed, that he desired, with diffidence, to submit this Amendment to the Committee. The contention from Ireland had always been that the laws of this Parliament were not good, because they were the laws of an alien Government. But

      363
      they in this Parliament always thought they had a right to make laws for Ireland, because, in this Parliament, Ireland was fully represented. That must still be the view of Her Majesty's Government, because the Irish representation was maintained. They did not know exactly in what proportion the right hon. Gentleman would give them Irish Members in that Parliament; but they had no doubt he would give them in a measure they in England neither deserved nor desired. It was for that Parliament he wished to secure, by enactment in an Enacting Clause of the Bill, the fullest powers to make laws for Ireland, and having it well understood that if any law made by the Irish Parliament conflicted with any law of this Legislature henceforth, whether made before or after the Irish law, that the law of this Legislature should be supreme, and have precedence over a law made by the Irish Legislature. He knew that that would place Ireland in a position which few nations would accept; but the Preamble professed to do it, and he was anxious it should not only profess to do it but should do it. He knew perfectly well that it made of the Irish Parliament what, to use the words of Mr. Sheridan, was "a sort of National Vestry for the Parish of Ireland." He should not have thought there could be any doubt that it was necessary to put the strength of the Preamble of the Bill into the Bill itself, and he should not have thought it necessary to establish that contention by precedents and decisions if the Home Secretary had not said that the Preamble was quite sufficient to secure the supremacy of this Parliament without having a section in the Bill, when it became an Act, to secure that supremacy. The Home Secretary had quoted, in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, the words of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham, who had said—
      "The second condition is that the local Legislative Body or Bodies to be created shall be admittedly, from the first, subordinate Bodies. If they are co-ordinate and equal, you cannot have supremacy."
      Thereupon the Home Secretary said—
      "First of all the continued supremacy of Parliament is expressly declared."
      Then an hon. Member on that (the Opposition) side asked "when?" and the Homo Secretary proceeded—
      364
      "In the Preamble…. Ever since the days of Lord Coke it has been well said that the Preamble is the key-note of the Statute… If hon. Members were in doubt, let them bring up a clause; if they wish to make such an unnecessary declaration, let them bring up a clause to be inserted in the body of the Bill saying that the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament is preserved, and I think I may say on the part of the Government that the clause will not meet with opposition."
      The Home Secretary said that Lord Coke had declared the Preamble was the key-note to a Statute. Lord Coke, he regretted to say, said nothing of the kind. At all events, if Lord Cokedid, he did not say it anywhere where he could find it. He had found, however, what Lord Coke did say, and what he thought misled the Home Secretary, who had many other matters to consider besides Lord Coke. Lord Coke, in his Fourth Institute, chap. 74, page 330 said this—
      "The Preamble is to be considered, for it is the key" —not the key-note— "to open the meaning of the makers of the Act."
      He wished this key could open the meaning of the makers of the Act. There was one maker of the Act whose meaning had not been opened by any key, let alone the Preamble of this Bill.
      "To open the meaning of the makers of the Act and mischiefs which they intend to remedy."
      Lord Coke, again, in the same Institute, said this—
      "The rehearsal or Preamble of the Statute is a good means to find out the meaning of the Statute, and, as it were, a key to open the understanding thereof."
      Lord Coke's Institute had been commented upon by Hargreaves and Butler as follows:—
      "Lord Coke's manner of expressing himself on the operation of the Preamble in the construction of Statutes is very observable. Instead of saying generally that the Preamble should control the Enacting Clauses, or of limiting precisely how far it shall have that effect, which would have been attempting to make a line where one cannot be drawn, he cautiously says that it is a good means to find out the intention."
      Lord Coke, again, in the 1st Chapter of his Fourth Institute, had a marginal note, which was this—
      "A mischievous Act, with a flattering Preamble "—
      Of what was he thinking?
      "A mischievous Act, with a flattering Preamble, in 11th Henry VII."
      In the text Lord Cork said—

      365
      "There was an Act of Parliament made in the 11th year of King Henry VII, which had a fair, flattering Preamble, pretending to avoid divers mischiefs, which were: —1. To the high displeasure of Almighty God; 2. The great let of the Common Law; and 3. The great let of the wealth of this land, and the purview of that Act tended in the execution contrary, ex diametro—namely, to the high displeasure of Almighty God, the great let, nay the utter subversion of the Common Law, and the great let of the wealth of this land, as hereafter shall manifestly appear."
      He might have been describing the present. Bill, with its flattering Preamble, pretending to avoid these things. Did Lord Coke say that the Preamble controlled the Statute? Did he say it prevented the Statute doing harm to the Common Law, or to the wealth of this land? No; he said distinctly, in spite of its fair, flattering Preamble, it produced all the harm that it professed to make impossible and to avoid, and Lord Coke could nowhere be found to say that the Preamble was the keynote to the Statute. He said it might be a means to find out what those who made the Statute meant; but what Lord Coke said had been misinterpreted, as the quotations he had made abundantly showed. What were the words of Mr. Dwarris? Mr. Dwarris, in his work on The Construction of the Statutes, said—
      "A Preamble is not only not essential, and often omitted, but it is, strictly speaking, without force, in a legislative sense; being but a guide to, and not the vehicle of, the import of the Statute (a). And to what is it properly a guide—to the meaning of the enactment? No; but to the intentions of the framer, which is only the first stage on the road, in the construction of Statutes."
      He (Mr. Darling) dared say he had not yet convinced the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. It would be necessary to that right hon. Gentleman's conversion that he should read from some American authority, or that he should quote the decision, perhaps, of a modern Lancashire Magistrate. He had not got the decision of one of these, so he would read to the Committee the words of Mr. Justice Story, which, with the Chancellor of the Duchy, at all events, would have some weight. Mr. Justice Story said—
      "The Preamble is properly referred to when doubts or ambiguities arise upon the words of the enacting part. The Preamble can never enlarge; it cannot confer any powers per se. Its true office is to expound powers conferred, not substantially to create them."
      366
      The Preamble had no enacting force; it could not confer any powers; and it did not come into existence until doubts arose. Suppose this Bill became an Act, and it then came before an Irish Court with a modern Irish Judge, and it was argued that a certain power was given to the Irish Parliament. Did they think that an Irish modernised Home Rule Judge would ever have the slightest doubt that it did give that power, and if he did not, it would be useless to refer him to the Preamble. Unless they could raise a doubt, the Judge would not look to the Preamble, but in such a case he would have no doubt. They would, therefore, never get to the Preamble, and the Preamble did not come into question as an enacting part at all. It did not come into question even for the limited purpose of acting as a guide to unlock the mind of the Treasury Bench and their followers, who said on Tuesday they were going to vote against the Bill and on Friday walked into the Lobby for it. The Preamble did not come into action at all unless doubt existed in the mind of the tribunal who had to place a construction upon the Bill. He thought he had shown that if the Government were in earnest in desiring to preserve the supreme and unquestioned power of the Imperial Parliament, they were bound to do more than put words in the Preamble. Their bonâ fides would be judged by the way in which they dealt with the Amendment. By a subsequent Amendment he proposed to declare that any Irish Act contrary to any English Act passed after this Bill became law should be void if inconsistent with any such English Act. That was what supremacy meant. That was the way in which supremacy must be interpreted; that was the way in which supremacy was interpreted before Grattan's Parliament, and that was the way in which supremacy was bound to be interpreted if the Imperial Parliament was to remain in any real, effective sense supreme. That was what was decided in Calvin's case in the reign of James I., and that decision was acted upon until Grattan's Parliament came into existence. In Calvin's case it was decided—
      "Albeit Ireland was a distinct dominion, yet the title thereof being by conquest, the same by judgment of law might by express

      367
      words be bound by Act of Parliament of England."
      The judgment in that case was written by the Legal Authority whom the Home Secretary above all preferred — Lord Coke. He wished there to be no mistake about this question of supremacy— that Ireland had not been made a nation, but had been created by the generosity of hon. Gentlemen opposite the parish vestry of the parish of Ireland—that it had got itself into the same position as it occupied in the days of James I. It was for these reasons he desired—relying upon the words, of which he thought there could be no evasion of Lord Coke, and of the authorities he had quoted—to do, in effect, what he believed the Government had not done—to preserve the supremacy in every single particular of the Parliament of Great Britain. He begged to move the Amendment.
      Amendment proposed,
      In page 1, line 11, before the word "on," to insert the words "without in any way whatever impairing, restricting, or altering the supreme power and authority of Parliament in all matters, as well local as Imperial, and over all persons in Great Britain and Ireland."—(Mr. Charles Darling.)
      Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I do not object to the way in which the hon. Member has exercised his wit upon me; but he complains of the absolute impossibility of getting at any knowledge of my intentions. It is the understood privilege of the entire Opposition to expose my unfortunate incapacity to make intelligible anything I have to say. The hon. Member has made a proposal to us, but his argument goes much beyond it. His general argument is that in such a matter as the supremacy we ought to enact. ["Hear, hear!"] I am very glad that sometimes I can make myself intelligible. The hon. Member has bound himself in the most solemn way to the proposition—he has given us his professional authority for it—that this Bill is destructive of the Common Law.
      *MR. DARLING (interrupting): I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I read a quotation from Lord Coke, describing an Act which was subversive of the Common Law, but the particular
      368
      part of it which I meant to apply to this Bill was that which referred to the "great let of the wealth of this land."
      MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Then there are other people, besides the unfortunate gentleman who now addresses the Committee, who ought to take pains to make their meaning clear. The hon. Gentleman said that Lord Coke's words were most admirably applicable to this Bill. He says that we ought to enact, instead of merely putting these words in the Preamble. But all he does is to propose a Preamble. The words of the Amendment enact nothing whatever; they are a mere Preamble. But the difference is this: the words are a Preamble to be inserted in a particular clause, and, therefore, their effect is limited to the Preamble of a clause. Our words being in the Preamble of the Bill, and not in a clause, apply to the whole Bill, and supply what is called the keynote of the Bill. Now, Sir, I do not intend to go beyond the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member. I must oppose that Amendment, but I must oppose it on the ground that, in my opinion, it distinctly tends to the limitation of the supremacy. I believe that it was the case with regard to Mr. Parnell —I believe it might have been the case with some other Irish Members, although I am not prepared to assert it as a matter of fact—that in early days, before he had a prospect of the concession of Home Rule for Ireland, he did use large, general, and, perhaps, inconsiderate and dangerous words as to the nature of the powers that ought to be conferred upon Ireland. I do not look to those declarations of Mr. Parnell—they were not made here, or on his responsibility as a Member of Parliament and as a Leader of the Irish Party. I look to the declarations of Mr. Parnell when he sat upon the Bench opposite, when, in 1886, the Home Rule Bill was introduced, and when Mr. Parnell, in direct contradiction to what the hon. and learned Member quoted from Mr. Parnell, declared on the part of himself and on the part of his Party that he accepted the proposal of that Bill in the main, and that he said he accepted it as constituting a subordinate Parliament for Ireland. It is material for all purposes that that should be understood. The hon. and learned Member also says that, according to his

      369
      view, a law passed by the Irish Parliament in contrariety to the law of the Imperial Parliament might be accepted by the Judges and might run in Ireland. Has the hon. and learned Gentleman read Clause 33, which expressly abolishes any Irish Statute that runs counter to an Imperial Statute in so far as it is counter? I come to the Amendment, and I take what I think to be the main objection to it. My opinion, and the opinion of the Government, respecting the supremacy is that it is absolutely without limit, and we do object to any declaration, or any words in whatever form, which tend to limit this supremacy. I must, therefore, object to the Amendment upon the ground that it tends to limit that supremacy, and that by the most distinct implication it does limit it. What is that supremacy? What is its range? Is it one in England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland? No, Sir; it is a supremacy throughout the entire Empire. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not propose any enactment. There is no enacting force whatever in his words, which are a mere repetition, in substance, of what we say in the Preamble. He says it is necessary to uphold "the power and authority of Parliament in all matters"—very good, so far—"as well local and Imperial "—very good—" and over all persons." Where? "In Great Britain and Ireland," and not elsewhere. Then there is no supremacy in British North America, in the West Indies, Australasia, the Cape, or anywhere else, but only in Great Britain? This is the mode in which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to maintain the supremacy. Whatever we assert of this supremacy, we shall always assort that the supremacy is a supremacy reaching and prevailing alike in each and every quarter of Her Majesty's Empire. Therefore, it is impossible for us to accept the Amendment.
      MR. WYNDHAMsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to minimise the force of certain references made by Mr. Parnell by stating that his speech was delivered not in the House, but in the country, and in the next place that it was not delivered by him a; Leader of the Irish Party. Mr. Parnell had said that, speaking for himself, and he believed, for the Irish people and for all his Colleagues, he had to declare that
      370
      they would never accept anything but the full and complete right to manage their own affairs and make Ireland a, nation, and to secure for her, free from outside control, the right to direct her course among the peoples of the world. The Unionist Party held that that declaration of policy was inconsistent with the policy of the Government as delineated in the oft-quoted words of the Home Secretary (Mr. Asquith). Turning to the second contention of the Prime Minister—that they were not to attach any importance to the words of Mr. Parnell because they were not uttered in that House——
      MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I did not say that.
      MR. WYNDHAMsaid, in that case he must have misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. For his part, he attached more importance to words used in the freedom of addressing one's constituents. But, at all events, they must face the question of supremacy in the light of the innermost convictions of the Irish Members, if they could arrive at those convictions. Putting that matter on one side, the Unionist Party intended, if it were possible, to see that the Government gave real effect to the supremacy of which they had talked so much. The Prime Minister had said that in Clause 33 some such supremacy as the hon. and learned Member had described was reserved to that House, and that by that clause, as he understood the Prime Minister, any Act of that House would over-ride any Act passed by the Irish Legislature. As he read the clause, however, it only applied to those matters which were specifically excluded from the Irish Legislature in Clauses 3 and 4.
      MR. SEXTON: No.
      MR. WYNDHAMsaid, he was not, a lawyer, and he hoped some hon. and learned Gentleman would be able to reassure the Committee on that point, which was very obscure in the Bill. The Prime Minister told the House that the supremacy was maintained in the Preamble; but hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House felt that it was too like chaos, without form, and void, and that it might have a protean tendency to take different shapes in proportion to the opportunities which hon. Members might have of coming from

      371
      Ireland. The references to supremacy made by Members of the Government, on which they won the last General Election, and as understood by the audiences to which they were addressed, were to the effect that that House would still be able by law to provide such safety and liberty as now existed in Ireland. In respect of such pledges the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. E. Redmond), in discussing this question out of doors, had said that they were threats. This supremacy was the only watch it would be possible to keep over the action of the Irish Parliament. The right of that House to pass laws for Ire-land had always existed except during the interregnum of Grattan's Parliament; if any hon. Member hud a doubt on the subject let him read the admirable work on Irish Legislatures by Mr. J. P. Ball, and they therefore had a right to see that the supremacy of the House should exist in the future without any limit. He based his support of the Amendment very much upon the argument used by the Prime Minister in opposing, earlier in the evening, the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). The Prime Minister's contention in that instance was that the governing principle of the Bill should be given in the 1st clause, and the Home Secretary had said that the Government accepted the principle of supremacy, and they were also told that if anyone would frame or draft a clause it would be accepted into the body of the Bill. But if the 1st clause was the proper clause for embodying the principle of the Bill, the Unionists preferred to have it in the very forefront of the Bill. Whether the principle of the necessity for a separate Parliament in Dublin was abandoned for some other principle, and whether this Bill were to pass or not, the principle of supremacy was imperative now and must always remain imperative.
      COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, the Prime Minister found some fault with hon. Members on a Opposition side of the House at not finding his remarks intelligible, but he thought that the right hon. Gentleman was himself to blame. On a recent occasion the House learnt that "marching through rapine to the dis-
      372
      memberment of the Empire" meant the opposing of a Land Bill. He had never understood the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in that sense until it was explained the other evening. But now the right hon. Gentleman was equally unintelligible. On the question whether the Irish Members were to be retained in their present number, or the number mentioned in Clause 9, or whether they were to be excluded, hung the meaning and authority of Clauses 1 and 2. Clause 1 proposed to set up a Parliament in Ireland which was supposed to be a subordinate Parliament. If the Irish Members were retained at Westminster in their present number, there certainly would be a subordinate Parliament, but it would not be the Irish Parliament. The Imperial Parliament would be the subordinate Parliament. [Cries of "Order!" "Chair!" and cheers.] Gentlemen called "Order!" but this was a question of supremacy, and it was impossible to discuss a clause dealing with Parliamentary supremacy without taking into consideration the clause which would materially affect the question whether the Imperial Parliament should be supreme or subordinate. If, therefore, Clause 9 was changed, as they supposed it would be—[Cries of "Order!"]
      THE CHAIRMAN: It is not competent for the hon. Member to discuss Clause 9. This is an Amendment to the first part of Clause 1, and he cannot discuss the question embodied in another clause.
      LORD R. CHURCHILL: Mr. Mellor, I rise to a point of Order. We have had a ruling of the Speaker on the Instruction that the question of supremacy could be raised in the largest manner on Clause 1. Are we to understand that it is now decided that Clause 9, which proposes the retention of the Irish Members, is not an essential part of the genuineness or want of reality of that supremacy?
      THE CHAIRMAN: I entirely concur with the ruling of the Speakee with regard to the Instruction and with his explanations as to this Amendment. It is perfectly open to any hon. Member to discuss the question of supremacy in the fullest manner on this Amendment; but while, with regard to Clause 9, it is com-

      373
      petent for an hon. Member to refer to it, it is not competent for him to discuss it in detail.
      COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, he was not going to discuss Clause 9, but he desired to point out the impossibility of discussing adequately the supremacy of Parliament without taking into consideration a clause which must absolutely affect that supremacy. As far as that clause was concerned, the Prime Minister had given the Committee absolutely no information. Would the right hon. Gentleman tell the Committee what amount of elasticity he would display when it came to consider Clause 9? [Cries of "Order!"] He was in a slight difficulty with reference to this Amendment—indeed, difficulty on his part must arise on all Amendments to this Bill. Personally, he should move no Amendment, because no Amendment of any kind that could be devised by the wit of man could make a Bill of that kind tolerable to him and, he believed, to the majority of his colleagues. As far, however, as he could make out the meaning of this Amendment, his hon. Friend wished to establish fair play between the Irish Parliament and the British Parliament. The Government proposed, on the other hand, that the Irish Members should have the absolute control, not only over the destinies of Ireland, but at the same time over the destinies of this country. There were certain facts clearly before the Committee as to the Irish Parliament in Dublin and the Irish Government to be created. They maintained that from the record of the men who would form that Parliament and constitute that Government the Loyalists had a perfect right, if Home Rule was granted, to demand that there should be safeguards placed in the Bill which should curb the instincts of those whom it was proposed to make their rulers in Ireland. They knew exactly how the Government would be composed and how the Parliament would be elected. Those men who were to be their future governors had left a record behind them to which all eyes were ever open.
      *MR. ROBY: I rise to Order. I beg to ask you, Sir, if the Amendment relates to the legal supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, in what
      374
      way the composition of the Irish Legislature can arise upon it?
      THE CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is intended to establish the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament in all matters, local as well as Imperial, and over all persons. Although I cannot say that the hon. Member is keeping very closely to the point, I do not think he is out of Order.
      COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, he did not see how he was to avoid this line of argument, because he and his friends had grounds for believing that the men who were to compose the Government of Ireland were not to be trusted, and that the Amendment of his hon. Friend would place a curb on the action of the Irish Parliament and Government. If a Home Rule Government and Parliament was established in Dublin the record of those men who would form it and the Executive proved this: that that Government would be a Government of robbery, jobbery, and beggary. That being their belief, it was their bounden duty to support any Amendment which would effectually curb the predatory propensities of a squaid Parliament and a hungry Executive floating on whisky. The object he had in rising to speak to the Amendment undoubtedly had been to try and extract from some Gladstonian Radical his views upon this clause and upon other clauses of the Bill. But none of them showed any alacrity in rising. They had had two speeches from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister of a very light and good-humoured character, as though he had been dealing with a Parish Councils Bill or with some minor act of legislation instead of a great question which touched the vital interests of Ireland and the Constitution of the Empire. But they had witnessed no sign of alacrity on the part of the right hon. Gentleman's followers to get up and support him on the clauses of the Bill. Well, he (Colonel Saunderson) had not expected that there would be. It was a "personally conducted" Party—conducted by Lord "Cook." However, the right hon. Gentleman's followers might feel, with regard to this. Amendment or with regard to the clauses which followed if the right hon. Gentleman showed his determination to stick by the clause no matter how they objected, they would adhere to it. They

      375
      had a new policy presented by the Prime Minister and his followers had now indented a new "ism." [Cries of "Question!"] They had Protestantism, Mormonism, Roman Catholicism, and now they had Grand Old Manism. [Cries of "Question!"] None of the Members of the Gladstonian Party would dare to get up to express their opinions until they knew how their Leader wished them to vote. The speeches of hon. Members were of a funereal character. They all knew that this Amendment and all the discussions that would take place during the next two months or three or four would be discussions over a dead Bill. It was a sort of oratorical wake. The Bill was a dead Bill. It would be buried in August, but the discussions in the House which they had undertaken to-day, and which they would carry on to-day, were addressed to those who would give the final decision; and when that final decision came, he believed the Bill of the Ministry and the policy they had started would disappear together.
      MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he did not intend to follow the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Colonel Saunderson) through a speech which appeared to him to be very wide indeed of the subject-matter before the Committee, nor would he follow him into the references of a personal character which he had made to the Prime Minister. If the hon. and gallant Member desired to know why the supporters of the Government maintained silence on this as on the other stages of the Bill, he would tell him. It was because they wanted to see the measure passed into law, and because they were conscious that for that purpose it would be very unwise to fall into any of the numerous traps that were laid for them by hon. Members opposite. If this Bill were to be fairly discussed in Committee by hon. Members opposite with a desire to solve a most difficult question, and with a real desire to agree upon some settlement, they would find the expressions of opinion of hon. Members on the Government side of the House much more numerous and perhaps very much more satisfactory to any fair views they might themselves entertain. He now wished to say a word with regard to the Amendment. It involved a principle on
      376
      which, as he understood it, both sides of the Committee were entirely agreed. Hon. Members opposite were anxious that there should be an effective and real supremacy of the Imperial Parliament safeguarded in adequate terms in the Bill, and he understood that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, and every right hon. Gentleman on the Government side of the House had expressed precisely the same opinion. The Bill contained a statement of supremacy in the Preamble, and, for his own part, he believed that, in point of law, if the rest of the measure were absolutely silent upon the subject, that supremacy would remain unimpaired without a shadow of a doubt in the mind of every lawyer and every Judge in the country. Out of excessive caution the Government had inserted that declaration of their intentions in the Preamble, and he had no doubt that the declaration would be an adequate guide to any Judge, however blind, to lead him into the right path. It was possible to move in another direction. It was possible to put a plain statement into the Bill such as was found in all Statutes setting up our various Colonial Governments, which would make the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament absolutely clear. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Asquith) had said that the Government were willing to accept such a chaise. It would have been better to have put down a clause of that kind than to have put down an Amendment which was merely a preface to the clause and inadequate for its purpose.
      *SIR HENRY JAMES: I am sure that many Members of the Committee heard with satisfaction the declaration of the Prime Minister that the sovereignty of the Imperial Parliament was an indisputable fact. It was especially satisfactory to hear the right hon. Gentleman express as his principal objection to the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Deptford that it did not go far enough. The argument of the Prime Minister was that they ought to go as far as to express this sovereignty of the Imperial Parliament in respect to all the Queen's Dominions. If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to say so,

      377
      that statement of his goes to contradict his own Bill. The Preamble of the Bill does not express that. In a Bill of this kind, referring to Ireland alone, the Preamble would also be read as referring to Ireland alone. It may be said that the words of the Amendment are not the most apt words, and that they are not proposed in the best place; but the object in moving this Amendment is that, before we commence the further discussion of the measure, hon. Members shall know whether the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament is to be an admitted fact or not. It should not be left to implication, but should be admitted expressly. The Preamble is not the enacting part of a Bill, and it never could be referred to unless doubts arose as to other parts of the measure. The Prime Minister referred us to the 33rd clause. In one sense he is right, because it will not allow the Irish Legislature to interfere with Acts passed by the Imperial Parliament after the passing of this Act. Still, in the course of time it may come to be thought that the Imperial Parliament has only supremacy in relation to those particular Acts. The supremacy of Parliament consists of two ingredients—authority to enact and power to enforce its legislation. Unless those two things are expressly admitted, difficulties will arise in respect of the construction of the Act. It is not alone lawyers and Judges who will have to consider it. If the Bill is passed every Petty Sessions in Ireland will have to construe the measure. This matter can easily be placed beyond doubt, and I hope the Home Secretary will adhere to the statement he made on the Second Reading, that there is no objection to a clause declaring that the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament shall exist. If he does, and a clause is inserted, it will get rid of all question on this point. The Prime Minister said that the words of the Amendment do not go far enough.
      MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That is not my only objection.
      *SIR H. JAMES: It was, I think, the principal objection of the right hon. Gentleman. My hon. and learned Friend (Mr. R. T. Reid) says there is no objection to an express clause, and once it is framed this discussion will come to an end. If the Government say they cannot take
      378
      this course, will it not be said that in the conduct of this Bill the Government have had some reason for abstaining from explicitly declaring the supremacy of Parliament? If Irish Members are excluded from this House, and if in some Petty Sessions Court in Ireland it is asked, "Is the Parliament of England to pass laws for Ireland?" will not the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament be imperilled if there is no explicit declaration of that supremacy? I ask the Government to consider the promise of the Home Secretary that there should be an express admission by a clause of the supremacy of Imperial Parliament, and I would urge the Prime Minister to put the question beyond dispute by accepting the advice of the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries.
      THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I have listened to the discussion with a certain amount of surprise, because I understood, after I had spoken on the Second Reading, that it was practically conceded by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite that, so far as paper declarations are concerned, the supremacy of Parliament is amply safeguarded by the Bill as it stands. ["No, no!"] If that is disputed, I must refer to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition in the Debate on the Second Reading. At the close of the Debate, after referring to my speech, and saying that I had explained at considerable length that the Imperial Parliament would still be supreme, he went on to say—
      "Legally, of course, it would be supreme; no one has doubted it. But what layman takes the slightest interest in these paper supremacies? For my part, I take no more interest in the question of whether the Imperial Parliament is on paper superior to the Irish Parliament than I do as to the order of precedence at a London dinner party. The thing is of no public interest or importance whatever. What we want to know is where the power lies. Who is going to exercise supremacy? Who is going to be the de facto ruler of Ireland?"
      Well, what is proposed now? Why, to add another to the list of paper safeguards of the supremacy. Furthermore, if the offer I made were accepted, and a declaratory clause asserting the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament were inserted in the Bill, according to the right hon. Gentleman it would not make the least

      379
      difference—it would not be a matter in which any layman would affect to take any interest, because the question which is the de facto ruler—not the de jure ruler, not the ruler on paper—will remain precisely the same. I am, therefore, surprised that so much time should be occupied on the discussion of this puely academic question. I would repeat what was said by the Prime Minister — namely, that the Amendment before the Committee, if it does anything, tends to cast a doubt upon the supremacy of Parliament. It is a preamble to the clause, and will only govern the clause; and if if there is any doubt—I deny that there can be—lawyers and Judges will look not to a clause, but to the Preamble for a key to the Statute. As to the appeal of my right hon. Friend (Sir H. James), what I have to say is that if a clause bearing in express terms upon the supremacy is placed upon the Paper, when the time comes for the discussion of that clause—which, I may remark, is not now, but when the new clauses come to be considered—the Government will carefully consider its terms. [Laughter.] Well, if hon. Gentlemen suppose that the Government will bind themselves in advance to accept any form of words which may be put on the Paper, they are making a very unreasonable demand. I do not in the least degree recede from the statement I made on the Second Reading; I do not go back one step. All I do say is that at the proper time—and certainly this is not the proper moment to discuss the question—the Government are as determined as any hon. Gentleman opposite can be that when this Bill finally passes through Committee the supremacy of Parliament shall be amply and unequivocally safeguarded.
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I should not have intervened thus early if it had not been that the right hon. Gentleman appears to have relied upon some statement of mine on the Second Reading fortifying his own view of the legal position in which we stand. It would be rash of me to make any statement on the legal aspect of the Bill, but I frankly admit that I have been told by lawyers of high authority that if the Bill passes in its present shape, or amended as we desire to amend it, competent lawyers will hold that the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament has not been interfered
      380
      with. But, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury has pointed out, the Bill will have to be interpreted in Ireland by persons who are not competent lawyers. It is possible that the Magistrates in Ireland may be as ignorant of Constitutional Law as I am myself, and it will be quite as necessary to guide them into the true path as it would be to guide a lay Member of the House. But there is another point which, to my mind, is much more important. I still adhere to the view that a paper supremacy is not a thing in which lay Members need take great interest; but the value of this clause, in my opinion, is that if it is followed, as it ought to be, by a specific proposition intended to make it effective in practice, the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament will be a real supremacy, and not a paper supremacy. The question in the future will be as to how far the Imperial Parliament can with propriety —I do not say with legal justification— interfere in Irish affairs in so far as all matters, local and Imperial, and all persons in Ireland are concerned. This question of the propriety of interfering in those affairs will be constantly coming up for decision. If we are going to leave the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament unmentioned in the clauses of the Bill, and are not going to specify what the duties of that Parliament are to be, it will be open for gentlemen to argue that, although this House undoubtedly has a right to interfere, it cannot with propriety do so in Ireland any more than it can with propriety do so in Canada or Australia. My view is that we should put this matter beyond doubt in the Act itself, and declare distinctly that the Imperial Parliament not only has legal right—about which lawyers are quarrelling and will go on quarrelling—to deal with Irish local affairs and with any person in Ireland, but that the Act contemplates the exercise of that right. Therefore, I attach the utmost importance to placing in the first line of the 1st clause of the measure words implying the deliberate determination of the Imperial Parliament as a matter of concrete fact and everyday practice to deal with any matter in Ireland, local or personal, if on the matter being brought before them they should think it proper so to do. But I go further than that. Valuable as I think these words would be if they stood

      381
      alone, and cordially as I shall support the Amendment if carried to a Division, in my opinion their greatest value will be as a preface to the future provisions to be introduced creating machinery for enabling the Imperial Parliament to control local and personal affairs in Ireland. This is not the time for considering what that machinery should be, but undoubtedly it will be our duty—a duty from which we shall not shrink—to endeavour to put within the Bill the actual instruments and implements with which the Imperial Parliament will exercise supervision over the acts of the Irish Legislature and extend protection to all individuals and to every local interest in Ireland. By seeking to introduce these words into the Bill we are not dealing with a legal quibble, but are endeavouring to introduce a great and important modification into the Bill.
      *MR. DUNBAR BARTONthought he could explain why the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had withdrawn from the position he took up on the Second Reading. It was because the Irish Members took exception to his view. The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries (Mr. R. T. Reid) had said that even if there was no mention of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament in the Bill there would be no doubt as to the existence of that supremacy. If the hon. and learned Member was as familiar with this particular controversy in Ire-laud at a time preceding the Union as he (Mr. Barton) was, he would know that, of all questions which had ever been disputed by the Nationalists of Ireland, this was the one most disputed. If the hon. Member for Waterford and his friends were to agree to a clear statement of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament being inserted in the Bill they would find it difficult to explain their conduct to those who at present regarded them as the trustees of Irish nationality. They were first told that they need not place the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament in the enacting part of the Bill, because it was in the Preamble, and now they were told that it was unnecessary because of an admission alleged to have been made in Debate by the Leader of the Opposition. That was a high compliment to pay the Leader of the Opposition no doubt; but the right hon. Gentleman had sufficiently ex-
      382
      plained that his words were not to be taken as justifying the Government in omitting this Amendment from the Bill. The supremacy of Parliament over Ireland was of two kinds—judicial and legislative. The judicial supremacy was seriously affected by this Bill. By Clause 22 of the Bill the most important branch of the judicial supremacy was abolished, as it was enacted that appeals from Courts in Ireland to the House of Lords should cease. That was important, because the appellate jurisdiction of the English House of Lords had in 1719 and 1783 played an important part in the struggle between the Parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland. Therefore, by abolishing it the Government had removed one important branch of the Imperial supremacy. There were other branches of the judicial supremacy which would require definite words, especially impeachment. Would an Irish subject be impeachable after this Act, and, if so, where? But the legislative supremacy was the most important branch of the subject. How did this stand? He ventured to say that Clause 33 of the Bill did not do that which the Government would lead them to suppose. It omitted an important part of what the opponents of the Bill insisted upon. Would it be competent for both Parliaments to legislate upon the same subject? If so, would this Parliament be supreme? Unless it were made clear that this Parliament could pass a special Act with reference to matters within the powers of the Irish. Legislature, there would be no effective supremacy. He was aware that they would be told they would have the veto, but that would not do for them. That was indirect supremacy, similar to the supremacy exercised by the Privy Council under Poyning's Act. They wanted a complete Parliamentary supremacy, and wanted it to be made clear in the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries had said that the supremacy would be secure, even if it was not mentioned in the Bill, but a slight knowledge of Irish history and law would soon undeceive him. No subject had been more disputed by every generation of Irish Nationalists. There had been three cases on the subject in the Law Courts, a glance at which would show how doubtful the question was. In Pilkington's case, in Henry VI's. reign, it was decided in

      383
      the English Courts that the granting of a subsidy by the English Parliament would not be binding in Ireland. In the ease of the merchants of Waterford, which was finally decided in the first year of Henry VII. conflicting decisions were given by the Judges. First, they decided that the English Parliament could not bind the Irish people by an Act restricting external commerce. Then they re-considered their Judgment, and having been reinforced by the Chief Justice, they decided the contrary. Finally, in Calvin's case, early in the reign of James I., in a ease about. Scotch naturalisation, it was laid down by Lord Coke and the other Judges that the laws passed in the English Parliament might by express words bind Ireland. This was decided on the ground that Ireland was a conquered country. But the Irish people had always disputed the fact of conquest, and, therefore, the ratio decidendi of Lord Coke's Judgment was traversed and disputed in Ireland. The House would see from these three cases the question was one which, so far as case law went, was by no means clear, and was not one which could be lightly passed over in an Act of Parliament. He would next deal with legislation and the action of Parliament. After Calvin's case was decided the Irish Parliament of Charles I. consulted the Irish Judges on this very subject of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament; and having received an ambiguous reply, the Irish Parliament, disregarding the judgment in Calvin's case, declared solemnly that the English Parliament had no right to bind Ireland, but that the laws for Ireland wore the Common Law of England and the Statute Law of Ireland. That was in 1641–2. In 1689 they had the brief and notorious Parliament of James II., the Parliament which confiscated the property and sentenced to death all the leading members of the Protestant community in Ireland, and it repudiated, among other things, the right of the British Parliament to legislate for Ireland. Hardly had the Parliament of William III. assembled than the same question was again raised, and early in the next century Molyneux, in his Paper on The Case for Ireland, argued that the Imperial Parliament had no power to legislate for that country. The question created such a degree of interest that about 1718 the Irish House of Lords
      384
      decided the point one way and the English House of Lords another, and both claimed appellate jurisdiction on the ground of Parliamentary supremacy. It was this controversy between the two Houses of Lords as to judicial supremacy which led to the Declaratory Act of 1719, commonly called the Statute of 6 Geo. I. This Parliament then found it necessary to declare the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, and if it was found necessary to declare it then why did Her Majesty's Government not think it necessary to declare it now? That was the last time the Imperial Parliament declared its supremacy. Thus, in 1719, this Parliament found it necessary to declare it by deliberate enactment; but so violently was it disputed by the Irish leaders that Parliament, in 1782, had to repeal that Act, and remove it from the Statute Book. The independence of Grattan's Parliament depended upon the repeal of that Declaratory Act, and yet they were told that it was not now necessary to declare, in specific terms, the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. In 1783 this Parliament renounced any right of supremacy it had over the Irish Parliament. He asked hon. Members whether the question of supremacy could be satisfactorily dealt with in a Preamble when all these great events of Irish history and all these great Constitutional movements and circumstances turned upon that question? By the Act of Union the question was settled, as the supremacy was practically established by that measure which made Ireland a partner with England and Scotland in the government of the Three Kingdoms. How had the Members of the Government treated the Act of Union which thus practically established the Imperial supremacy? They had gone up and down the country endeavouring to discredit it. They declared that that Act, which was now the sole foundation of the supremacy of Parliament, was gained by force and fraud. Under these circumstances, the Opposition wore entitled to say that the Imperial supremacy must be expressly safeguarded in the Act. He was entitled to ask those who represented the historic Nationalist Party what was their view on the question? Were they willing to admit the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament in

      385
      the sense in which it had been described? Whatever was their reply, the Opposition was at least entitled to ask the Government, who had tainted the title deeds of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, to set up in its place something that would be a sure basis for the supremacy in the future.
      MR. BOUSFIELDrose to make a suggestion which he thought might possibly meet the opinions which had been expressed on both sides of the House. He understood that both sides were equally agreed that the supremacy of Parliament ought to be effectually maintained. With that object in view, he thought both sides were agreed that the Irish Legislature was to be really a subordinate Legislature. The Prime Minister had raised the objection to the Amendment that it was not of an enacting character, but was rather a preamble to the clause. He (Mr. Bousfield) suggested that the words "subject to and" should be prefixed to the Amendment. If this suggestion were adopted, it would make the Amendment of an enacting character. His hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Darling) did not think this Amendment necessary, but he understood that he would accept it.
      Amendment proposed, to the said proposed Amendment, before the first word "without" to insert the words "subject to and."—(Mr. Bousfield.)
      Question proposed, "That the words 'subject to and' be there inserted in the proposed Amendment."
      MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We cannot accept the Amendment. We do not think that the best mode of dealing with the supremacy is by means of a preamble to a particular clause.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot help thinking that perhaps the Government have already seen some reason to doubt the wisdom of the course they have taken in refusing all information as to their intentions with regard to subsequent clauses. We are anxious, as far us we can, to confine ourselves strictly to the immediate matter under discussion, and not to refer, if we can avoid it, to future parts of the Bill when we do not know how they are going to be treated by the Government. I am not
      386
      going to say another word on Clause 9 because, as far as I am concerned, Clause 9 no longer exists. It does not represent any settled intention of the Government. It is merely a pious opinion which is thrown upon the Table of the House and to which it would be perfectly useless and unnecessary for us to refer. But I cannot help referring to the question which is treated in Clause 9—namely, the future condition of the House of Commons. We are told that it is a matter of agreement between the two sides of the House that there shall be real and effective supremacy. I confess I am sorry to say I do not share the view of my hon. and learned Friend the Members for Dumfries (Mr. Reid). I doubt very much whether we are agreed on both sides of the House. Taking it for granted that that is true, as far as my hon. and learned Friend and those who act with him are concerned, I ask how can you have an effective supremacy or how can you devise words to secure it until you know what is to be done in regard to the Parliament at Westminster? The one argument which we urged against the extinction of the Irish Members in 1886, and the argument which was accepted by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in subsequent speeches as being a very reasonable argument, was that without the Irish Members at Westminster we could not have supremacy.
      MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Nothing of the kind. I never said such a thing.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I beg my right hon. Friend's pardon. I was not going to refer to his words; but as he challenges me I must. On July 18th, 1886, my right hon. Friend at a tea, I suppose, given by the hon. Member for Cumberland (Cockermouth) (Sir W. Lawson) said—
      "Moreover, I will go so far as to admit that it is impossible not to respect the feeling that in many minds has led to the entertainment of that desire. It is in order that there may not be as much as the slightest shadow of a presumption that the real union between the countries is about to be impaired that is a feeling to which the greatest respect should be paid."
      MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: If my right hon. Friend agrees with that I really do not understand what the difference is between us. I assert that in 1886 the argument was that if the Irish

      387
      Members were excluded the supremacy could not be maintained. If the Irish Members are not retained it would be very difficult to argue logically that this House should have the right to tax them or impose its views upon them. My right hon. Friend says that is a feeling which is deserving of respect. I say that, under these circumstances, it is clearly impossible that we should discuss this question of supremacy without discussing possible methods of dealing with the Irish Members at Westminster. At present we have not the least idea what is the intention of the Government in this matter. We are obliged to argue on three different assumptions, and to show what is necessary to secure the supremacy of Parliament on each of these three assumptions. If my right hon. Friend, who knows of course what his intention is, would only frankly take the House into his confidence, as he has already no doubt taken hon. Members from Ireland into his confidence, he would shorten the Debate, because, instead of having to discuss on every clause as it comes up three separate hypotheses and propositions, we should only have to discuss one. Why are we to be the only people who do not know the future intentions of the Government? I think my right hon. Friend will find he has made a mistake in not saying yes or no to the simple question I asked him whether or not he adheres to Clause 9. I think some of my hon. Friends behind him, when they note his persistent silence, must have some qualms of conscience as to the position into which they are to be led. [Ministerial cries of "No!"] I find it is not so. They have been so accustomed to swallow their opinions that nothing the future can have in store for them can arouse the slightest alarm. I come now to the particular words suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman. To my mind, they are words which are very insufficient, and will have to be added to and extended to other parts of the Bill. But what are the objections taken to them? We are told by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Reid) that both sides of the House are agreed in principle. A proposition is made from the other side of the House in order to secure what all of us want to secure. We get no suggestion from this side of the House, except the suggestion that
      388
      the proposal we make is unacceptable. The reason given by the Prime Minister was that the proposal did not go far enough, or rather, that the Amendment would affect a limitation of that immense, complete, unimpaired, entire, and satisfactory supremacy which the Government are determined, at all hazards, to maintain. But then, Sir, what does it amount to? Only to this: that while, as far as matters are concerned, the supremacy declared by the hon. and learned Gentleman is thoroughly satisfactory because it includes all matters everywhere——
      MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Well, my right hon. Friend, in his speech, passed over as satisfactory that portion of the Amendment which deals with matters, and it was only when he came to persons that he raised an objection.
      MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: To both.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Well, then, I am one of those unfortunate persons who did not understand my right hon. Friend. I take it then as both. My right hon. Friend will see that "Great Britain and Ireland" only refer to persons, and the rest of the Amendment to matters. We will assume, however, for the sake of argument, that "Great Britain and Ireland" limits both the matters and the persons. My right hon. and learned Friend (Sir II. James) differs from the Prime Minister as to the legal operation of the words; but there is this to be said for them: that they are taken from the language of another lawyer, the Home Secretary (Mr. Asquith), who gave them as a satisfactory definition of Imperial supremacy. When we accept them the Government find them entirely unsatisfactory. If they want enlargement, why does not some one on the Front Bench give us a suggestion for an enlargement? The Prime Minister may be quite sure that we shall not disagree with him on that point. The Home Secretary says, if we will bring forward a clause, he will consider it. This is a Bill to be dealt with not by discussion, but by consideration. This Bill is thrown on the Table, and we are to provide clauses to turn it into a good Bill, although the Government will not let us discuss their clauses. We are to provide clauses

      389
      dealing with finance and dealing with Ulster, and until we do those subjects are to be postponed. This is the most absurd way of dealing with a great Bill. If the Government have a mind lot us, for goodness sake, know what it is! Do not let let them ask us to help them in the drafting of their Bill. The second objection is that this is not an enacting clause. That is a most strange objection to come from the Government. I think my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir H. James) has an idea that it is an enacting clause. But, putting this aside, what a curious thing it is that the Government, who think it satisfactory to deal with this matter by means of the Preamble with no enacting value, should complain of the Amendment that it does not go far enough. It is perfectly evident that the objection is taken for the sake of objecting, and that it is perfectly impossible to support it on any logical or reasonable ground. The Home Secretary complained that we are now increasing the number of safeguards, although the Leader of the Opposition has said he attaches no importance to paper safeguards. I think we are all agreed that there is no importance in paper safeguards if they stop there. But to place them in an Act of Parliament is the first stop to enforcing them. The Government is in too great a hurry. We shall come to the enforcement after they accept the insertion of the principle. I do not believe they want to assert it. Of course, they are willing to assert it in Debate because words used in Debate are of no value subsequently in the interpretation of an Act. But I think if they were to put those words into the Bill, they would find they would have to enter into some discussion on the subject with some of their supporters. The hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. E. Redmond) — and this is a most extraordinary thing to which I must call attention —declared in terms that he would not be satisfied unless he inserted in the Bill a clause declaring that the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament should not extend to these matters expressly relegated to the Irish Parliament. We are now discussing the supremacy, and the hon. and learned Member is absent. I take it for granted that if he were here he would object to the insertion in the
      390
      Bill of the words which right hon. Gentlemen say they accept in principle. They tell us they agree with us in principle; and while all they have to say against our Amendment is that it does not go far enough, they will neither accept it nor teach us how to amend it. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Reid) laid down certainly a most extraordinary doctrine as to the policy which apparently he and his friends are going to adopt in this discussion. He said— "If you were willing to assist us in this Bill, we should be very happy to discuss it with you; but, as you are opposed to the Bill in all respects, as you have a bitter and undying hostility towards it, we are not going to discuss it with you at all." Well, what on earth is the good of a Committee of the House of Commons if that attitude is to be adoped? This is the doctrine laid down by a Member of this House who calls himself a Liberal— by one of those Members the tradition of whose Party it is to obtain free discussion. Committee is the place for discussion of the details of a Bill. We are now informed, and we are told, on the first Amendment on the 1st clause, that there is to be no discussion except by the Opposition. Only two right hon. Gentlemen have risen to speak in answer to the many speeches which have been made against them. This is the policy of silence. Our arguments are not to be answered. We are to be left to carry on the Debate alone. It cannot be said that we are carrying on an obstructive Debate.
      MR. LITTLE: Oh! oh!
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Not even the very young Member behind me would, I should think, have the hardihood to get up and say that the discussion of an Amendment of this importance has been obstructive.
      MR. LITTLE: I have read the right hon. Gentleman's speeches, and those of the Leader of the Opposition, and that is the construction I place upon their assertions.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: It is not my business to defend the Loader of the Opposition, but the construction the hon. Member has put on my speech is a most unauthorised and a most impertinent one. I defy him to find a single word in any of my speeches which justifies the

      391
      interpretation he has placed upon them. I say again that, for my part, I am absolutely indifferent whether the Government answer our arguments or not. That will not prevent us, however, from bringing our arguments before the House and the country. If the Government do not answer our arguments it is because they cannot. Never before, I should think, in the history of Parliament has a Debate on the Second Reading of an important Bill gone on without an answer being given to any one of the principal arguments used against the measure. I am not speaking of the quality of the arguments. That, of course, is a matter on which I should be a had judge; but what I say is, that to the principal arguments not a single word has been said in reply. If throughout the Committee stage the Government are going to treat us in the same way, that is to us a matter of the most perfect indifference; but the country will understand it perfectly well, and we shall challenge the Government to take the opinion of the country upon it.
      THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): With one remark of my right hon. Friend I entirely concur, and that is that the country will understand it. The country will understand my right hon. Friend's objects and the method by which he is seeking to secure them. We are perfectly prepared to answer the arguments of my right hon. Friend. What we will not do is to follow him in his method of discussing the 9th clause on the 1st clause. That is not a thing which we are bound to do or which we ought to do. The House, by a significant majority, has pronounced its opinion on the first Amendment, which was that of my right hon. Friend. What adjective belongs to that Amendment I will not say. Upon the Amendment before the House I will answer in two sentences so much of the speech of my right hon. Friend as can be called argument. About nine-tenths of my right hon. Friend's speech was not argument but denunciation. What is the part, the infinitesimal part, of my right hon. Friend's speech, which may properly be called argument? He says it is necessary to put this Amendment into the 1st clause. We have said we think it sufficient to put it into the Preamble. Hon. Gentlemen say the
      392
      Preamble is not sufficient, and in order to cure the defects of the Preamble of the whole Bill, they introduce the Amendment into the preamble of a single clause. Even a layman will see that the Amendment is not of an enacting character. The hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Bousfield) is so confident that it is not enacting that he has suggested certain words which would make it not an enacting clause at all, but a saving clause. That in itself is an objection fatal to gentlemen opposite. My right hon. Friend (Mr. J. Chamberlain) asks why we do not bring up an enacting clause. We say we do not think an enacting clause necessary. We think it is sufficient to call attention to the supremacy of Parliament in the Preamble. If you do not think it sufficient, bring up your enacting clause. It is for you to supply any defects you think there are in the Bill. That is an answer to the whole argument. To say that we should bring up an enacting clause when we do not think such a clause necessary is totally unreasonable. That is our position in this matter, and it is perfectly fair and intelligible. We say that even without the statement in the Preamble the supremacy of Parliament would be legally intact. If you are not satisfied bring your proposal forward.
      MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down argued that it was the business of the Opposition to produce an enacting Amendment. They had done so as a matter of fact, but the right hon. Gentleman said it was not of an enacting character. If the right hon. Gentleman was sincere in his desire to see the supremacy of Parliament asserted in the most absolute manner why did he not give the Committee the benefit of his advice and try to improve the clause? The right hon. Gentleman spoke about mere paper declarations. No one despised paper declarations more than he (Mr. Gibbs) did; but he was desirous of bringing into contrast the difference of opinion that existed on the question of supremacy amongst the supporters of the Government. Certainly some of the supporters of the Government desired that the supremacy should not be impaired; but hon. Gentlemen below the Opposition Gangway equally desired that it should be impaired. That was

      393
      the real reason which was actuating the Government in opposing the clause. What was the position of the Home Secretary in this matter? When the Prime Minister spoke, he (Mr. Gibbs) supposed that the Home Secretary had been thrown over; but after hearing the Home Secretary he could only suppose that the right hon. Gentleman had thrown himself over. The right hon. Gentleman said on the Second Reading that the Government would have no objection to a clause, and now he said that he would consider one if it were brought up. The right hon. Gentleman said that the supremacy of Parliament was unquestionable; but when he was asked whether or not he was prepared to give way on Clause 9, he had no reply to make; in fact, there was such a mass of nebulous hypotheses floating around each clause, and the action of the Government was so uncertain in regard to every point, that it was impossible to tell what the Government might do at any moment. The hon. Member for Waterford had asserted that he did not depart from Mr. Parnell's statement that
      "The Irish Parliament should be free from outside control, and should enable Ireland to take its place amongst the nations."
      He could not imagine any nation, however small or unimportant, accepting such a Bill as this if it were a nation. The Unionists refused to recognise the separate nationality of Ireland, and on that account they opposed the Bill, because it did recognise the separate nationality of Ireland. It was perfectly clear, however, that the Bill was insufficient to satisfy the national aspirations of Ireland. They could have no better assurance of that than the statement of the hon. Member for Waterford, that he maintained the same attitude as Mr. Parnell. Of course, the hon. Member did maintain it; he would be afraid to face those who had returned him to Parliament if he did not maintain that attitude. The Prime Minister said they had very little to say in this matter, except that he could not give a plain answer to a plain question. They did certainly say that, but they had more to say besides. The right hon. Gentleman should not put it down entirely to the stupidity of the Tory Party that they used that argument, for he should consider that he had always shown himself
      394
      supremely expert in explaining away anything he had said on any subject on any occasion in any part of the United Kingdom whenever it became inconvenient for him to admit it.
      MR. KNOX: I rise to Order, Mr. Mellor. Is the hon. Member speaking to the Amendment?
      THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot say the hon. Member is out of Order.
      MR. VICARY GIBBSsaid, he had not the practised experience of speaking which other hon. Members enjoyed, so that when he was interrupted it wasted the time of the House, which he should have thought hon. Members below the Gangway should be desirous to economise, because it took him some time to recover the thread of his argument when he was interrupted. He was saying when interrupted that the Prime Minister had only himself to thank when he said they could not understand him; and if the right hon. Gentleman ascribed it to the stupidity of the Tory Party they might cheer themselves by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham— whom he had often heard abused, but whom he had never heard charged with stupidity— was precisely in the same difficulty as the Tory Party. They need not go beyond the present Debate for proof that it was very difficult to understand the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman gave as his reason why he did not attach weight to Mr. Parnell's statement that it was said long ago, and said outside the House. But when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham put forward that reason the right, hon. Gentleman interrupted, and said that that was not his reason at all; that he had another reason, which was that he had no official knowledge of Mr. Parnell's statement. He had listened most attentively to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and he did not say a single word about official knowledge, and he was confirmed in that view by his Colleagues who sat around him. If the assertion of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament was confined to the Preamble of the Bill, he was perfectly certain that it would be brought up against them in Ireland that there was no assertion of the Imperial Parliament in the Bill itself.
      *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, this Debate was one of very great importance, and up to the present the legal element had figured most conspicuously in it. No doubt it was, to some extent, a legal question; but a great many people who were not lawyers would read this Debate and have to make up their minds about it. He did not pretend to be able to discuss this question from the legal standpoint; but there were some things about it perfectly plain even to the non-legal mind. Let them assume the Irish Parliament at work, and it was only by assuming this that the necessity for supremacy could be said to arise. If there was one thing that a Roman Catholic Parliament—as this was bound to be, and he did not use the words offensively—if there was one thing more certain than another that a Roman Catholic Parliament would take umbrage at it was the doctrine of civil marriages. That was a matter acutely felt by. Roman Catholics, and he could not imagine an Irish Parliament, dominated by priests, sanctioning civil marriage. Assuming the Irish Parliament passed an Act that made civil marriage illegal, it was quite certain that in that case the Imperial Parliament would interfere. Its right to do so had never been questioned—he did not question it, and he did not know anyone who did question the right of the Imperial Parliament to interfere with the Acts of any Assembly in the British Empire; the real matter for discussion was not the right to interfere, but the best way of interfering. Assume such an Act passed by the Irish Assembly and a Petty Sessions Court called upon to decide the question of the legitimacy of the children of such marriages, and, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) very properly said, the Act would have to be construed by gentlemen who were not lawyers— assume an Act like that passed, and a Petty Sessions Court called upon to decide the legitimacy of the children of such marriages, could anyone imagine that a statement in the Preamble of the Act would have as much effect on the Petty Sessional Court as a direct Enacting Clause. [An hon. MEMBER: This is a Preamble to a clause.] He did not admit that, and, with all due respect to his hon. Friend, he would rather take
      396
      the legal opinion on this point of the right hon. Member for Bury (Sir Henry James). A distinct Enacting Clause in the Bill asserting the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament would be a better guide to these Magistrates; an assertion in the Preamble would not compare in effect and strength with an Enacting Clause in the Bill.
      MR. J. MORLEY: What on?
      MR. T. W. RUSSELL: The question of legitimacy.
      MR. J. MORLEY: How could it come before the Petty Sessions Court?
      *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: There are many ways in which it might arise. But let them take another question; take the Land Question, and that was not going very far a field. Let them suppose this Irish Assembly passed a Land Act, after the statutory period of three years had passed—an Act which that House considered oppressive and unjust. It did not require very large powers of assumption to assume that if there was one thing more certain than another it was that this would come about; and the reason he said so was that he believed that on this question hon. Gentlemen opposite would be true to their word, they would be true to the pledges they had given to the Irish people, and therefore it was not a large assumption to imagine a thing of that sort. Suppose the Imperial Parliament deemed the Act of the Irish Legislature oppressive, and made up its mind to interfere, he wanted to know if it was not better to have the right and the power to interfere put into an Enacting Clause than merely to have an assertion in the Preamble of the Bill?
      MR. SEXTON: It is in Clause 33.
      MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, they had been a long time finding it out, and he did not believe it was.
      MR. SEXTON: The words are, "The Irish Legislature cannot repeal or alter," and so on.
      *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, he was not speaking of a British Act extended to Ireland by the vote of that House, but of an Act expressly passed by the Irish Parliament to deal with the Land Question. The Committee ought to remember there was no dispute as to the question of asserting the supremacy of Parliament in the Bill. If the Government took the ground that it was not

      397
      necessary to put it in the Preamble at all, that the supremacy of Parliament was inalienable, if it took that ground he could understand them; but the Government did not take that ground—they put it in the Preamble. His argument was that if the Government took the position it was not necessary to assert it at all, either in the Preamble or a clause, he could understand that position. It was a mere question of assertion in the Preamble versus an enactment in a clause, and the Committee ought to be able to come to a judgment on an issue like that very easily. The Debate had taken place to-night in a House in which there was scarcely a Member on those (the Ministerial) Benches but was pledged up to the chin to the supremacy of Parliament. If there was one thing more than another English Members pledged themselves to their constituencies upon it was the supremacy of Parliament. [An hon. MEMBER: Agreed!] Yes; and when they were brought face to face with an Enacting Clause making that supremacy unquestionable, not a man rose in his place to say a word about it. He believed the reason why the Government would not accept the Amendment, and why they were keeping silent, was because they did not mean the supremacy of Parliament to be real. What did the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. E. Redmond) say? His argument was that, although he could not destroy the supremacy of Parliament, he and his friends would not be content with anything less than an arrangement in the Statute that it was not to be exercised so long as the Irish Parliament existed. He was obliged to assume, from arguments like these, that this was part of the understanding and agreement that was referred to in past Debates between hon. Gentlemen opposite and the Front Bench. If the Government meant to assert the supremacy of Parliament let them put it in their Bill; and if they did not the country would understand what they did mean was that the supremacy of Parliament was not to be a real supremacy at all.
      *SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he rose to ask a very plain question of the Government. Would they be so kind as to refer him to the passage in which the late Mr. Parnell said that he would accept either the Home Rule scheme of 1886 or some other Home
      398
      Rule scheme of that kind as constituting a subordinate Parliament in Dublin to the Parliament in Westminster?
      MR. J. MORLEY: It will be found reported in his speech.
      *SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he took down the word "subordinate" at the time the Prime Minister used it, when he pointed with outstretched arm to hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and said— "These words were uttered from there." Therefore, if they were so uttered, they must be in Hansard.
      MR. J. MORLEY: They are in Hansard.
      *SIR R. TEMPLEwas obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for referring him to it, as he should be glad to see the passage in which the late Mr. Parnell used the word "subordinate." He did not pretend to be acquainted with Mr. Parnell's views; but he had heard every speech that gentleman ever made in that House since 1885, and he did not remember ever hearing him say that the Parliament in Dublin should be subordinate. Certainly, he should have thought such an idea was wholly foreign to the hon. Gentleman's mind. He brought forward the point because the Prime Minister seemed to attach great importance to it as affecting this particular Amendment which was under the consideration of the Committee, and he quite agreed with the Prime Minister in thinking that Mr. Parnell's opinions were still important, and that, although dead, he still spoke to many people in Ireland. If he might judge from the brilliant speech of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. J. E. Redmond) on the Second Reading, he did not think that hon. Member was imbued with the idea of the Dublin Parliament being subordinate; the very notion was contrary to almost all he uttered, and he seemed to be true inheritor of the Parnellite tradition. He understood the hon. Member for Waterford to say that if there was anything like a supremacy it could only be tolerated so long as it was kept dormant. How far the idea of such subordination would be entertained by other Nationalists— by the Leader of the anti-Parnellite section, he did not know; but, he imagined there must be large sections of Nationalist electors in Ireland who would reject the idea of the Dublin

      399
      Parliament being subordinate to the Parliament here. The Home Secretary (Mr. Asquith) made some remarks upon some criticisms that were very justly and appropriately used by the Leaders of the Opposition as to the insufficiency of what were called paper securities. They on that side of the House agreed in that, but still it was better to have a paper security than none at all; though it might not be worth much, still it was worth something more than the paper on which it was written. It was the law, after all, and in this civilised age it was always an advantage to have the law on their side, though they had no means of carrying it out. Now, with regard to this Amendment as affecting the Preamble. He listened with great respect to what fell from the Home Secretary; but he would like to express to that right hon. Gentleman and all who sat on the Front Bench the fear and apprehension that was entertained on his side of the House was that the Government were willing enough to have words about supremacy so long as they were in the Preamble and in the air, so to speak. But the Opposition were not satisfied with the Preamble. Some lawyers told them the Preamble was sufficient, others told them it was insufficient, and hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway told them that subordination was always to be kept in a state of suspended animation; therefore, could it be wondered at that they were wholly dissatisfied with a Preamble of that description? Their fear was increasing almost to a point of suspicion when they found a Government, so willing to put words about supremacy in the Preamble, hesitating the moment they came to put them into a real clause—a clause about which there could be no doubt. They wanted to have the words of supremacy put into an Enacting Clause, and they contended that this was the proper clause to put them in—a clause which laymen could understand, which lawyers would accept, which Courts would enforce. As to its being a limiting clause, it was nothing of the kind. It was a governing clause, a fundamental enactment, and the very basis and foundation of the whole matter. The words of the Amendment were not only necessary, but this was the only clause into which they could be inserted. The words proposed, he considered, were a very salutary and necessary qualification.
      400
      It was wholly unjust and a misdescription to say that this was not an Enacting Clause and that this was not an Enacting Amendment. The Home Secretary said, in effect, that they need not trouble to press this Amendment, because he promised there should be a sufficient clause introduced later on. He did not doubt the sincerity of the right hon. Gentleman's intention; but still there were many ways of carrying out an intention, and the right hon. Gentleman must forgive them if they felt some distrust, especially when they considered the somewhat shifty manner in which the Government dealt with the question of supremacy in the Preamble and declined to put it in a clause. There might be a clause of some kind intended; but who knew whether it would be satisfactory or not until they had had an opportunity of considering it? Moreover, if such an important clause as that were in contemplation, why was it not drafted, printed, and put on the Notice Paper, so that hon. Members would have an idea of what was to follow? It would have given them some confidence in the sincerity of the Government if a clause of that kind had been already put on the Notice Paper; and as it was not, they should certainly vote with his hon. and learned Friend in the Division, for assuredly a more important matter could not be brought before the House. There was no ground whatever for accusing them of any intention of impeding the passage of this Bill through Committee, because they insisted on debating the ins and outs of this important question. They desired that the supremacy of Parliament should be enacted in a manner from which there was no evasion and no escape; therefore, he trusted the whole Unionist Party in the House would insist upon this question being thrashed out, and an Amendment thoroughly competent and workable being inserted in the Bill.
      SIR J. GORST: I hope the Committee will allow me to say a few words upon the Amendment, because, to my mind, a great alteration has been made on this question by the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Armagh (Mr. Barton), to which the Government have made no reply. I was always myself of opinion that this question of supremacy was one which the Government were very glad

      401
      to air in speeches to the constituencies, because it was a great thing to be able to say to the British electorate that the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament was in no way interfered with; but it had very little meaning. I was myself of the same opinion that the Home Secretary seemed to be— namely, that you could not impugn the authority of the British Parliament, whether you have Preambles in your Bill, or whether you have Enacting Clauses in your Bill, or whether you loft them out, that the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament was undoubted—that nothing could add to it and nothing take from it. I am glad to see that opinion shared by hon. Members opposite. But that was also tempered by the consideration that if that was all that Imperial supremacy meant there was very little in it, because that meant the Imperial supremacy would enable you legally to enact laws for Australia or for New Zealand; but who on earth in this age and Parliament would ever dream of suggesting, though Parliament had legally the power of doing it, that we should presume to pass laws for either the domestic affairs of Australia or New Zealand? If that sort of supremacy was all you meant in your declaration about Ireland, it would not have prevented Ireland from becoming, under a Home Rule Bill, as entirely a separate legislative community as either Australia or New Zealand. I thought supremacy was a mere fiction and figment; that Parliament would obtain a nominal power to legislate; but that it was a power which could practically never be exercised. I confess that, in my mind, an entirety new complexion has been put upon this question by the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Armagh. That speech was made in a very full House. The Prime Minister was present, and not only the Prime Minister, but the Legal Adviser of the Government, the Solicitor General was sitting in a corner of the Bench, and was smiling in interested attention to that speech; and I confess I thought, when my hon. and learned Friend sat down, after making what I consider an extremely powerful and quite a new argument upon this question, that after the professions that had been made by the Government of their readiness to answer any real point, the Solicitor General would at least have risen to have advised
      402
      the House upon the striking argument of the hon. and learned Member for Armagh. But, as I understand now, this argument and new view of the position is to be treated as so many other arguments have been treated in this Debate— with silence and contempt. I would like to press upon the right hon. Gentlemen the Chief Secretary, who is, I believe, a gentleman of candid mind, who will appreciate an argument even by an opponent, what the argument used by the hon. Member for Armagh is. My hon. and learned Friend stated, as I understand, that so far from the supremacy of Parliament in Ireland resting, as it does in all other parts of Her Majesty's Dominions, upon the undoubted rights and prerogative of the Crown and Parliament, in the particular case of Ireland it rested only upon Statute, and only upon one Statute—the Act of Union. My hon. and learned Friend showed that previous to the Act of Union, the power of the Legislature at Westminster to have laws to have effect in Ireland had been disputed, and had, by a decision of Judges, been refuted, and in other cases had had very considerable doubt cast upon it, and that, so far as the power exists at the present moment, it rests not upon the general law by which this Parliament can make laws for every part of Her Majesty's Dominions, but rests upon one single Statute—the Act of Union. What Parliament has enacted Parliament can take away, and if the power to legislate in Ireland rests upon Statute that power can be taken away also by Statute. And, therefore, so far from the general power of Parliament surviving the passing of any Act of this particular Parliament — so far from that surviving, it seems to me, if words were used in passing a. Statute taking away that power which exists only by virtue of the Statute of the Act of Union, the power to legislate in Ireland might be gone. That may be right or it may be wrong: but I think hon. Members below the Gangway will admit, for the credit of their countrymen, that that is one of the first new things said this Session on the Home Rule Bill. It was said by one of their countrymen, of whom I dare say they are proud, although they differ from him. But there was a real, serious, sober argument which demanded some answer. Her Majesty's Government have not the advantage of the presence

      403
      of an Irish Law Officer, because, notwithstanding the confidence of the Irish people in the present Government, they are not willing to supply them with a Law Officer to advise them on Irish legal questions. But they have the Solicitor General there. The Solicitor General heard the argument of my hon. and learned Friend, and I saw his eyes twinkling with pleasure at the powerful legal argument addressed to the House. I was once, in former days, a learned Member myself, and though I have long since ceased to have any claim to that character I hope I retain enough of my professional powers to be able to appreciate a good legal argument when it is used by someone else, and I confess I was very much struck and moved in my mind by the powerful argument addressed to the House by the hon. and learned Member for Armagh. I must say that the Committee is entitled, in a situation of this kind, to the assistance of the Solicitor General, because it has been often stated in this House that the Solicitor General is not only the Law Officer of the Government, but of the House; and when the House is puzzled by the ingenious arguments which gentlemen of the long robe address to it, they have a right to call on the Law Officer of the Crown to state what his official and responsible views are, and to guide the House in the decision it may come to. Unless the Solicitor General can refute the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Armagh, I submit this question is not in the position it was in when the Prime Minister addressed the House. It is not a case in which the Government can say— "Oh, we did not think anything necessary, and we leave it to the Opposition to bring forward a clause." Unless you refute the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Armagh a clause is necessary; and, if so, it is the duty not of the Opposition, but of the Government, to submit such a clause to the House. Really, I rise as a sort of protestant. I do not like to be left in the legal darkness in which the reticence of the Government has left me, and I am merely in the position of what Tennyson calls "a child crying for light." Let me be enlightened by the legal luminaries opposite. Let my faith, which has been rudely shaken since the speech of the Prime Minister in consequence of the
      404
      argument of the hon. and learned Member for Armagh, be rehabilitated; and if the Solicitor General, who is one of the ablest lawyers in the House, can rehabilitate that confidence which I felt in the law as laid down by the Prime Minister, and if he can rehabilitate the faith of the House in that law, then, perhaps, the Government can stand on the position that a further clause is not necessary; but, unless this argument can be answered, a further clause, in my opinion, is necessary.
      MR. J. MORLEY: As the right hon. Gentleman has appealed to my candour—an appeal I always find it hard to resist—I feel bound to say a word or two—and a word or two will be quite sufficient—on what he calls the new position established by the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Armagh. The main part of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Armagh was an account of the various cases in which the supremacy of the Parliament in London had been denied by the Parliament in Dublin. Yes; but the hon. and learned Member left out of the sight of the House the whole of the reply to that argument, which was that that Parliament was not the Imperial Parliament in the ordinary sense, but the Parliament of Great Britain or the Parliament of England. Therefore, the whole of the elaborate structure the hon. and learned Member built up—and I was able to follow him as he went along, as I happened to have before me the source of his argument—the whole of that fabric falls to the ground the moment it is considered that the supremacy which was denied in those cases was not the supremacy which we are discussing; it was the supremacy of a Parliament which no longer exists— namely, the Parliament, first, of England and then of Great Britain. The hon. and learned Gentleman contended that the supremacy of this Parliament rests upon the Act of Union. Very well; whatever the supremacy as established by the Act of Union was, that it is and remains in spite of this Bill. If this Bill becomes an Act in the form in which it is now presented to Parliament, there will not be a line in it which impairs or restricts the supremacy as constituted by the Act of Union, and that is my answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
      *MR. H. MATTHEWS: I think the right hon. Gentleman hardly apprehended the force of the argument which he has to meet. The question which we are now discussing is how such Parliament as is left to this country by this Bill will have supremacy over Ireland, how far it will be able to legislate for Ireland, and how far you will be able to interfere with the Acts of the Irish Legislature you are going to create? The hon. and learned Member for Armagh adduced an argument which is perfectly unanswerable, I think, showing that up to 1782 the rights of the Parliament sitting on this side of St. George's Channel were never recognised. Its power over the Irish Parliament was always disputed by the authorities on the Irish side of the Channel. It was always asserted by them that this Parliament had not any real right to legislate for Ireland, and their contention was conceded in 1782, and in the most formal and solemn way the Parliament of Great Britain recognised and acknowledged that the sole right to legislate for Ireland was in the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland. Then came the Act of Union, and I quite agree that under the Act of Union it was put beyond all doubt that the Parliament constituted by the Act of Union was a Parliament having supreme authority over Great Britain and Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman has just said there is not a line in the Bill touching the supremacy of this Parliament. No; but you destroy that Parliament. The Parliament left by your Clause 9 is not the Parliament of the Union. Certainly not; it is a Parliament in which at least 103 Members are shorn of part of the privileges which the Act of Union gave them. The Parliament left by your Clause 9 is not the Parliament of the Act of Union. What do you do by your Bill? By Clause 2 you give the exclusive right of legislating for Ireland to the new Irish Legislature. You give that in terms as wide as any Parliamentary language can possibly be. You give it the right to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland. That means the absolute right of legislating on all subjects so far as Ireland is concerned. It is true you keep alive a certain Parliament by Clause 9; but it is no longer the Parliament created by the Act of Union
      406
      and to which the supreme right of legislation was reserved by that Act. But the Act of Union is the sole foundation upon which the right of this Parliament to legislate for Ireland rests. [Sir W. HARCOURT dissented.] I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer shakes his head. I would agree with him if it were conceded Ireland was a conquered country. If it were, I agree, according to the sound Constitutional principles of English law, the supremacy of this British Parliament would prevail over Ireland. But that has never been conceded in Ireland. We may maintain it, but the Irish have always denied it; and when your Bill is going to be interpreted by Irish Judges and Irish Courts, can you expect that the Irish Judges and the Irish Courts will not construe the clauses of that Act in the way and in the sense in which the Irish contention has always proceeded in this matter—that is, deny that Ireland is a conquered country, and deny that the inherent right of supremacy over the legislation for Ireland rests with the Parliament of this country as the Parliament of the conquering race? The Act of Union is the sole document which gives this Parliament any supremacy over Ireland. That is an argument I should like to hear refuted by the Law Officers of the Crown. The Parliament of the Act of Union will disappear under your Bill, and it will be a different Parliament under your Clause 9. If Clause 9 is modified by excluding the Irish Members, I fail to see any ground upon which any Constitutional lawyer will venture to argue that the Parliament from which the Irish Members are excluded is the heir, or representative, or the equivalent of the Parliament under the Act of Union which could legislate for Ireland. The truth is that, though Her Majesty's Government in Debate across the floor of this House tell us they are as anxious to assert and maintain the supremacy of whatever Parliament will be left to us if this Bill pass as it is, for some reason or other they shrink from saying so plainly. The Prime Minister met this Amendment by arguments which I should think did not carry the slightest conviction to any human being. I speak with all respect of what falls from the Prime Minister; but his arguments were simply criticisms as to the manner in which the hon. and learned Member for Deptford had attempted to

      407
      assert the principle in winch we all agree. This, forsooth, was a recital and not an enactment! His next objection was that we did not assert the supremacy of the Parliament in the Island of Ceylon or in some remote Colony of the Crown. But the supremacy of Parliament in the Colonies is not in question. The only point in question now is as to the supremacy in Ireland, and it is in Ireland that the dispute has always been. I defy any Constitutional lawyer to say that you can tamper with the Parliament constituted by the Act of Union, alter its constitution, its functions, and the right of the Members who sat in it, and not require some express words to keep alive the right to legislate for Ireland which this Parliament undoubtedly possesses now. Another argument of the Prime Minister was to fall back on Clause 33; but that clause shows the same extraordinary coyness, the same shrinking modesty, about asserting the principle of supremacy, that characterises the whole of the rest of the Bill. Do the Ministers of the Crown mean that Parliament shall have the right to pass an Irish Act alone, not coupled with an English Act, and to interfere with, alter, and, if necessary, repeal, Acts of the Irish Legislature? If so, Clause 33 does not say so. If you mean that, why do you not say so in terms? I should like to hear whether the hon. and learned Member for Waterford (Mr. J. E. Redmond) assents to the proposition of the Prime Minister?
      MR. T. M. HEALY: Would you like to hear the whole of us?
      MR. MATTHEWS: No; I would select the hon. and learned Member as a Representative; I would be content with his views, and would challenge him to say whether he understands that this Bill, as now drafted, means that the Imperial Parliament, which, under Section 9, would have some of its Members lopped off and which would not be the Parliament of the Act of Union, but a different Parliament created for the first time under this Bill—I would ask the hon. and learned Member whether he understands that that remnant of a Parliament is to have power to review and repeal the whole of the Irish legislation, and to see that the Acts of the Irish Legislature shall not run counter to any enactments passed by this Parliament upon any of those subjects which
      408
      are expressly left to the Irish Parliament? That is what the Government are unable to say. If they are really sincere they will give us the information for which we ask and which we have a right to demand.
      *MR. J. G. BUTCHERsaid, if they were going to make a lasting compact by this Bill, it was essential that all the Parties to that compact should mean the same thing. The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries had said that they were all agreed on the subject. He, however, thought that it was a pertinent question whether that were so or not. He took it that the main and fundamental question involved in the matter of supremacy was whether this Imperial Parliament was, or was not, to legislate upon matters that wore given over to the competence of the Irish Parliament. He should like to hear what were the intentions of the Government on this vital question; and it would have been more satisfactory if the Government had given a promise to bring in a clause on this point. The Unionist Party knew what they meant: they meant that power should be reserved to the Imperial Parliament to legislate upon those questions that were left to the Irish Parliament. The views of the section of the Irish Nationalist Party of which the hon. Member for Waterford was the acknowledged head were also known. The hon. Member, speaking on February 14 this year, had said that the Irish should have some guarantee that the Imperial Parliament would not exercise its rights of legislation over Ireland over their heads upon the questions committed to the Irish Parliament. That was a view not expressed in the heat of Debate. Again, in The Nineteenth Century for April last, the hon. Member stated that he asked for an amendment to prevent by express enactment any interference by the Imperial Parliament in the legislative sphere of the Irish Parliament. Again, The Irish Independent newspaper, on February 17 last, stated that the Independent Party would demand a clause providing that the power of concurrent legislation should not be exercised while the Irish Parliament existed. That clause; was not on the Paper as yet. Whether it appeared on the Paper or not would depend on the exigencies of Debate——
      MR. J. E. REDMOND: And on the tactics of the Opposition.
      *MR. BUTCHERsaid, he was astonished to hear that a question which was admitted to be of vital importance to Ireland and to its Legislature should depend simply upon the tactics of the Opposition. A conference of the Independent Party was held in Dublin not long ago, and the proceedings were reported in The Irish Daily Independent of March 10 last. On that occasion a resolution was passed to the effect that the Irish Parliament should have full power over all the affairs of Ireland, including the laud, and that the laws enacted by it should be subject only to the veto of the Crown, or the representative of the Crown in Ireland. What were the views of the other section of the Nationalist Party, the Party who had been squared, or who had, at any rate, been reduced to a degree of silence which was somewhat unusual, and which must be most galling and irksome to them? He trusted before the Debate concluded there would be some expression of opinion from that section. They would not probably be prepared to repudiate the views of the hon. and learned Member for Waterford. If the views of the Nationalist and Unionist Parties were as he had stated them, he thought the Government ought to introduce a clause which would say which of those views most nearly represented their own views. He would press upon hon. Members opposite the enormous importance of introducing into this Bill a clause which would settle the question as between the various Parties in the House, and which would, rightly or wrongly, say that this House should have power to deal with questions within the competence of the Irish Parliament, and which would put an end to questions which otherwise would prove of the greatest difficulty and danger to the harmonious working of the Irish Legislature.
      Opposition cries of "Rigby" [meaning the Solicitor General for England (Sir J. Rigby, Forfar)], but the hon. and learned Gentleman did not rise.
      MR. COURTNEY: My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General does not appear to be prepared to address the Committee at this moment, but I hope I may have the privilege of hearing him in a few minutes. The Chief Secretary (Mr. J. Morloy), in discussing the argu-
      410
      ments of the hon. and learned Member for Armagh (Mr. Barton), has pointed to the fact that we made an entirely new departure in the Act of Union—that in 1782 we renounced the authority which up to that time had been continually asserted and often exercised, and that the Act of Union was an Act between two independent Parliaments. He argued that the precedents cited by the Member for Armagh were out of date. I myself should have been glad to take the Act of Union as a dividing line from which to start; but, unfortunately, I have to recognise that the Act of Union is a discredited fact; it is a product of blackguardism. We have also heard it forcibly asserted that the Irish Parliament had no moral authority to consent to the Act of Union. That being the position of affairs in regard to the Union, according to the highest authority who drew this Bill and otherwise widely maintained, the Act of Union cannot be safely taken as the starting point from which to proceed to the re-establishment of two Parliaments in Great Britain and Ireland. I cannot accept the doctrine which some legal authorities have laid down as to the impossibility of restoring two independent Parliaments. It is a very singular commentary on the omnipotence of this House that, composed as it is of Members for Great Britain and Ireland, it could not, even if desiring to re-establish two Parliaments independent of one another, effectively embody in an Act what it wished to accomplish. I believe this difficulty to be a mere figment of some Constitutional jurists. It would be quite possible to re-establish that which the Irish Nationalist feeling says ought to be established, which according to their belief was never destroyed with any moral justification—the relative independence and authority of the two Parliaments. I admit that under this Bill that line has not been taken. The Bill technically preserves the authority of Parliament, and I am content to take my stand on the admission that theoretically the supremacy of Parliament is maintained by the Bill. But what is the question? Has the Committee, then, been arguing an empty abstract question? I venture to think that there was a substantial basis for the argument which has occupied the attention of the Committee, and it is this:—Admit that

      411
      the supremacy is technically maintained, that it is a paper supremacy, a supremacy of the same kind as that over the Parliaments of Australia and Canada. Is that supremacy a working supremacy? Is that supremacy something which represents a real power which can be exercised when occasion calls for it, or is it a supremacy only called so in name, to be put on the shelf, and incapable of being used? The test of the argument is this —Do you wish to have a real, vitalised supremacy through which the conscience of Great Britain can act with the authority of Parliament, with definite machinery to express its will if the occasion arises; or de you wish for a sterilised supremacy which means nothing except an empty respect paid to a dead idea? We are here testing two distinct lines of conduct of the argument which has prevailed during the last six or seven years as to the relation of the Parliament at Westminster towards the Parliament at Dublin. I can refer to Members on the Government Bench, and probably to still more hon. Members behind them, who have said over and over again in the country that they are not going to consent to the setting up of a Parliament in Dublin which may do what it chooses; but that they mean to have guarantees which shall give the power of securing that whenever the Parliament in Dublin does anything unjust, injurious, or prejudicial to the interest of a considerable section of the people of Ireland, the Parliament at Westminster shall be able, actively and fruitfully, to interfere. That has been the language used by a great many hon. Members of the Government Party, and it has helped very considerably to establish them in their present position. The issue raised by the Amendment is this— Do the Government intend to consent to the introduction of Amendments, of which this is the first, which shall incorporate in the Bill the guarantees which they have been professing they would insist on securing if ever the Bill became law? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary has indulged in repudiation of this idea; and the Prime Minister assures us of the stability of the Imperial supremacy as it now stands. We have reached the first stage of this controversy. Is Parliament to be endowed with an empty vague supremacy, or is Parliament to have a supremacy that would be operative—that will be a real supremacy,
      412
      that can be called upon if occasion should arise? Are we to have such a supremacy, or are we to have one for which we are to entertain only an empty respect? I hope we shall now hear a few words, giving clear information upon this point, from my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General (Sir J. Rigby).
      There were loud cries of "Rigby" on Mr. Courtney resuming his seat, but as Sir John Rigby did not rise several Members of the Opposition sought to address the Committee.
      MR. J. MORLEY,at 9.55, said: I beg to move, Mr. Mellor, that the Question be now put, [Cries of "Oh!"; "Chair!"; "Shame!"; "Scandalous!"]
      MR. BARTLEY: It is scandalous.
      MR. T. M. HEALY; Remember 1887.
      Question put, "That the Question be now put."
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 243; Noes 195.—(Division List, No. 68.)
      Question put accordingly, "That these words' Subject to and,' be inserted in the proposed Amendment."
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 222: Noes 276:—(Division List, No. 69.)
      MR. J. MORLEYclaimed, "That the Question on the Amendment be now put."
      Question put,
      "That the words 'without in any way whatever impairing, restricting, or altering the supreme power and authority of Parliament in all matters, as well local as Imperial, and over all persons in Great Britain and Ireland' be there inserted."
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 233; Noes 285.—(Division List, No. 69.)
      LORD R. CHURCHILL: The recent occurrences in the proceedings of the House compel me to submit to you, Mr. Mellor, a Motion, and that Motion is that you do now report Progress. It is obvious that in placing that Motion before the House I am not speaking my own mind alone. I am representing, I am certain, from what I have heard from communications which have taken place between the general body of the Unionist Party during the opportunity which the right hon. Gentleman has given us, the opinion of that Party. It is evident, from the attitude of the Unionist Party, that this is a Motion which is going to be persisted in. [Interruption.] I cannot help speaking strongly. Hon.

      413
      Members below the Gangway must feel that we have a Parliamentary position in this Motion which we have a right to put forward and to which we have a right to adhere; and it will not help the discussion of this Motion if it is met with nothing but clamour and noise. I should never have made this Motion if it we're not that there are a very large number of Members who are prepared to support it. I hold that the House is not in a condition, after what has passed this evening, to continue the discussion of such business. I move to report Progress because we are engaged in discussing the greatest measure that could be brought before the British Parliament, and because it has been shown by indisputable evidence that neither the supporters of the Government, nor the Chief Secretary for Ireland, nor the First Lord of the Treasury, are prepared to extend to the constitutional Opposition which is opposed to this Bill the slightest fair play. These tactics we must meet at the outset, not only in our own defence, but in defence of the interests which are committed to us. We are bound by every conception of Parliamentary duty to nip in the bud the policy of silencing the arguments of the Opposition against the Irish policy of the Government. That cannot be. Give us the rights and limits of the Opposition to which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has been accustomed for 50 or 60 years. Never before has such conduct been pursued towards an Opposition numbering nearly half the House, and an Opposition which represents the majority in Great Britain, and who are engaged, and were engaged, in discussing what everybody must admit to be—what you yourselves must admit to be—one of the most important features of this Bill. At this hour of the evening, when the Debate might have terminated perfectly peacefully before the close of the night, and when one or more Members were prepared to discuss the question as reasonably as they could, and to advance what arguments they could, on this important Amendment, the voices of the Opposition were silenced, and is this to be the manner in which the Bill is to be conducted through the House? Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that this is not the manner in which the Bill can be carried through Committee. He will have to resort to proceedings which he has never dreamed of if he
      414
      thinks he is going to silence the Opposition. If he imagines he is going to carry this Bill without argument and only by brute force and the Closure—I toll him, on behalf of everyone on these Benches, that never before will he have encountered an Opposition so determined. I appeal to him, from his enormous experience of Parliament, to say why he now introduces this new procedure. Perfectly useless it is—perfectly without precedent. Yes, taking into account the nature of the issue between us, I say it is unprecedented. It cannot help him in the progress of his Bill. It will only lead to what he seems to like most—it is based upon the only argument he seems to have recourse to—the argument of the gag. It is perfectly possible that if it comes to a trial of physical strength we shall prove to have as much tenacity as the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues. Hon. Gentlemen from Ireland below the Gangway, no doubt, disapprove of my action; but they have known what it is to resist the Prime Minister. They did it, and they certainly carried their resistance to extraordinary lengths. But this is a far more aggravating danger, and I hold that every length of opposition on our part, every act which can possibly be justified by precedent in regard to resistance by the Opposition of a tyrannous majority can be used, and I expect will be used to the fullest extent if this kind of policy be persevered in. So, now, Sir, I move that you report Progress, that the Government may, at any rate, have time to consider this question. I say that the Committee will do well to consider seriously the whole position between the two Parties before they finally decide on a continuance of the policy which the Government have adopted. I think it is necessary to have time to consider all the issues of the new development you are giving to a struggle which God knows is bitter enough—a development which will lead you further than you have ever heard of, and may even disorganise for a long time and break up almost all the order of the House of Commons and all the customs of Debate—because, believe me, I pray you believe me, in this matter, we will not yield.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
      MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Although this is an occasion of some excitement, it is the duty of Members in prominent positions to endeavour to allay it. At any rate that is my opinion, and I will endeavour to resist the infection of the noble Lord's excitement. I see no occasion for it whatever. At the same time, were there occasion for it, I hope I should be inclined to take a very different direction from that which the noble Lord has taken, for I am certain that nothing but mischief can arise from the course he is pursuing. Let us see what are the noble Lord's points. He has made a Motion to report Progress— to stop the Business of the evening, out of which a little more than an hour has been left to us by those who have chiefly consumed the time of the Committee. What does he allege in support of that Motion? His first reason is that this is a most important Bill. I cannot myself perceive that from the importance of the Bill it flows legitimately, and as a consequence, that we ought to stop discussion upon it. Next, he says that I have introduced a new procedure. Sir, I am not the author of the procedure under which the discussion which was just now in progress has been stopped. The honour of that authorship belongs to Gentlemen opposite. By virtue of that procedure I have seen liberty invaded, a Coercion Bill forced upon Ireland without any discussion whatever in Committee of this House—upon some of its most important provisions. I disclaim the honour altogether. Were I to set out upon a course which would be new to me, and to endeavour to give largo application to the principle of Closure, in vain should I struggle to imitate the noble and unsurpassed examples of those who have gone before me. But if the principle of Closure is in use, I imagine that there are certain occasions when resort ought to be had to it. Has this been an unreasonable occasion of resort to it? On what ground is it that so extreme a case has arisen as the noble Lord suggests? The noble Lord is getting into the habit of stating these extreme cases. He gave us one the other day. What is the basis of this complaint to-day? In 1886 we introduced a similar Bill without any declaration in the Preamble of the supremacy of Parliament, because we thought that supremacy was at once unlimited and perfectly secure. We have introduced
      416
      into this Bill a declaration of that supremacy in the hope of offering some consolation to some of our opponents. Gentlemen opposite differ from us as to the mode of expressing that supremacy, and they speak of a clause as the proper mode of declaring it, we differing from them upon that point, but expressing our willingness to consider their clause when we see it. Can we do more? We have declared our readiness to give full consideration to the recommendations which may be placed before us——
      LORD R. CHURCHILL: By moving the Closure at a quarter to 10.
      MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The Amendment contains a proposal which we think is altogether a bad and dangerous method of attempting to secure the supremacy—a method which does not secure it, but weakens it. Have we attempted by silence to bear down the proposal of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Darling)? [Cries of "Yes!"] Sir, four Ministers spoke from this Bench on the Amendment. We gave our reasons. I presume there was satisfaction with our arguments on this side of the House. We did not attempt to shut out the question. Our pledge holds good to consider your proposals when we see them. Under these circumstances it is that the noble Lord has used the somewhat inflated language that has fallen from him to-night. I do not know whether he intended to intimidate me or not; but if he did I do not think he will succeed.
      LORD R. CHURCHILL: I did not in the least try to intimidate the right hon. Gentleman. I tried to tell the Government and the House the real truth.
      MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The noble Lord speaks of our position as an extreme one. We believe that this declaration of supremacy is unnecessary. We have opposed, and we have explained by four Members of the Cabinet our opposition to, the particular proposal made, which even its supporters found so faulty that they were obliged to set about amending it. We have offered to consider further proposals on the subject when they can be presented to us. The only answer made to us is that we have been challenged to produce a clause ourselves which we think to be totally unnecessary, and which we fear, if skilfully managed, may prove hazardous to the supremacy. It is in these circumstances that the noble Lord threatens us

      417
      with the extremest measures of an opposition with unheard-of numbers and power in debate. He threatens us with these measures after we have had four Divisions, in every one of which we have been supported by numbers exceeding the relative superiority of the Parties. These being the state of the facts, it is our duty, and will remain our duty, in whatever way such a Motion as this is made, provided no better grounds are given than the noble Lord has alleged, to resist it to the uttermost.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I just wish to make one remark. I have permitted this Debate to go on to this point because I think there was some feeling in the Committee. The noble Lord has made his explanation, and the Prime Minister has answered it; but it is irregular and out of Order that there should be any further discussion on the Closure, which, having been accepted by the Committee, was the act of the Committee, and, according to the Rules of the House, can no longer be questioned.
      LORD R. CHURCHILL: In the Motion I made to report Progress I carefully avoided discussing the act of the Committee, but discussed the general question, on which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister replied.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I watched the noble Lord, and he came very near the line. But I really want to point out that, this discussion having taken place, it would be altogether out of Order any longer to question the action of the Chair.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I shall confine myself strictly to the speech to which we have just listened from the First Lord of the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman commenced by saying he did not see any necessity for excitement. Neither do I, and, as far as I myself am concerned, I am as cool as a cucumber. But, at the same time, I must point out to my right hon. Friend that the position of the two Parties is rather different. When a worm is trampled upon I do not think there is any necessity for excitement on the part of the person who tramples upon the worm; but I suppose, if one could in any way estimate the feelings of the worm, one might find that there was considerable excitement there. My right hon. Friend considers that our excitement or our feeling is altogether unreasonable, and he com-
      418
      plains of the noble Lord for moving to report Progress. He says this is a very important Bill, and he does not see why the discussion on it should be stopped. That is precisely the point which we wish to raise. [Cries of "Order!"] I am answering my right hon. Friend, and if he was not out of Order neither am I. I say that this is the question which we desire to raise—why discussion upon important questions—I am not speaking now of the past, I am speaking of the future; the past is over; you cannot mend what you have done. You will feel the consequences before the end of this Debate. Let us consider what is to happen in the future—whether the discussion of this important Bill is to be stopped whenever the Chief Secretary dances up and moves the Closure. The Prime Minister says, as a reason apparently for what has happened, that we have chiefly consumed the time of the House. That is perfectly true. We have been putting our arguments, and I venture to say they are important and serious arguments.
      MR. E. H. BAYLEY: I wish to ask whether, after your ruling, the right hon. Gentleman is in Order?
      THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman, I understand, is speaking of the future. He is not entitled to refer to what is past.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: With all respect, Sir, I will endeavour to tread the very narrow bridge you have laid for me. I say, then, that we have laid arguments before the Committee; in future also we hope to lay before the Committee further and important arguments, and we shall consume the whole of the time of the Committee unless the Government will reply to us. We have yet had no adequate reply whatever. It is quite true that four Ministers have made brief speeches; but I contend that arguments, and important arguments, have been laid before the Committee which have received no answer at all. What is the case? What might happen in an important Debate at a future stage of this Bill? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bodmin might get up and make an absolutely unanswerable speech— such a speech as has never been heard in this House before without a reply—and the Government might refuse to reply to it. I say that, under these circumstances, of course we should consume the time of

      419
      the House. There was another argument of my right hon. Friend which must, I think, he called a tu quoque argument. We apparently, throughout this Debate on the Home Rule Bill, are to be subjected to the Closure whenever it pleases the right hon. Gentleman or his Colleagues to think that we have sufficiently consumed the time of the House, because in the past—he refers, I think to the year 1887—the Irish Members were closured upon a Crimes Bill. I may remind the Committee that that was not the first occasion on which the Closure was used. It was used in 1882, and on that occasion it was used by my right hon. Friend the Head of the Government, of which he and I were Members. What I want to point out is that, at all events, that case was entirely different from this. We were dealing then, rightly or wrongly, on both occasions with a Bill the passing of which we believed to be urgently necessary for the peace and order of Ireland. We are dealing now with an immense Constitutional reform, with a totally different subject. It cannot be pretended by anybody that it is a matter of importance whether this Bill passes on one day or another. The Government do not pretend that the matter is so urgent that a few hours or days longer in passing the Bill can make any difference, because the appointed day for the Act coming into operation is postponed considerably after the time when they hope to pass it. That was not the case with regard to the Crimes Act, and therefore I maintain, in spite of the right hon. Gentleman, that his tu quoque is not in any way applicable. The last argument he used was to the effect that he should be justified in the future in putting the Closure upon us because he has been supported on the present occasion by majorities larger than his normal Party majority. Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say by that that Members of the Unionist Party have differed from their Party and voted with him? [Cries of "Order!"] I am answering an argument, and I intend to do so. The only force in the argument of my right hon. Friend would be if the Division showed that his majority had been increased by dissensions among the Unionist Party. That is not the case. On the contrary, there were Members of his Party in our Lobby; and although they can take a great deal from my right hon.
      420
      Friend, they are unable to follow these very arbitrary proceedings on his part. I make a suggestion for the future in the interest of peace. Why should we go on in this state of comparative warfare? Why should we excite ourselves by continual Motions made, Amendments proposed, and prolonged discussion? Why should not the right hon. Gentleman get up and move that this Bill be reported on Thursday? It is a foregone conclusion. It is the result of a bargain made with hon. Members opposite. They have been "squared"; both sections of the Nationalist Party are now prepared to vote for the Government.
      MR. PARKER SMITH: I wish. Sir, to call your attention to the disorderly conduct of the hon. Member for the Shipley Division of Yorkshire, who called out to my right hon. Friend—"How much will it take to square you?"
      THE CHAIRMAN: I ask the hon. Member whether he used that expression?
      *MR. BYLES: I did, Sir.
      THE CHAIRMAN: Then I must say that it is an expression which ought not to have been used, and the hon. Member ought to withdraw it at once and apologise.
      *MR. BYLES: Do I understand you to ask me to withdraw the words?
      THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member ought to withdraw the words and apologise for having used them. I am sure that the hon. Member, on reflection, will do that at once.
      *MR. BYLES: It is not for the first or second time that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham has insulted my friends opposite. If the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his imputations against them I will withdraw mine.
      THE CHAIRMAN: As I understood the right hon. Gentleman it was this: that in Debate he made a general statement, using the word in a somewhat different sense. I have now to call upon the hon. Member to withdraw, and to draw his attention to the fact that the expression ought not to have been used in this House towards a Member. I therefore think that the hon. Member ought to be called upon at once to withdraw it.
      *MR. BYLES: I used the word precisely in the same sense as the right hon. Gentleman.
      MR W. E. GLADSTONE: I do not know whether I am in full possession of the facts, because it is difficult to hear exactly what took place; but I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham has spoken of the Irish Nationalist Members as having been "squared." Upon that I understood the hon. Member to say —"Would it take much—[Cries of "No, no!" and "How much?"]— I rather imagine you, Sir, like myself, were not able to hear without the aid of explanation. I do not think such language ought to be used, and it appears to me that it would be greatly to the advantage of the House it both hon. Gentlemen would withdraw.
      THE CHAIRMAN: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his interposition. There is so much noise in the House that I did not exactly hear what the hon. Member said. I heard merely the statement of it as it was repeated to me. If I had understood the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham to have used the words he did of the Irish Members in the sense I understood the hon. Member for Shipley to have used them, I should have requested him to withdraw them. The hon. Member for Shipley, as I understand him, says that he only used the words in the sense in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham used them. I can only say I did not so understand him, and that I was mistaken. If so, I think the incident might be allowed to drop.
      MR. MACARTNEY: I wish to ask you, Sir, on a point of Order, for our future guidance in these Debates, whether, when an expression used by an hon. Member is ruled to be an improper expression, and you have called upon him to withdraw it, it is then in the power of that hon. Member to rise in his place and to decline to withdraw the words you have ruled out of Order, and to remain absolutely scot free?
      THE CHAIRMAN: I beg to say that rising to Order unnecessarily is in itself disorderly. I will explain again that I misunderstood the sense in which the hon. Member used the words.
      MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am exceedingly sorry, Sir, that my hon.
      422
      Friend below me should have taken any notice of the hon. Member for Shipley. I really do not think he is worth it. What I was saying was that the Irish Members had been squared, and I said so in the usual meaning of the word when it is used by important persons in this House to indicate that an arrangement has been come to or a bargain made; and it never entered my head, I am sure, in using that language, to suggest anything in the nature of a mercenary or pecuniary motive. Of course, the intentional offence of what was said by the hon. Member for Shipley was in the language he used—"How much would it take to square you?" I do not object to answer the question, and to say that it would take a great deal more than the hon. Member for Shipley would ever be able to pay. I had nearly come to the end of my observations, and all I have to say is that, of course, if the Government maintain their present policy the result will be a foregone conclusion, and I think we might save ourselves the trouble of continuing these discussions for weeks, and it may be for months, if the Government would at once have the courage of their opinions, and, if they are determined to carry Home Rule through the House of Commons without discussion, they would say so, and let us get on to something else.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 265; Noes 307.—(Division List, No. 71.)
      MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Mr. Mellor, especially now that the majority of the Government is reduced below its normal number, and after the evidence we have had of the peculiar importance that the Prime Minister attaches to these accidents of Parliamentary majorities, I suppose the Government will have no objection to accede to the Motion I now beg to make—namely, that you do now leave the Chair. They must, I suppose, by this time have convinced themselves that probably the procedure which they have adopted, whatever merit it may have, has not the merit of conducing to the calm and expeditious conduct of Public Business, and perhaps the Chief Secretary now regrets he did not allow the Solicitor General to make the speech he desired to make. But, Sir, I really do not desire to again bring back the House of Commons to that

      423
      condition of heat to which the behaviour of the Government reduced it a few moments ago. I would only most. respectfully suggest to those who have the conduct of business on the Treasury Bench that they ought to draw a most salutary lesson from the proceedings of this evening, and that they should allow us, on future occasions, to discuss matters of first-rate importance for more than three and a-half hours. I hope the Government will make no resistance to the demand I now make. I shall not extend my observations on the point, but shall content myself with moving that you, Sir, do now leave the Chair.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. A. J. Halfour.)
      MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: We resist the Motion, Sir.
      Question put.
      The Committee divided:—Ayes 257; Noes 304.—(Division List, No. 72.)
      It being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

      SUPPLY.—REPORT.
      Resolutions [5th May] reported.
    CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS (ESTIMATES).

      CLASS I.
      Resolution 1.
      "That a sum, not exceeding £31,745, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1894, for Expenditure in respect of Royal Palaces and Marlborough House."
      *MR. A. C. MORTONsaid, there were a number of Palaces and houses not occupied by Her Majesty at Hampton Court and other places, but occupied by various persons; and he would like to ask the First Commissioner of Works whether he did not think it right that as those persons had the places rent free—and, so far as he knew, rates and taxes free— should not keep them in repair? He would also like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Buckingham Palace grounds could not be thrown open to the public at certain times of the year? He understood that they were not used at
      424
      present, except for a garden party now and then, which, might occur once in 10 years.
      THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,): The rule is that persons who occupy these houses by leave of Her Majesty shall carry out all internal repairs at their own expense, and only the external repairs are charged on the Estimates. With regard to Buckingham Palace grounds, I cannot give an answer offhand.
      Resolution agreed to.
      Resolution 2.
      "That a sum, not exceeding £76,064, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1894, for the Royal Parks and Pleasure Gardens."
      *MR. A. C. MORTONasked the First Commissioner of Works whether Kew Gardens could not be opened to the public, who had to pay for their maintenance, at an earlier hour of the day?
      MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I have so recently spoken at length on the subject of the opening of Kew Gardens at an earlier hour that I will not occupy the time of the House by repeating what I said. The opening in the early morning will be attended with considerable expense, and will not be of much advantage to the people of London, as very few persons go there before 12 o'clock. It is also open to scientific men and gardeners by special leave of the Director, who are able to examine the plants in a manner which would be impossible when the public is admitted.
      Resolution agreed to.
      Resolution 3.
      "That a sum, not exceeding £33,095, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1894, for the Houses of Parliament Buildings."
      Resolution agreed to.
      Resolution 4.
      "That a sum, not exceeding £41,200, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31et day of March, 1894, for the Extension of the Admiralty Buildings."
      *MR. A. C. MORTONasked whether the First Commissioner of Works had any further information to give with regard to these Buildings, both as to the increased cost as compared with the original Estimates and the delay in their erection?
      MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I said on Friday afternoon that a part of the delay in the erection of the Admiralty Building was due to the fact that the Treasury, during the late Government, had for one year refused to vote any money for it. My statement was denied both by the right hon. Gentleman who was then Secretary to the Treasury and by the late First Commissioner. I have since examined the records in the Office of Works, and find that I am fully justified in what I said. It appears that in January, 1889, the Office of Works found itself in a position to expend £30,000 in the coming year, 1889–90, on the foundation of the building, and asked the Treasury to insert an item in the Estimates on this account. The Treasury, in the first instance, agreed to an Estimate for £25,000; but later, at the last moment, a few days before the Estimates were presented to Parliament, they reduced the item to £500. This practically caused a delay of one year in the work. Incidentally it was the cause of a further delay of 12 mouths, for when, years later, the Office of Works was in a position to invite tenders for the main building, it was deterred, and properly deterred, from doing so for another year by the prevalence of strikes in the building trade. Thus the action of the Treasury in 1889 practically caused a delay of years in the completion of the building. With reference to the cost, I have nothing to add to what I said on Friday last.
      *MR. PLUNKETsaid, he had not had an opportunity of referring to the Correspondence; but his strong recollection was that, although there was a reduction in one year, that did not cause any serious delay.
      MR. SHAW-LEFEVRE: I can only adhere to the statement I have made.
      Resolution agreed to.

    BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) ACT (1892)
      AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 322.)

        COMMITTEE.
        Considered in Committee, and reported, without Amendment.
        THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): I now ask that the Bill be read a third time.
        MR. BARTLEYsaid, that after what had happened that evening it ought to be noticed that the Bill had been allowed to go through without a word of opposition.
        Bill read the third time, and passed.

        RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES.
        MR. MUNDELLA: I beg to move—
        "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the manner in which the Railway Companies have exercised the powers conferred upon them by the Railway Rates and Charges Order Confirmation Acts, 1891 and 1892, and to consider whether it is desirable to adopt any other than the exinting means of settling differences arising between the companies and the public with respect to the rates and conditions of charge for the conveyance of goods, and to report what means they recommend."
        *COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTpointed out that there were no Representatives of Manchester, Sheffield, Liverpool, or Glasgow on the Committee.
        MR. MUNDELLAhoped the hon. Gentleman would not object. The Motion only asked for a reference to a Committee, and the names could then be finally selected from different sides of the House. The nomination of Members would rest with the House.
        SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked, if the Reference to Committee were voted now, would it be possible to take the names after 12 o'clock, or would any opposition stop it?
        *MR. SPEAKERsaid that each name could be submitted separately, and a vote taken on each.
        SIR M. HICKS-BEACHsaid, it was very advisable the Committee should be nominated; and if the Reference were agreed to that night, would the right hon. Gentleman place the names as the first Order on Thursday?
        MR. MUNDELLAassented.
        MR. T. M. HEALYwas strongly of opinion that a separate Committee was necessary to consider the case of the Irish railways. Ireland had suffered very much from these railway rates, and no place had suffered more from it than Belfast. For the present he guarded himself from accepting the present Reference.
        MR. MUNDELLAexpressed the opinion that the hon. Gentleman would make a great mistake if he separated the Irish from the English question, because

        427
        the Committee would inquire into the rates as they affected both England, Ireland, and Scotland; and Members representing the three countries would be on the Committee.
        MR. BARTLEYsaid, as the matter was so contentious he must object to the Motion being taken at that hour.
        Motion deferred.

        PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 3) BILL.
        On Motion of Mr. Burt, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under "The General Pier and Harbour Act, 1861," relating to Bognor, Fowey, and Sheerness, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Burt and Mr. Mundella.
        Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 312.]

        LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (POOR LAW) BILL.
        On Motion of Sir Walter Foster, Bill to confirm an Order of the Local Government Board under the provisions of "The Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876," as amended and extended by "The Poor Law Act, 1879," relating to the parishes of St. James, Clerkenwell, and Hornsey including Highgate, ordered to be brought in by Sir Walter Foster and Mr. Henry H. Fowler.
        Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 343.]

        MESSAGE TO THE LORDS.
        Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Lords to request that their Lordships will be pleased to give leave to the Clerk of the Parliaments to attend to be examined as a Witness before the Committee of Public Accounts.—(Mr. Wodehouse.)

        MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
        That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to the avoidance of Voluntary Conveyances." [Voluntary Conveyances Bill [Lords.]
        They have agreed to Local Authorities Loans (Scotland) Act (1891) Amendment Bill; Suffolk County Council Committee (Borrowing Powers) Bill, without Amendment.
        Police Disabilities Removal Bill, with Amendments.
        Canal Rates, Tolls, and Charges Provisional Order Bills,—That they concur with the Commons in their Resolution,
        428
        "That all Bills of the present Session to confirm Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under 'The Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888,' containing the Classification of Merchandise Traffic and the Schedule of Maximum Rates, Tolls, and Charges applicable thereto, be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons," as desired by this House."

    SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).
    SIR JOHN MOWBRAYreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Member from the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure:— Sir Walter Foster; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Burt.
    SIR JOHN MOWBRAYfurther reported from the Committee; That they had added to the Standing Committee on Law, and Courts of Justice, and Legal Procedure the following Fifteen Members, in respect of the Employers' Liability Bill:—Mr. William Allan, Mr. Baird, Mr. Gerald Balfour, Mr. Bousfield, Mr. Crean, Mr. Forwood, Sir John Gorst, Sir Edward Hill, Mr. Hingley, Mr. Hunter, Sir Thomas Lea, Mr. Shepherd Little, Mr. Walter M'Laren, Mr. Henry J. Wilson, and Mr. Woods.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    DUCHY OF CORNWALL BILL.—(No. 312.)
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clause 1.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    VEHICLES' LIGHTS BILL (No. 70.)
    Order for Second Reading read, and discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.
    Leave given to present another Bill instead thereof.

    PLACES OF WORSHIP (SITES) BILL. (No. 321.)
    As amended (by the Standing Committee), considered.
    A Clause (Minerals to remain property of vendor,)—(Mr. Griffith-Boscawen,)— brought up, and read the first and second time, and added.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.
    House adjourned at twenty minutes before One o'clock.

QUESTIONS.

  THE IRISH COUNTY MAGISTRACY.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland when he proposes to make his statement promised on the 1st May as to the whole system of the appointment of County Magistrates in Ireland, and the action which the Lord Chancellor will be prepared to take?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): The only statement which I think it useful to make is that the Lord Chancellor, acting on precedent set by some of his predecessors in Office, and confirmed by Resolution of this House of May 5, has prepared a list of additional Magistrates for counties without the recommendation of the Lieutenants of these counties. Some of these lists —including that affecting the county which the hon. Member represents—will be published in the course of a day or two.

  THE ANALYSIS OF STALE MILK.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board if his attention has been directed to the following paragraph in a letter addressed to Dr. Bell, the Principal of the Inland Revenue Laboratory, Somerset House, by the Society of Public Analysts, in September, 1892, and signed by 119 members of the Society, including nearly all the public analysts in the United Kingdom, in which they state that they have long observed with regret the practice of certifying, in a manner liable to be interpreted by the Court as definite, on samples of milk which have been kept for a considerable time, and which, therefore, when examined, must have been in such a condition as to preclude any trustworthy opinion being formed respecting their original composition; also that the formation of any reliable opinion is in a great many cases impossible under such circumstances owing to the very irregular character of the changes milk undergoes on keeping, and, therefore, express a hope that in future it will be clearly stated in all certificates that owing to decomposition it is impossible to obtain analytical results comparable in point of accuracy with those yielded by the milk when it was fresh; and whether there is any objection to directions being given to Dr. Bell to comply with this request, especially if the practice complained of has led in any instances to failure of justice?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): I have been in communication with the Board of Inland Revenue on the subject of the question, and I am informed that the statements contained in the paragraph cited must not be accepted as representing the facts connected with the analysis of milks referred to Somerset House by directions of the Magistrates. No analysis of a sample is undertaken if found in a condition which does not allow of a trustworthy opinion being formed respecting its original composition; and there are no valid grounds whatever for believing that any instances of failure of justice have arisen through the evidence contained in the certificates of analysis

  1531
  furnished to Magistrates under the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts by the chemical officers of the Board of Inland Revenue. In this connection it may be observed, with respect to the samples of milk referred by the Justices in disputed cases and analysed during the year ended March 31, 1893, that, of 26 alleged to contain added water, in only two instances did the Somerset House analysts come to the conclusion that no water had been added, and that, of 12 samples alleged to have been deficient in fat or cream, in only one instance were they of opinion that the fat was not deficient.

  HALF-PAY COLONELS.
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether Colonels in the Army on being placed on half-pay are at once informed if it is decided not to offer them further employment; and whether the absence of intimation to that effect indicates that they will be offered further employment?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL - BANNEBMAN,): It is optional with Colonels and Lieutenant-Colonels who have completed their period of regimental command to accept the retired pay to which they are entitled, or to go on half-pay on the Active List. If they accept the latter alternative they take their chance with others for employment as it offers. They are aware that their names are recorded for consideration, and in some instances it is intimated to them that their chances of employment are very remote.
  MR. PENROSE FITZGERALD: I should like to recall to the memory of the right hon. Gentleman words used in February, 1891, by his predecessor to this effect—
  "We all recognise the injustice of retaining such officers on half-pay unless, in the opinion of the Authorities, they have a reasonable prospect of obtaining employment. We think it right that they should be informed of what their prospects are."
  I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear those words in mind.
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I will consider the matter, but I may point out that the words "reasonable prospect" are somewhat elastic.
  SIR FREDERICK SEAGERHUNT: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether, with reference to his statement to the effect that the Government have thought it desirable to make some addition to the pay of Colonels on half-pay during their period of suspended animation, he is now in a position to inform the House what addition it has been decided to make; and whether the additional payment will take effect from the commencement of the present financial year or from a prior date?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is intended to increase the half-pay of the officers in question to £300 per annum. This increase could not take effect before April 1 of this year.

  OUTRAGES IN KERRY.
  MR. SMITH-BARRY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the house of a widow near Currans, County Kerry, was attacked by armed and disguised moonlighters on the loth ultimo, and several shots fired into the house; that the house of a farmer named Flynn, also near Currans, County Kerry, was attacked on the night of the 14th instant by armed and disguised moonlighters, and several shots fired into the house; and that on the night of the loth instant six cows, the property of Mr. McMahon, a farmer, of Castle Farm, near Currans, County Kerry (the place at which Curtin was murdered in 1886), were brutally stabbed and mutilated; whether any persons have been made amenable for these offences; and whether, having regard to the serious crime in the locality, any special steps will be taken to assist the law?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that the house of Mrs. Cronin, of Cragg, near Currans, was entered by an armed party of four or five men on the night of April 15, and that a revolver was pointed at her by one of the party; but no shot, was fired. Two arrests have been made in connection with this outrage, and the men so arrested are under remand in custody and will come up for trial at the next Quarter Sessions. The house of James Flyun, near Currans, was fired into on the night of the 13th instant by a party of three men, one of whom was armed, but none were disguised. Flynn

  1533
  has fully identified two of the party, both of whom have been arrested and remanded. The motive in this case possesses no agrarian element. With regard to the outrage on the cattle of Mr. McMahon, I pointed out, in reply to a question addressed to me yesterday by the hon. Member for South Tyrone, that three cows, not six, had been maliciously out on the 8th instant, and that the cuts were merely skin deep. No person has been made amenable for this last-mentioned offence, which is not agrarian in origin. It will thus be observed that of the throe outrages referred to in the question arrests have been made by the police in connection with two cases, and these the more serious. It is quite true that there has been an increase of moonlighting outrages within the area defined by me yesterday as comprehending small portions of Kerry, Limerick, and Cork. The authorities report that there is no cause for anxiety.
  MR. MACARTNEY: May I ask whether the accused men will be tried within the disturbed area?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I cannot say. The trials will take place at the place where they usually do.
  MR. SEXTON: What is the proportion of the disturbed area to that of the three counties within which it lays?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Of Kerry about one-fifth; of Cork much loss—probably one-eighth; and of Limerick about one-fifth.

  CIVIL SERVICE AGE LIMIT.
  MR. MACDONALD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if he will explain on what grounds the Lords of the Treasury have, in reply to a recent Memorial, removed the age limit to 50, which had previously been laid down as the maximum beyond which approval to nominations to promotion to the rank of abstractor or assistant clerk had been refused, and substituted a limit of 60 years?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The Treasury have altered the limit of age to 60 because, after consideration of representations that had been made to them, they came to the conclusion that the concession was reasonable.

  THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether the Government intend to take action on the Report of the Committee on Parliamentary Debates, with special reference to the recommendation that, respecting the proofs of speeches for a record of Parliamentary Proceedings, no corrections by the Members be allowed?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: It is not practicable, during the continuance of the contract for the present year, to alter the system of correction of speeches, for which the contract, provides. The whole subject will, of course, be carefully considered by the Treasury before a new contract is made.

  SOUTHAMPTON CUSTOMS LAUNCH.
  MR. TANKERVILLE CHAMBER-LAYNE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether a new launch for Her Majesty's Customs at Southampton has been ordered from a firm at Dartmouth; and, if so, whether tenders were invited and the Dartmouth tender was the lowest; and, if not, will he state why the usual custom was departed from, and why the order was not given to a Southampton firm, one of which wrote to the collector and offered to tender?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: My right hon. Friend asks me to answer this question. Tenders were invited, and the lowest, that of a firm at Dartmouth, was accepted.

  SUB-INSPECTORS UNDER THE RAILWAY REGULATION ACTS.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether any appointment of Sub-Inspectors to the Board under the Railway Regulation Acts has been made or will now be made; and whether in making such appointments those who have had practical experience of railway work will be selected?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): The desirability of appointing Sub-Inspectors of Railways has engaged my careful attention; but I am advised that the existing Railway Regulation Acts do not impose duties upon

  1535
  the Board which could be delegated to Sub-Inspectors. When the Railway Servants (Hours of Labour) Bill is placed upon the Statute Book I shall have to re-consider the question.
  *MR. CHANNING: Then do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that under the Railway Regulation Acts inquiries into accidents to individuals and servants of the Company might not be legally conducted by Sub-Inspectors?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am afraid that such inquiries cannot properly be delegated to Sub-Inspectors.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS WITH FOREIGN FIRMS.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether an order for upwards of £19,000 worth of armour-piercing shells has recently been given to a French firm over the head of any English tenderer; and having regard to the recent Report of the Labour Correspondent of the Board of Trade at Sheffield, that many men (in analogous branches of industry) have only done one turn a week since Christmas, and are in a most deplorable condition, if more attention will be paid in the further orders about to be placed to avoid spending the people's money out of the United Kingdom in the employment of foreign workmen?
  MAJOR RASCH: At the same time, may I ask the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether a, largo contract or order for steel shells has been placed with a foreign manufacturer?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Sir U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH,): This is a case in which public interests would have suffered by the adoption of any other course. The Admiralty have been anxious to employ English manufacturers; but a heavy loss would have been involved in accepting an English tender.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the date of the contract?
  SIR U. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH: I cannot say the exact date, but it is a recent one.

  THE MARKING OF FOREIGN MEAT.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Agriculture if the special attention of the Committee now considering the desirability of marking foreign meat to distinguish it from British will be drawn to the Report (Miscellaneous Series, No. 286) by Sir Francis Denys, Secretary of Legation at Copenhagen, recently laid on the Table, upon the successful marking by Government authority of all meat sold in that city, and of the advantages thereby accruing to both producers and consumers; and if the oral evidence and personal experience on the subject of that diplomatist will, if desired, be placed at the service of the Committee?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (Mr. H. GARDNER,): I have reason to know that the Chairman of the Committee to which the hon. Member refers is fully cognisant of the Report in question, and I have no doubt that the system of marking in force in Copenhagen will receive the attention of the Committee. If the Committee desire to obtain any further information on the subject, we shall be glad to do anything in our power to give effect to their wishes; but I understand that it would be contrary to precedent to call a Diplomatic Officer home to give evidence, and, of course, Sir Francis Denys is not himself an expert in regard to the matter.

  THE UNION JACK IN IRELAND.
  SIR THOMAS LEA: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Police Authorities of the City of Londonderry ordered the Union Jack flags to be taken down from the hotels of that city during the recent visit of Lord Salisbury on Friday last; and if this was done under the orders of the Government?
  MR. MACARTNEY: I will, at the same time, ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland by whoso authority was the order given to certain holders of licences in Londonderry to remove the Union Jack from their premises during the visit of Lord Salisbury; and on what grounds?
  *MR. J. E. ELLIS: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, may I inquire whether the late Government did not prosecute a licensed victualler for displaying a flag from his house; and whether the late Colonel King-Harman did not state in the last Parliament that the law would be enforced and prosecutions instituted in all such cases?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I believe the circumstances alluded to by my hon. Friend did take place, and that the answer to which he refers was given. In reply to the questions on the Paper, as they have given rise to some not wholly unnatural excitement and to a great deal of wholly unfounded comment, perhaps I may be allowed to answer at some length. The true story is this. On the 26th inst. Mr. Humphrey Babington, publican, of Derry, applied to the Magistrates at Petty Sessions for permission to put up flags on his licensed premises in honour of the visit of the Marquess of Salisbury. The Mayor referred Mr. Babington to the District Inspector of Constabulary, who drew the attention of the Magistrates to Section 8 of the 6 & 7 William IV., cap. 38, and stated he could give no directions in the matter, and that any person putting up flags should act on his own responsibility, as it was against the law. The matter then dropped. The same evening a sergeant of police saw a flag displayed from the Northern Hotel. He spoke to the proprietress, and told her it was wrong. He does not know what flag it was, except that it had a "red look." The same sergeant saw flags displayed from the Imperial Hotel on the same evening. He told the proprietor, Mr. Hagan, they were not legal, and the latter replied that as they were out he would leave them out. Up to this time the sergeant had only consulted the Head Constable, and no order had been given by any person in superior authority. Next day, the 27th, an acting sergeant on duty was directed by Mr. Doherty, a local Magistrate, to warn a publican named MacIlwaine to take down the flags which he had displayed on his licensed premises. The acting sergeant obeyed the Magistrate's order. The publican, however, would not take down the flags. This was the only interference by the police; they drew attention to no par-
  1538
  ticular flag, and merely stated it was illegal to display "flags" from licensed premises. I need hardly say that no order was ever issued by any Central Authority, and that it had no cognizance of these transactions until after they had taken place. Under the 9th section of the 6 & 7 William IV., cap. 38, a constable authorised by a Justice of the Peace or Chief Constable may enter into licensed premises
  "To remove and take away and destroy, if he shall think proper, any banners, flags, colours, symbols, emblems, or decorations hanging out or displayed from such premises."
  It is clear to my mind that the Union Jack is not one of the flags contemplated under this section as a flag proper to be destroyed. That and the previous sections of the Act would seem to be prohibitive of holding in licensed premises illegal assemblies or secret societies, or hanging out or displaying from such premises party flags, emblems, or banners. I think the words used by Colonel King-Harman wise words when he said that the law would continue to be enforced wherever and whenever the preservation of the peace demanded it.
  MR. MACARTNEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman inform the House what is the flag with regard to which a prosecution was instituted by Colonel King-Harman?
  MR. J. MORLEY: It was not the Union Jack. It was a piece of calico with the words "God save Ireland!" upon it.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to give notice that on an early day I will ask leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the section of the Act of William IV. referred to, or, at any rate, to refer it to the Statute Law Revision Committee.
  MR. MACARTNEY: And I beg to give notice that I shall oppose the introduction of such a Bill.

  TROOPS FOR BELFAST.
  SIR THOMAS LEA: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the 1st, Battalion of the King's Own Yorkshire Light Infantry has been sent from Guernsey to Belfast; and if this increases the troops in Belfast above the normal average?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: There will be no increase of the force at Belfast, The 1st Battalion King's Own Light Infantry has sailed for Belfast to relieve the 1st Battalion Lancashire Fusiliers, which is under orders for the Curragh.

  INVERNESS PRISON.
  MR. WILLIAM WHITELAW: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if any addition has been made to the cell accommodation in Inverness Prison since 31st March, 1892; if so, how great was the increase, and when was it made?
  THE SECRETARY FOB SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,): I have communicated with the Prison Commissioners for Scotland, who inform me that there has been no change in the cell accommodation at Inverness Prison since March, 1892.

  DOCKYARD WAGES.
  COLONEL LOYD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether an employé in Her Majesty's Dockyards who is in receipt of a pension for work done in some other branch of Her Majesty's Service, e.g., the police, cannot receive the maximum wage to which his present position would otherwise entitle him; and, if so, whether Her Majesty's Government will remedy the inequality which exists in these cases?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): The re-employment of Pensioned Civil Servants is governed by the Superannuation Act, 1834, and no Civil pension can be drawn by a re-employed man if his wages exceed his former pay; if re-employed upon a lower scale of pay, then only so much pension can be drawn, as will, together with his present pay, equal his former pay.
  COLONEL LOYD: I beg to give notice that I shall bring this matter forward on the Navy Estimates.

  THE ARMY AND HOME RULE.
  MR. P. J. O'BRIEN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been called to the paragraph in The Westminster Gazette of the 18th instant, as quoted from The Irish Catholic, in which it is stated that at the officers' mess at
  1540
  Aldershot of a regiment now quartered at the Camp, the toast of "The Queen and no Home Rule" was given a few nights since, and responded to by all the officers present; and, if so, having regard to the fact that the rank and file of the regiment in question is said to be largely composed of Irish Nationalists, the officers will be reprimanded for such conduct?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The general officer commanding at Aldershot reports that the only regiment there which could come within the conditions implied by the question is the Leinster Regiment. The officer commanding that regiment reports that, so far as it is concerned, the report is without foundation. I must add that we have no knowledge whatever of the political opinions of soldiers in any regiment.

  IRREGULAR EDUCATION GRANTS.
  MR. CHANNING: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education whether his attention has been called to certain irregular and illegal payments of the grants for small populations (Code, Articles 104 and 105) made during the year ended August, 1891 (Return No. 336, 1892), among which occur cases of grants paid on the population of an ecclesiastical or other district not being a school district as defined by the Education Acts, and grants paid to a school recognised as supplying more than one district, although the population of the combined districts is in excess of the statutory limit; and whether he will take any, and, if so, what, steps in order to prevent a recurrence of such payments?
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,): My attention has been called to certain cases in which irregularities have occurred in the payment of grants under Articles 104 and 105 of the Code. But for some months past special attention has been given to the conditions under which these grants are made, and means taken to prevent any irregularity in future, by requiring fuller particulars from the school authorities, and instructing Her Majesty's Inspector to satisfy himself as to the accuracy of their figures. Directions will also be given that the

  1541
  new Census Returns for parishes shall be carefully considered in connection with the small population grants.

  THE DISTRIBUTION OF PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
  MR. BARTLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the Orders of the Day sent to each Member each morning now amount to and even exceed one pound in weight, the whole House thereby receiving some six hundredweight of printed matter a-day; whether he is also aware that of this over 50 pages a-day sent to each Member, or about 35,000 foolscap printed pages sent to the whole House, are Amendments to the Government of Ireland Bill issued over and over again, thus rendering it almost impossible to find out which are now Amendments; and whether he can arrange that only new Amendments shall be issued daily, with a weekly edition of the whole Amendments, or some other arrangement, in order to save this large expenditure of printing and stationery and the inconvenience which the distribution of this great amount of printed matter involves on hon. Members?
  MR. LODER: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, may I suggest whether it would not be desirable to print the actual clause under discussion at the head of the Amendments?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The printing of the Notice Paper is under the control of the Speaker, who will, no doubt, consider the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman. As to the question of the hon. Member for North Islington, no doubt the weights of the Orders of the Day and the number of printed pages are as stated by my hon. Friend. In reply to the concluding paragraph of the hon. Member's question, it may be remarked that when a Bill does not stand for Committee upon the Notice Paper of the House for that day's Sitting, it is only-new Amendments to the Bill, of which notice has been given at the previous Sitting, which are printed and circulated with the morning delivery of the Notice Paper, but that whenever a Bill stands for Committee upon the Notice Paper, all the proposed Amendments to the Bill must be circulated in each morning's delivery of the Notice Paper,
  1542
  and that the cost of that circulation is only the cost of the paper on which the Amendments are printed.
  MR. LODER: Then if it is deemed necessary to issue all the Amendments each morning would it not be as well that the new Amendments should be printed in a different typo?
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I hope that the hon. Member who has just sat down will, in the interests of economy, use his influence to induce hon. Members near him to refrain from putting down so many Amendments to the Government of Ireland Bill.

  THE DUTCH OPERATIONS AGAINST THE ACHEENESE.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government have any information as to the progress, present aspect, and prospects of the war which has been carried on by the Dutch against the Acheenese during the last 20 years; whether, by the Treaty of Perpetual Defensive Alliance, of 22nd April, 1819, between Great Britain and Acheen, Great Britain undertook to defend the Acheenese from aggression: whether, under the rule of the Law of Nations, laid down by the Black Sea Conference of London on the 17th January, 1871, Great Britain is still bound by that Treaty, or whether she has ever been released from her obligation by Acheen; and whether Her Majesty's Government, taking into consideration the Treaty of 1819, will now either carry out the engagements of Great Britain under the Treaty, or will use its influence with the Government of Holland to bring about some accommodation whereby an end may be put to the war in Acheen?
  *THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): The latest Reports do not indicate any prospect of a cessation of the chronic state of warfare which has unfortunately existed for so long. A recent Ordinance issued by the Netherlands Indian Government has, however, partially relaxed the blockade of the coast of Acheen. It appears to have been held by successive Governments, at various times, that the provisions of the Treaty of 1819 had not been uninter-

  1543
  ruptedly observed on either side, and could no longer be said to be in force.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Cannot the hon. Baronet give me some answer to the last three paragraphs of my question?
  SIR E. GREY: The last lines of my answer fully cover those questions.

  "THE LABOUR GAZETTE."
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if he can state who is the proprietor of The Labour Gazette.
  *MR. MUNDELLA: The proprietorship of The Labour Gazette, like that of all other Government publications, is in the hands of the Government, and the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office is registered at Stationers Hall as the owner of the copyright?

  THE SLAUGHTER OF INJURED HORSES.
  MR. SAUNDERS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been called to a statement in The Daily News, of 29th May, of great suffering inflicted on a horse injured by a collision in Piccadilly, which, for over three hours, the police would not allow the owner to kill because the services of a licensed slaughterer could not be obtained; and will he take measures to prevent in future such delay?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): The accident has been brought under the notice of the Department. The statement that the police would not allow the owner to kill the horse until the licensed slaughterer had arrived is not correct. The general subject is now under consideration.

  THE REVENUE OF THE PROPOSED IRISH GOVERNMENT.
  MR. BRODRICK: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is now in a position to lay upon the Table the Revised Estimate of the Revenue of the Irish Government under the Government of Ireland Bill, and of the Irish Customs Receipts, promised by him on 27th April; and, if not, whether he will fix a date for giving this information to the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): I am unable to say when the Revised Estimates of the Revenue of the Irish Government under the Government of Ireland Bill will be laid upon the Table of the House, but I will try and get it ready as soon as possible.
  MR. BRODRICK: Seeing the important character of these figures, cannot the right hon. Gentleman fix any date when they will be ready?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: I am afraid I cannot. They shall be given as soon as possible.

  COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH SPAIN.
  MR. SCHWANN: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Representative at Madrid has been able to induce the Spanish Government to commence negotiations, with a view to establish a new Treaty of Commerce between Spain and England of a character favourable to the development of trade between the two nations?
  SIR E. GREYThe Spanish Government have not yet formulated their proposals, but Her Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid has come to London in order to confer with Her Majesty's Government on the subject.

  SCIENCE AND ART SCHOOLS UNDER HOME RULE.
  MR. WILLIAM KENNY: I beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education if he will state under what section of the Government of Ireland Bill provision is made in respect of Science and Art schools and Technical Education in Ireland?
  MR. ACLAND: The expenditure on Science and Art schools in Ireland will be one of the Civil charges of the Government in Ireland, which under Clause 12, Sub-section 2, of the Bill are to be borne after the appointed day by Ireland—in other words, the expenditure will be provided by the Irish Legislature out of the Irish Votes. Technical Instruction can be provided by Local Authorities in Ireland at the present time under the Technical Instruction Act, 1889.

  FLOATING GROG SHOPS IN THE NORTH SEA.
  SIR GEORGE BADEN-POWELL: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether the Government of the French Republic declined in 1892 to continue their concurrence in the North Sea Liquor Traffic Convention of 1887, because of their disagreement with us in regard to the occupation of Egypt; and, if so, whether he can indicate, and present to the House, any official Correspondence containing any such declaration on the part of the French Government?
  *MR. MUNDELLA: The French Government have never based their refusal to ratify the North Sea Liquor Traffic Convention of 1887 on the ground of a disagreement with this country with regard to the occupation of Egypt. On the contrary, they submitted the Convention to the Chamber of Deputies for confirmation. But the members of that Body appointed a Commission to report upon the question, and the Commission recommended the rejection of the Bill. The arguments they used were mainly directed against Great Britain, and they referred to an alleged opposition to French influence in Egypt. The hon. Member will find the reference at page 39 of the Correspondence recently presented.
  SIR G. BADEN-POWELL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is aware that the reference to Egypt to which he has just alluded is a reference to the affairs of Egypt before 1842?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I cannot say that.
  *MR. GIBSON BOWLES: Is it not a fact that the objection of the Commission to the Convention was based not on English intervention in Egypt, but on the idea that England would dominate the sea?
  [No answer was given.]
  MR. HENEAGE: I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has seen a report that two "coopers" are causing wholesale demoralisation among the North Sea Fishing Fleet; and whether this does not render it especially desirable that he should use his influence to secure that the Bill now before Parliament be passed through the House of Lords as soon as possible?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have seen a telegram to the effect stated, and I hope we shall be able to pass the Bill dealing with this subject through the House as promptly as possible, and put it into operation without delay.
  MR. GIBSON BOWLES: How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to deal with "coopers" sailing under the French flag?
  *MR. MUNDELLA: There never have been, and there are not any, and we have no reason to believe that there ever will be any, "coopers" under the French flag. When the question arises we shall know how to deal with it.

  THE CLOSURE.
  MR. HENEAGE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, with a view to securing harmonious action in the Committee on the Government of Ireland Bill, he will consider the advisability of using his influence in order that the conduct of the Bill may be left in the hands of a responsible Minister with regard to the Motion for Closure?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): I do not exactly gather the intention of the right hon. Member who has put this question, or what he intends to recommend: but I must say, as a substantial answer to it, that when the Government of Ireland Bill is in Committee responsible Ministers of the Crown who are present and taking part in the discussion upon all occasions when proposals of first-class importance or of serious interest are before the Committee on which the Government think it their duty to bring their minds to bear are prepared to make proposals for the Closure at a time when it appears to them that it is proper to do so. But I am bound to say that it would be impossible for the Government to take upon themselves to interfere with the general liberty of hon. Members in reference to the subject.
  DR. MACGREGOR: On a point of Order, Sir, may I ask whether the Rules of Procedure do not permit the humblest Representative of the people to move the Closure when he deems that the Rules of the House are being abused by flagrant obstruction of the Public Business?
  *MR. SPEAKER: According to the Standing Order, it is open to any hon. Member to move the Closure.

  THE LABOUR ARBITRATION BILL.
  SIR RICHARD TEMPLE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether he will set down the Labour Arbitration Bill at some hour before midnight, when after a moderate discussion the matters connected with this Bill can be determined?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am aware that a considerable number of hon. Members are interested in the passage of the Bill; but I am afraid that I cannot undertake to say at present that any arrangement can be made as suggested.

  HOW TO SAVE TIME.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, with the view of saving the time of the House at Question time, a Member, on being called upon by Mr. Speaker, may simply respond by giving the number of the question which stands in his name on the Paper instead of the usual introductory form of words?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: My opinion is that the humblest economies of time are not to be despised. That which the hon. Member suggests is one I should be glad to see adopted; but, at the same time, I do not think that the proposed innovation would be a good basis for the Government to work upon in amending the Standing Orders.

  THE PROPERTY QUALIFICATION UNDER HOME RULE.
  MR. SAUNDERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if he proposes to adhere to the property qualification, as stated in Clause 6 of the Bill for the Better Government of Ireland, for electors who vote at elections of the Legislative Council?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The question about qualification, and particularly the qualification proposed in the Bill for electors of the Council of the Second Chamber in Ireland, is one which the Government have put frankly before the House, and have laid open to discussion. They have never stated that in their view the matter was so stereotyped as not to be open to modification, after
  1548
  discussion in this House. I am not prepared to say more than that at present, because I think we ought to avail ourselves of any light which may be thrown upon the subject during the discussion which will take place upon it.

  THE BLOCKING OF BILLS.
  MR. J. E. ELLIS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience caused repeatedly recently by the objection after 12 o'clock of a single Member to particular business when the House is universally desirous of proceeding with it; and whether he will facilitate the adoption of some such alteration of Standing Order No. 1 as suggested by the Motion on to-day's Order Paper?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The proposal referred to is one of great importance, and I should be inclined to agree that some such alteration as that suggested is desirable. It is, however, a serious matter, as it is in the nature of a restriction of the liberty of action of hon. Members, and no steps ought to be taken without mature deliberation and consultation with the authorities.

  PLACES OF WORSHIP ENFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether the Places of Worship Enfranchisement Bill, which has precedence on Wednesday next under the Standing Orders, will be taken as the first Order on that day; and, if not, what facilities will be given to proceed with the remaining stages of the Bill. having regard to the statement made by him with reference to the Bill on the 30th March last?
  MR. BRODRICK: May I inquire whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that, owing to the action of the Chairman of the Standing Committee on this Bill, it has assumed a very controversial character; and whether he is aware that if the Bill wore proceeded with on Wednesday it would necessarily lead to prolonged discussion?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I have not heard that. In answer to the question of my hon. and learned Friend, I cannot hold out any hope that it will have precedence of the Government of Ireland Bill to-morrow.
  MR. S. EVANS: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that on March 30 he said that the "usual facilities" would be given to all Bills which had already passed the Committee stage; and whether this did not imply that the Places of Worship Enfranchisement Bill, which has passed through Committee, will have precedence to-morrow over the Government of Ireland Bill, which has not passed that stage?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I am unable to speak to the exact words which I used upon the occasion referred to; but I do not remember that I stated that the main business of the House would be set aside as in the case of the Eight Hours (Mines) Bill. Still, the hon. Member may rely on it that the Government are not at all disposed to lose sight of the importance of the Bill to which he refers.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister a question of which I have given him private notice—namely, whether he will be so very kind as to adjourn the Debate on the Government of Ireland Bill to-day a little before midnight, so as to allow time for a brief discussion on the Vote on Account?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: That is a very reasonable request, and we shall propose, about 11 o'clock, to report Progress.

  THE IRTSH RAILWAY ACCIDENT.
  SIR T. ESMONDE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade what arrangements have been made by the Board of Trade to inquire into the recent railway accident in Ireland?
  MR. MUNDELLA: As soon as I heard of this sad accident I telegraphed authorising a special inquiry which would involve an Assessor in addition to one of the Inspectors of the Board, and I desired that some Irish barrister should be appointed as Assessor. The result is that Major Marindin will represent the Board of Trade, and Mr. Adams, Q.C., will be his legal Assessor.

MOTION.

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE (DERBY DAY).
  *MR. BROOKFIELDsaid, he desired to move, "That the House, at its rising, do adjourn till Thursday, June 1." In so doing he was not actuated by any interested or personal considerations. He had put this Motion down at the request of some of his hon. Friends, and also on broad public and partly philanthropic grounds. When he first handed in the Motion he was informed that it ought to have come from the Prime Minister; and from 1860 to 1878 this duty was, in fact, discharged by the Leader of the House, from the Treasury Bench. He believed that it was a Liberal Prime Minister (Lord Palmerston) who started the practice, and that it was a Conservative Leader (Sir Stafford North cote) who first departed from it. In any case, he might be allowed to express the deep regret he felt that the Prime Minister's sense of duty did not permit him to-day to bring this proposal forward himself, and that his inclinations would not permit him to-morrow to avail himself of the leisure which he would thus secure. He was quite certain that however much the right hon. Gentleman might give offence to some of his sterner supporters, like the hon. Member who had given notice of an Amendment—which he understood was out of Order—he would certainly gain popularity among the masses of the country. It was not for him to offer any advice to hon. Gentlemen who chose to oppose the Motion; but he might suggest that they were under a misapprehension upon two important points. They were mistaken if they supposed that the British Democracy— Conservative, Liberal, Radical, or Irish Home Rule—were not passionately devoted to the national sport of horse-racing; and he thought they were labouring under a still greater mistake if they thought that their example of abstention from, of non-participation in, this particular race would have the smallest effect upon any man, woman, or child in the country. Hon. Members would recollect, perhaps, the words of the great essayist, who used once to sit upon the Bench opposite, about the attitude of the old Liberal Party, the Puritans, towards a much grosser and less

  1551
  defensible sport than horse-racing. "The Puritans," said Lord Macaulay, "hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators." That was, he submitted, a concise description of what they would be doing if they refused to adjourn for this great Democratic festival to-morrow. If they assumed a sour and fanatical posture towards this great event, the public would be entitled to say that they were not so much distressed about the injury that would be done to the morals of the people as at the notion of Members of the House being allowed to enjoy themselves with the people, and of sharing in their amusement. How often had hon. Members informed their constituents that the greatest pleasure they enjoyed was being in their company? What better opportunity could they have of proving that, for once in a way, they were in earnest than by venturing upon the Downs at Epsom to-morrow in company with the masses as well as the classes? He thought that, on a question of this sort, that House was more liable than any other body of men to assume an attitude that was open to the charge of being hypocritical. Who were they? Who were they that they should have the right to take up this very censorious and conceited attitude on the subject of horse-racing? He did not know that they had in that House as many owners of race-horses as were to be found in another place; but he believed they had a few, and that some of them occupied high places in the confidence of the Crown. And, if they were to gauge the real tastes of hon. Members of that House by humbler indications than the possession of race-horses, he would point to the fact that, not only within the gilded saloons of the Carlton Club, but also within the more chaste retirement of a rival establishment close by, there was maintained a thing called a Derby sweep, which, if it were publicly indulged in in an open space, would bring all the participators within the grasp of the law. He believed that the sincerity of Members of this House on the subject of gambling would best be proved to the world, not by resisting this Motion, but by empowering the Police Authorities occasionally to make what was called a betting raid upon the great establish-
  1552
  ments in Pall Mall, as well as upon some of the humbler institutions in other quarters of the town. But he could go a little further in proof of his contention that the)' had no right to take up this particular attitude on the question of the Adjournment for the Derby Day. He believed it was a melancholy truth that some amount of betting actually went on within the Avails of that House. The only case which he would venture to bring under the notice of the House was one which occurred not very long ago, when he saw just outside those doors, in the inner Lobby, a Member of the fraternity known as bookmakers, with his pocket book in his hand, plying his ordinary vocation. The matter was apparently such au everyday occurrence that nobody took any notice of it. Now he saw the bookmaker doing a little business, as he would have said, with au hon. Member of this House, and, strange to say, that hon. Member was not one of those thoughtless, stupid reactionaries—he was a Member of the Liberal Party, and now a distinguished Member of Her Majesty's Government. [Cries of "Oh!" and "Name!"] Hon. Members below the Gangway asked for the name of this Member of the Government. He could only tell them that if they thought he was saying anything that was unwarranted, or of a slanderous nature, the simplest course would be to consult the senior Law Officer of the Crown on the subject. There were a great number of considerations—[Interrupion.
  Dr. Macgregor rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put "; but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  Debate resumed.
  *MR. RROOKFIELD,*MR. RROOKFIELD, continuing, said, he wished that the Question might not only be put, but carried without any further delay. He had said that there were many other considerations which he could put before the House. He might remind hon. Members below the Gangway that it was an Irish Parliamentary Whip who used to undertake the duty of seconding this Motion. Now, by consenting to an Adjournment to-morrow, they would add a whole day to their political existence.

  1553
  But there was one argument which, he was sure, would secure a hushed respect from all quarters of the House. He had observed that sentimental arguments always had the greatest weight in that Assembly, and there was one sentimental argument which was invariably introduced into Motions for the Adjournment of the House, and that was consideration for the feelings of the officers of the House. Most of the officials of the House, he was informed, were very much interested in the event that was to take place to-morrow, and on their behalf he thought this proposal ought to be well received. Looking at the business view of this proposal, he would ask hon. Members what satisfaction did they derive from the experience of last year? Last year, for the first time for a great number of years, a similar Motion to the one be was now submitting was defeated by a majority of 14, and when the Speaker took the Chair at 12 o'clock on Derby Day he found 12 Members present. At 1 o'clock there were 19, at 4 o'clock there were only 35 hon. Gentlemen in attendance, and at five minutes past 4 the House adjourned without having transacted any business whatever. By assenting to the present Motion the House would give a most refreshing and conclusive answer to those accusations of hypocrisy which were so constantly and, he must say, so justly levelled against it, and would take a course which he fully believed would be at once wise and pleasant, at the same time expedient and popular. He begged to move the Motion.
  MAJOR RASCHsaid, as he moved this Resolution last year and seconded it the year before, possibly hon. Members would permit him to say half-a-dozen words on the subject in seconding the Motion now before the House. He ventured to appeal to right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite, and to ask them to consider whether, with bad seasons, swine fever, and wheat at 23s. a quarter, it would not be an act of common charity to allow hon. Members representing agricultural constituencies to go down to the Derby, possibly for the last time? He felt morally certain that in 12 months time
  1554
  many of them would not be in a sufficiently strong condition financially to pay for their return tickets, unless, of course, the Prime Minister brought within the region of practical politics his measure for paying them l5s. a day, with third-class return tickets. That measure might possibly put a different face on the situation. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that there was no plethora of capital in the agricultural districts, whatever might be the case in Ireland. It might possibly be a question of time, and Ministers might be unwilling to tear hon. Members from the contemplation of the great measure in which they all took such a warm interest, and in reference to which he saw that some misguided person had been commenting on and counting their Divisions, which he ventured to consider was a most reprehensible thing. But if the Government could not spare the time, surely with their solid majority of 40—which was occasionally a little more—they could, by suspending the Twelve o'Clock Rule for a fortnight, make up for the time that would be lost by adjourning to-morrow? he looked forward with the greatest interest to the speech of the hon. Member for the Rushcliffe Division (Mr. J. E. Ellis). Nobody who had sat opposite to the hon. Member could doubt his virtues; but because he was virtuous that was no reason why others should have no more cakes and ale. He did not know whether the noble Lord the Member for Ipswich (Lord Elcho) was in his place that afternoon. He believed that on these occasions the noble Lord usually made his annual visit to the House of Commons. He need not say how much they all admired his flexibility of adaptation; and if the noble Lord were present, considering he voted for the Resolution two years ago, and against the Resolution last year, he would ask him to consider whether, in the words of hon. Gentlemen opposite, he might not find salvation and please his constituents and those who supported this Motion by again turning his coat and voting with them on this occasion?
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, at its rising, do adjourn till Thursday 1st June."—(Mr. Brookfield.)
  *MR. J. E. ELLISin rising to oppose the Motion, said he should have regard to the fact that discussions on this question had generally been extremely brief. As mentioned in the Amendment he had placed on the Paper, this was a comparatively recent Motion. It was first made by Lord George Bentinck in 1847. It passed unopposed at that time largely from the circumstance that it came on unexpectedly. But in the following year it was only carried by a majority of 13. It was quite true that Lord Palmerston in 1860, as head of the Government, took up the Motion; but in 1878 Sir Stafford Northcote dropped it as a Government Motion on the very good good ground that it had become an opposed Motion, and that it was not fitting that the Government should use their authority and influence to pass a Motion which had then become opposed. Since that time the Motion had had uniform success in that House until last year. He noticed sitting below the Gangway the noble Lord the Member for Ipswich, and those of them who were in the last Parliament would have missed his advocacy of the Motion that day. When this Motion was made by the noble Lord, whose sparkling humour and perfect taste and tone compelled the admiration of those who dissented from him, it was successful; but directly the noble Lord joined with the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth in opposing it it was defeated. He did not stand there to oppose that Motion and then not be prepared to appear in the House at 12 o'clock on the following day. He took it that those who opposed the Motion on the present occasion bound themselves to attend in their places and make a House to-morrow. Speaking on this subject in 1848, Mr. John Bright said—
  "It was below the dignity of this House to make the fact of certain races being held within a few miles of the Metropolis a pretext for a holiday."
  That was the ground on which he now opposed the Motion. Coining there, as they did, with the earnest purpose of passing legislative measures which they believed were for the benefit of the nation, it was unworthy of them to set aside their whole proceedings because of a certain race meeting in the County of Surrey.
  CAPTAIN NORTONsaid, he rose for the purpose of supporting the Motion made by the hon. Member for Rye; but in doing so he was actuated by considerations very different from those which had influenced the Mover. That hon. Member had spoken on behalf of the aristocracy, but he ventured to speak for the democracy. Those lion. Members who, like himself, represented some portion of the large population of this great city dwelling South of the Thames were aware that throughout that wide area the Derby Day was looked upon almost in the light of a national holiday, and there were thousands of them who would as soon think of being absent from Epsom to-morrow as the Spanish workman would think of missing the first bull-fight of the season. The rough Radicals were not all cast in the same Puritanical mould. Many of them looked with a very lenient eye upon the foibles and follies of mankind, and even made allowance for those honourable aristocrats who felt that for one day out of the 365 they would be better employed at Epsom than in wandering, like dismal spirits, round the Division Lobbies of that House. The result of the Division on the Eight Hours for Miners Bill gave him great satisfaction. He was one of those who wished to see the hours of labour curtailed, not only for those who worked in mines, but also for the many who toiled upon the surface. But his deepest sympathy was reserved for those who passed the first portion of the day in dealing with a mass of Correspondence, and the second part of the day and all the night in dealing with an amount of Public Business fully sufficient to occupy two Legislative Assemblies, if not four, with the result that they were deprived of their fair share of Nature's great restorer. He hoped the hon. Baronet the Member for Cockermouth (Sir W. Lawson) would not think he was referring to fiery alcohol. He was alluding to balmy sleep, which when it did come to weary legislators came in a long series of night-mares. He supported the Motion.
  MR. MACFARLANEonly wished to observe that if any hon. Member would get up and declare on his honour that he had something new to say on the subject the House would, no doubt, listen to him; but, in the absence

  1557
  of any such declaration, he begged to move that the Question be now put.
  LORD STANLEYfor whom there had been calls), rose to continue the Debate—
  *MR. SPEAKER: The House seems desirous to hear the noble Lord.
  LORD STANLEYsaid, that the hon. Member (Mr. Macfarlane) asked if there was anybody who could get up and say anything new about this matter. It was not his intention to accept that challenge. To a certain extent he might claim to have an interest in this question that did not pertain to anybody else in the House—he might say it was almost a personal matter. He had read—and he agreed with it—that the best way to secure the holiday was not to take up a long time discussing it that day. He could address no fresh arguments to the House, and Heaven forbid that he should try to make a fresh joke! As to the noble Lord the Member for Ipswich (Lord Elcho), this occasion seemed in years past to have been a sort of jocular benefit for him. The year before last the noble Lord proposed the Adjournment for the holiday, and last year he opposed it; and in that respect the noble Lord seemed to have done within the year what some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen also had done — namely, changed their minds, and been able to sec and vote in diametrically opposite ways. The hon. Member who opposed this Motion seemed to him to put the whole case in a nutshell. He apparently looked upon the noble Lord the Member for Ipswich as a sort of standpoint by which the House should go, so that whatever way the noble Lord spoke and voted the House ought at once to follow [Cries of "Divide!"] He would not stand longer between the House and the noble Lord, and felt certain that if his noble Friend voted for the Motion they would be able to do what they had done in times past and carry the Adjournment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 169; Noes 281.—(Division List, No. 100.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  GOVERNMENT OF IRELAND BILL. (No. 209.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress, 17th May.]
  [NINTH NIGHT.]
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Legislative Authority.
  Clause 3 (Exceptions from powers of Irish Legislature).
  Question again proposed, "That Clause 3 be postponed."
  Debate resumed.
  *SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he rose to resume his speech in support of the proposal to postpone the consideration of Clause 3, and the postponement, if allowed to Clause 3, must extend to Clause A. In speaking to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Colchester (Captain Naylor-Leyland), it would be necessary for him to refer to other clauses than that which was now before them; but he would do so as briefly as he could, and he hoped he would not go beyond the bounds of Order in any remark he might make. The postponement of that clause would involve the postponement of Clause 4 also. The Prime Minister, he understood, agreed that the Amendment was not unreasonable.
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,)said, he did not agree.
  *SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, at all events the contention was that the Constitution of the new Legislature ought to be definitely settled before they dealt in detail with the powers to be entrusted to it. He admitted that such powers must be settled in the main before they came to the constitution. This had been done in Clauses 1 and 2. Now, however, they were corning' to particularities—that was, to restrictions. And even with those restrictions they learnt from the foregoing Debates that the new Legislature might, deal with many subjects not anticipated— such as divorce, female suffrage, currency, Merchant Shipping Laws, bills of ex-

  1559
  change, and an infinitude of other things. Hence the importance of Clauses 3 and 4. By the postponement of Clauses 3 and 4 the Committee would come at once to the consideration of Clauses 5, 6, 7, and 8. In Clause 5 they were face to face with the Executive power!; and if the Unionist Party knew what that power was to be, and were satisfied with regard to it, they would be less nervous about the exceptions and restrictions in Clauses 3 and 4, and they would be more willing to grant concessions. One would suppose, on reading Clause 5, that the functions and position of the Lord Lieutenant would remain as they were at present; that the whole Executive would be under the control of the Lord Lieutenant, and that he would be under the control of the Imperial Parliament; but the very opposite would appear to be the intention of the Government. That matter of doubt could only be settled after Clause o was discussed in Committee; and if it were decided that the Executive in Ireland remained under the supreme authority Clauses 3 and 4 would be less alarming. Again, with regard to Clause 6, which constituted the Irish Legislative Council, it was conceivable that they might succeed in inducing the House to create a Second Chamber such as was proposed by the Prime Minister in the Bill of 1886. If that were done there would not be the same alarm about Clauses 3 and 4. Then came Clause 8, dealing with the Irish Legislative Assembly, and it could hardly be supposed that that Assembly would be constituted otherwise than as appeared in the clause. Then followed the clause which proposed, in the event of a disagreement between the two Chambers, to place the Second Chamber entirely at the mercy of the first—to place the Irish Upper House under the heel of the Irish Lower House. If the Opposition succeeded in obtaining real power for the Second Chamber, such as the Second Chamber in this Parliament had, that would affect their opinion with regard to the whole Bill. Supposing these later clauses wore passed as they stood, the Second Chamber would practically be composed of the same class as the first, and would be subservient to it; and, consequently, measures for the abolition of rent and property in laud and for the expropriation of landlords might,
  1560
  conceivably, be passed, notwithstanding any exception in general terms dealing with these matters in Clauses 3 and 4. Under those circumstances, he and his hon. Friends would have to press for some amendment of those clauses, so as to take the land altogether out of the power of the new Irish Legislature, instead of for three years only, as was proposed by the Bill. And supposing that the Irish Assembly, free from all real control of any Second Chamber, and entirely consisting of the peasant interest, were to turn round and no longer acknowledge liability for the advances made to them by the British taxpayer for Land Purchase and other works of utility in Ireland, there would be no check on such proceedings except by the insertion of express words in Clauses 3 and 4. The Unionists were, therefore, anxious to pass at once to the consideration of the clauses dealing in detail with the Constitution of the new Irish Legislature before they proceeded to consider further its powers in detail. These were their arguments, and he hoped they would have the support of the House, which he thanked for the patience with which it had listened to him.
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEsaid, he did not think the Government had any ground for complaint with regard to the resumption of the Debate on the Amendment now before the Committee, because the Recess had given the Government an opportunity of making up their minds on questions of the highest importance still before the Committee. He was afraid they could not be certain that the Government had made up their minds on all points, because only that afternoon the Prime Minister had announced that his mind was completely open with regard to the franchise of the Upper Chamber. The Government might well be expected now to make some announcement with respect to the important subjects of finance and the retention of the Irish Members, for it was almost impossible to discuss Clauses 3 and 4 without knowing how these subjects were to be dealt with. The enormous number of questions that arose upon Clause 3 would be determined in a totally different manner, according to the decision to which the Government might come as to the inclusion or exclusion of the Irish Mem-

  1561
  bers. He knew it would not be in Order to go into many matters dealt with in the clauses; but he would refer to one of the most important sub-sections of Clause 3, Sub-section 7, excluding external trade from the cognisance of the Irish Parliament. How could they expect that the Irish Members would consent to cut themselves off from all discussion of trade outside Ireland, when, possibly, after Clause 9 had been dealt with, they might find themselves excluded from the Imperial Parliament? Then, again, with regard to the question of coinage, how could they possibly cut off that matter from the Irish Legislature if they had no representation in the Imperial Parliament? The same observation applied to trade marks, merchandise marks, patent rights, and copyright. These questions could not be excluded from the cognisance of the Irish Parliament unless Ireland retained her representation at Westminster in some form or another. And the Government might produce a great change of feeling on their own side of the House. Many hon. Members on the Ministerial side would think that if the Irish Members were to be admitted to the Imperial Parliament on all subjects there were many matters in regard to which the Imperial Parliament ought to retain the fullest control. There were a great number of Amendments on this clause proposing to increase the restrictions of the section which ought to be admitted even from the Gladstonian point of view if the Irish Members were to be admitted into the Imperial Parliament for all purposes. He failed to see how they could go into this clause before they knew the mind of the Government on that important question. There were Amendments on the Paper to include amongst the restrictions Factory Legislation, Merchant Shipping, Joint Stock Companies, Currency Banks, Internal as well as External Trade, Land Administration, and the Marriage Laws. He thought that all these things ought to be included amongst the exceptions in any case; but every fair-minded man, on whichever side of the House he sat, would agree that they should be included if the Irish Members were to be retained at Westminster on all subjects. He had dealt shortly with the bearing of the 9th clause on the Amendments before the Committee; but the Finance Clauses were
  1562
  in exactly the same position. The Committee did not know in the least what financial proposals the Government were going to place before the Committee except this—that they were going to be very different to what appeared on the face of the Bill, The uncertainty as to the Financial Clauses made it impossible to discuss Sub-section 7 of this clause. What would they know in regard to restrictions on trade by the Irish Legislature if they were not aware of the policy of Her Majesty's Government as to the financial portion of the Bill? It was grotesque to ask the Committee to determine the restrictions to he imposed upon the Irish Parliament if they did not know what powers the electors of Ireland were to have in the Imperial Parliament, and if they did not know the initial financial arrangements to be made between this country and Ireland. The Government had had 10 days or a fortnight to think all these difficult questions over. He had no doubt they had applied their minds to them. He invited the Chief Secretary for Ireland to make a clean breast of it—he would get on a great deal quicker if he would—and tell them what he proposed to do as to the retention of the Irish Members at Westminster and as to the financial part of the Bill.
  MR. MACARTNEYwished to call attention to the particular ground on which the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister refused to assent to the Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Member. The Prime Minister first of all made the statement that he had on his side the custom and precedent of Parliament in dealing with this matter. Well, he (Mr. Macartney) would show that, instead of the custom and precedent of Parliament being on the side of the Prime Minister, the arrangement of the clauses in this Bill was diametrically opposite to the course followed in the establishment of our Colonial Legislatures. The Prime Minister had gone on to say that it would not only be inconvenient, but absolutely anomalous, to assent to the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member. It seemed to him (Mr. Macartney), on the contrary, that it would be a much more convenient course for the Committee to pursue to discuss the matters contained in Clauses 3 and 4

  1563
  before the very important matters contained in Clauses 5 and 6 had been arranged to the full knowledge of the Committee. They knew, at the present moment, that there was nothing stereotyped in the 6th clause; they knew that the 9th clause was in a practically unsettled condition, and they knew that the Financial Clauses were to be postponed to the end of the measure; therefore, instead of its being inconvenient, it seemed to him that it would be convenient to the Committee if it had the proposals contained in the 5th, 6th, and 7th clauses settled before dealing with the 3rd clause, because those clauses were of the highest importance, bearing on what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster called the other day—
  "The large and solid guarantees to the minority against the abuse of either executive or legislative power by the Irish Government."
  The relation of those clauses to the rest of the Bill would throw the largest amount of light on the sincerity of the declarations that the Government had made with regard to Imperial supremacy and the protection of the minority in Ireland. The Prime Minister had said that the proposal was an anomalous one. Not only was it not anomalous, but, it actually proposed to deal with the present clause in the way in which similar clauses had always been dealt with by that House and Parliament, when constituting other Assemblies of the character of the one it was proposed to set up in Ireland. To take the earliest precedent of all— namely, the Act which granted a representative Constitution to New Zealand— he found that the 32ml section of that Act established the General Assembly, consisting of a Governor, a Legislative Council, and a House of Representatives, and that the next 20 sections, instead of dealing with the powers of that Assembly, dealt with the election or qualification of the Members who were to form the Legislative Council or the House of Representatives. It was not until the 53rd section was reached that any attempt was made to deal with the powers or restriction of the powers of the General Assembly. The same course was followed in the Act constituting the New South Wales Legislature and in the Act dealing with Victoria, and these precedents were observed in the most
  1564
  important measure of all—namely, the British North America Act. So that the precedents were all against the argument urged the other night by the Prime Minister. The course Parliament had already adopted amply justified the proposal now made, and the Prime Minister had given no adequate reason for refusing its adoption. The arguments used by the noble Lord who preceded him(Viscount Cranborne) and by the hon. Baronet the Member for Kingston (Sir Richard Temple) showed conclusively that the demand which was being made by the Unionist Members was a reasonable one, to which the Government, if they desired to meet the arguments of their opponents, ought to accede. He did not know whether, even at this moment, they could make any impression upon the hostility of the Prime Minister; but surely when the right hon. Gentleman found himself divested of the ground upon which he had based himself previously, he would see the reasonableness of meeting the wishes of those who supported the Amendment.
  *MR. H. S. FOSTERsaid, that the Government, during the past few days, had had an opportunity of reviewing their position. The Unionist Members contended that they ought to know how the Irish House was going to be constituted and what powers it ought to possess before they considered what restrictions should be placed on it when constituted. The Government had had pointed out to them, in a way which required an answer, that some of the restrictions proposed in Clause 3 would be unreasonable, or excessive, or insufficient, just in proportion as the Irish Members retained their full powers or unlimited powers only in the Imperial Parliament. Many of the subsections dealt with restrictions that it might be unreasonable, under certain circumstances, to impose on an Irish Parliament, and he understood from the speeches of the Irish Members that they already considered them unreasonable. They certainly would so consider them if those Members were only to have a limited power in the Imperial Parliament. The! clause under discussion certainly would not clothe the Irish Parliament with the dignity and powers of our Colonial Legislatures. If the Bill were passed with the proposed restrictions it would only

  1565
  constitute an additional source of irritation as between this country and the Irish Parliament; and surely it was grotesque to ask the Committee to enter on the consideration of the restrictions which were to he imposed upon the Irish Parliament before they knew what voice Ireland was to have in the Imperial Parliament. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had been invited to make a clean breast of it; but he (Mr. Foster) gathered from the way in which the right hon. Gentleman met the suggestion that the same policy was to be pursued after the Whitsuntide Recess as was pursued before. He was confirmed in that impression by the empty state of the Government Benches. All that the supporters of the Government were asked to do was not to meet argument by argument, but to give their silent "Votes, Votes, Votes"—which the Prime Minister stilted at an early period was the great duty of the Party that supported him—'
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I altogether decline to acknowledge that statement.
  *MR. H. S. FOSTERsaid, he was bound to accept the right hon. Gentleman's disclaimer. He could not contradict him, not having the quotation at his hand. The declaration was in the recollection of the House, and, at any rate, the right hon. Gentleman uttered the memorable words, "Vote, Vote, Vote."
  An hon. MEMBER: It was Churchill.
  *MR. H. S. FOSTER: The noble Lord the Member for South Paddington taunted the Members of the Government with their sense of duty being confined to "Vote, Vote, Vote," and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister accepted that challenge.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONEdissented.
  *MR. H. S. FOSTERsaid, that what he had been about to say was that it was true the Government, in voting down Amendments, might succeed in securing a Parliamentary victory, because they had the battallions behind them; but whether that was a proceeding which would commend itself to the judgment of the country was another matter. So far as the Opposition wore concerned, they would be perfectly content to see the Government continue what they considered their present suicidal policy. If they continued to vote down Amend-
  1566
  ments without taking part in discussion, or answering arguments reasonably brought forward, those arguments would go to the country, and the country would come to the conclusion that no answers had been given to them because there were no answers to give.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 240; Noes 273.—(Division List, No. 101.)
  *MR. H. S. FOSTERsaid, he desired to make a personal explanation to the Committee, and he, therefore, took the earliest opportunity of doing so. In supporting the Motion upon which the Committee had just divided, he had ventured to ([note a statement from the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in which he had advised his supporters to "Vote, Vote, Vote." The right hon. Gentleman had challenged the accuracy of his (Mr. Foster's) statement. He had had an opportunity during the Division, through the assistance of an hon. Member, of verifying the quotation, and he held in his hand a copy of Hansard for February 23, 1893, containing the Debate on the Welsh Suspensory Bill. In the course of that Debate the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) said—
  "Sir, to carry that Irish policy nothing must be spared; never such a trifle as the Established Church in Wales! Votes! Votes! Votes! That is the great cry of the right hon. Gentleman, and that is the political morality which he preaches. Votes at any cost; votes at any price."
  In reply to that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said—
  "It is impossible for me to traverse the wide field of the speech of the noble Lord; but this I will do—I will accept the challenge of the noble Lord, and I will say that the arts and resources of the present Government consist, in this — in bringing forward while in Office measures which they approved in Opposition, in endeavouring to redeem the pledges which they have given to the country; and while the noble Lord tries to play Welsh Disestablishment against Irish Home Rule and Irish Home Rule against Welsh Disestablishment, I tell him plainly that I am not ashamed either of the one or of the other proposition, and I am quite prepared to adopt, his monosyllabic exclamation, and to say Vote, Vote, Vote—Vote for both Welsh Disestablishment and for Home Rule."
  He (Mr. Foster) hoped he had made good the point he had stated.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It appears to me that the hon. Member has entirely failed to make good his ease. The hon. Member was speaking about Debates on the Irish Bill and on the Government having adopted a system of silence on that Bill, and in support of that he now goes off to another subject, when these words of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington were adopted in a totally different manner for a totally different purpose. When the noble Lord said that we were going to sacrifice everything for the Irish measure, I did answer that we would not flinch from the fulfilment of our English, Scotch, and Welsh pledges, and that in order to carry them out we were ready to say "Vote! Vote! Vote!"
  THE CHAIRMAN: The first two Amendments are as follows:—
  In Clause 3, page 1, line 19, leave out 'Legislature," and insert "Parliament."— (Mr. Parker Smith.)
  In Clause 3, page 1, line 19, leave out ''Legislature," and insert "Assembly."— (Mr. Heneage.)
  These are out of Order. The next Amendment, standing in the name of the hon. Member for East Somerset (Mr. H. Hobhouse), is—
  In Clause 3, page 1, line 10, after "Irish," insert "Government shall not (except so far as may be authorised by this Act) have power to do any executive act, and the Irish."
  That is out of Order on this clause, and ought to be moved on Clause 5. The first in Order stands in the name of the noble Lord the Member for West Edinburgh (Viscount Wolmer).
  MR. H. HOBHOUSE: On the point of Order—[Loud cries of "Order!"] I dare say, Sir, you will allow me to submit to you what I intended by my Amendment. [Cries of "Order!"] I wish to explain the object of my Amendment. [Continued cries of "Order!"] I do not wish in any way to anticipate Clause 5, which constitutes the Executive, but to deal with the excepted subjects as a whole, and put them entirely outside the purview of the Executive as well as of the Parliament. May I submit—[Cries of "Order!"
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is at liberty to move this on Clause 5; but I am clear that it is out of Order on this clause.
  MR. SEXTONrose to Order. He begged to submit that all the Amendments on the first page of the Notice Paper were out of Order. [Cries of "Order!"] He must state his reasons. [Cries of "Order!"] He wished to point out—[Cries of"Order!"]
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I rige to a point of Order. [Cries of "Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for North Kerry is in possession of the Committee.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLagain rose. [Loud cries of "Order!" and "Name!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for North Kerry rose to a point of Order.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Yes; but I am—[Interruption, and renewed cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that Clause 2, which the Committee had already passed, said—
  "With the exceptions and subject to the restrictions in this Act mentioned, there shall be granted to the Irish Legislature power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland in respect of matters exclusively relating to Ireland,"
  and so on. Clause 3 proceeded to say—
  "The Irish Legislature shall not have power to make laws in respect of the following matters or any of them;"
  and then recited the exceptions. he understood, therefore, that Clause 3 was limited to the question of power of the Irish Legislature to make laws, and that any exception to be introduced in the provision must be as to the making of laws. He submitted that the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for West Edinburgh, which related to the passing j of Resolutions and not to the making of laws, and the second Amendment, which related to Votes in Supply, and the various other Amendments on the page should be moved as new clauses, or as Amendments to Clause 5.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, the Chairman had distinctly ruled the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for West Edinburgh in Order.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have carefully considered the matter, and have come to the conclusion that the noble Lord's Amendments are in Order. It may be said to be part of the ordinary business of a Legislature to pass Resolutions of this kind.
  *VISCOUNT WOLMERsaid, he had to propose the insertion in the clause of the words "to discuss or pass Resolutions or to." He thought the Committee had a right to ask what was in the minds of the Government when they framed this clause. There was no reason why the Committee should be in any doubt in the matter whatever, as it was only necessary to refer to the speech of the Prime Minister to ascertain what that right hon. Gentleman had in view. Speaking in the House of Commons on the 13th February in the present year, the Prime Minister, referring to the power to be given to the Irish Legislature to
  "Make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Ireland, in respect of matters exclusively relating to Ireland, or to some part thereof,"
  said—
  "That power is subject to a double limitation, which I will describe. First of all it is subject to the necessary and obvious limitation that certain heads are reserved to Parliament— not reserved as given to Parliament, but reserved by way of excluding the new Irish Legislature from doing any act in relation to them."
  That this had always been the right hon. Gentleman's purpose was clear from the speech he made in introducing his Home Rule Bill in 1886. On the 8th April in that year he said—
  "I will now tell the House—and I would beg particular attention to this—what are the functions that we propose to withdraw from the cognisance of this Legislative Body."
  The right hon. Gentleman then proceeded to enumerate the exceptions which were to be found in this Bill. The purpose which the right hon. Gentleman indicated on both those occasions had not in any way been fulfilled in the drafting of this Bill. The governing word of this section was the word "law." The Irish Legislature were not to have power to make law. He submitted to the Committee that this was a far narrower definition, and covered a far narrower field, than that foreshadowed by the Prime Minister in either of the speeches he had just quoted. in one case the right hon. Gentleman
  1570
  said that these matters were to be withdrawn from the "cognisance" of the Irish Legislature, and in the other he said the Irish Legislature wore to be precluded from doing "any act" in relation to them. Laws were only part of the field which was embraced in the word "cognisance," and were only part of the "acts" referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. It was quite true that if the Bill became law in its present form the Irish Legislature would be precluded from passing laws; but it would not be precluded either from discussing and passing Resolutions on any one of the subjects enumerated in the clause. He asked the Committee to consider what a position affairs would assume if the Irish Legislature were to abuse the power it would certainly have of passing Resolutions on some of these subjects. He would, in the first instance, take the 1st sub-section, which dealt with regency. He was not going to indulge in any of those wild and unfounded prophecies which the Prime Minister had accused the Unionist Party of indulging in with respect to this Bill. He was going to deal with historical fact. It was well known that when there was a Parliament in Dublin it interfered with the question of regency. Under this Bill the Irish Legislature was to be precluded from passing any Act on the subject of regency; but what might be the position of affairs if, at a critical moment, the Party in power in the Imperial Parliament had certain views on the question of regency, and the Irish Parliament were to pass a Resolution expressing totally different views and in favour of an entirely different candidate? Although, happily, they had been free from such dangers in the past, was it not possible that they might arise in the future? The Lord Lieutenant was to occupy a double position under the Bill. He was, in the first place, to be the Queen's Representative in Ireland, and he was also to be the Minister of the Imperial Parliament for certain purposes which were specially reserved in the Bill. He was to have power to veto the Acts of the Irish Parliament, and he was also to have power—it might be in spite of the expostulations of the Irish Ministers —to order payments from the Irish Exchequer for the benefit of the Exchequer of the United Kingdom. He might also

  1571
  be considered as mainly responsible for seeing that the decisions of the Exchequer Judges and the Privy Council were carried out. The opponents of the Bill had maintained over and over again that the supremacy proposed by the Government was a sterile supremacy, because, whatever the paper guarantees might be, there would be no Executive force with which the Imperial Parliament could carry out its will against the Irish Government. The Home Secretary, in reply to this argument, had put forward as one of the safeguards of the Imperial supremacy the fact that all the officers of the Irish Executive Government would be bound to obey the orders of the Lord Lieutenant as representing the Imperial Government just as much as, if not more than, they would be bound to obey the orders of the Irish Executive. Now what would be the position of the Lord Lieutenant if he had to carry out the views of the Imperial Parliament contrary to the wishes of the Irish Government, and in the teeth of the general Nationalist opinion? He would have great difficulties to contend with. Would the Irish Executive support his orders? They might feel doubts and difficulties as to what they should do; but how long would they hesitate if the Irish Parliament passed a Resolution condemning the Lord Lieutenant for vetoing a Bill or for giving an order for payment from the Irish Exchequer to the Exchequer of the United Kingdom, or if they passed a Resolution censuring the Exchequer Judges or the Irish Privy Council for the tone of their decisions on points of Constitutional Law. As the Bill now stood, the Irish Legislature could do any one of these things, although the Prime Minister said he desired to withdraw these matters from its cognisance. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary what reliance the Lord Lieutenant could have in the officers of the Irish Government to carry out his orders if the Irish Legislature passed a Resolution condemning the Lord Lieutenant for giving those orders? Sub-section 2 forbade the Irish Legislature to make laws in respect of peace or war, or matters arising from a state of war. What effect would this Bill, if passed, have on I he position of this Empire in a great national struggle such as took place at the end of the last
  1572
  century? This surely was a point of paramount importance, not only to themselves, but to their descendants. Parliament in this matter was acting not on its own behalf, but as trustees for future generations; and yet this branch of the subject had not, he believed, been touched upon in these Debates by any supporter of the Bill. What would be the position of the Imperial Government if, in the middle of some critical war, the Irish Legislative Body were to pass Resolutions condemning the war and the policy which caused it, and demanding immediate peace, or expressing sympathy with the enemies of the Empire? There was nothing whatever in the Bill as it stood to prevent the Irish Legislature taking such a course. When the Prime Minister said that matters of peace and war were to be withdrawn from the cognisance of the Irish Legislature he never meant that that Body would be in a position to pass a Resolution of sympathy with our enemies. Had they no rights on this subject? It was a matter of public knowledge that in some of the wars that had occurred when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian was Prime Minister Irish Nationalist Members, both in their speeches and in their Press, had very freely expressed their sympathy with the enemy the right hon. Gentleman was attacking, and their condemnation of his policy in carrying on those wars. One Member of Parliament even plunged into poetry on the subject, belittling his own country, and praising and belauding her enemies. The Prime Minister and other right hon. Gentlemen who supported the Bill might say that those sentiments were expressed when the Irish Members were smarting under a sense of wrong. But how did the right hon. Gentleman know that Irish Members in the future would not think that they had reason for dissatisfaction with the new scheme; and, if so, why should they not use such means of extorting from the Government of this country further concessions? Again, on this subject we had had experience. When was Grattan's Parliament formed, and under what circumstances was it that it forced the Imperial Parliament to concede its demands? It was in exactly analogous circumstances to those which would obtain if this Home Rule Bill passed that the leading Mem-

  1573
  bers of the Irish Parliament desired to have a Parliament of greater independence, and they took the opportunity of a war and of foreign complications to demand better terms, and got them. Was it not almost certain that some Members would desire for their new Irish Parliament more independence and less restrictions, and when we were engaged in a war why should they not! again hold a pistol to our head and say— "Give us this concession, or we will pass a Resolution condemning the war and sympathising with your enemy?" If history was any guide or light, dangers which had occurred in the past must be foreseen and met; and how the Government, with their expressed desire to withdraw these subjects from the cognisance of the Irish Parliament, could be content with a barren and narrow enactment as to law, leaving the Irish Legislature free to pass such Resolutions at a critical time, the right hon. Gentleman had failed to explain. In Sub-section 3 the Irish Legislature were forbidden to make laws on the subject of Naval or Military Forces. But it was well known that there had been in Ireland a great Military Force—the Volunteers—which needed no law to call it into existence, and that Military Force; was the foundation-stone of Grattan's Parliament. No Act of the Irish Parliament was passed to create it, and no doubt a similar body without any legal status at all might, by a system of mutual co-operation and understanding, again come together. But by this Bill as it stood the Irish Parliament might pass a Resolution calling upon patriotic Irishmen voluntarily to baud themselves together and make | one of those Military Bodies which had had so great an effect on the history of Ireland, and which might enable the Irish Parliament created under this Bill to take up with greater effect that position in foreign politics which he had foreshadowed. Sub-section 4 forbade the making of laws in connection with Treaties and other relations with Foreign States. As the Bill stood, there was nothing whatever to prevent the Irish Legislature from sending an Envoy of its own to Washington or Paris without making any law whatever. The Irish Government could send an Envoy as its own separate Representative to any Foreign
  1574
  State at any time, and the Irish Legislature could vote money for that purpose. He need not enlarge on that point. That Envoy might take his place beside the Imperial Representative, and might put forward a scheme of policy different from that of the Representative of the Imperial Parliament, and use it as a lever to try to wring some further concession from us. What would be the position of this country in such a ease? Supposing we were passing through a critical stage in our history at the time, supposing complicated diplomatic negotiations were going on and the question of peace or war hung in the balance, would not the Foreign Minister of this country—the man on whom, perhaps, the fate of the Empire depended, and with whom rested the decision whether there should be peace or war—would he not be placed in a cruel position when he learnt that there was side by side with his Envoy an Envoy from the Irish Parliament having ulterior views of its own? There were two countries in particular with which the relations of this country were vast and complicated. Indeed, there was scarcely any part of the world in which the British Empire did not touch some French interest. We had, too, an enormous field of contact with the United States, and those were the very two countries of all others where the Irish Legislature would be most likely to send its Envoys. In the United States there was a large Irish vote. What would prevent the Irish vote in the United States, in the interest of the Party which it supported and the Irish Parliament in Dublin, for the objects of its own ambition, from using Parties in the British Empire and in the United States as a sort of battledore and shuttlecock for the promotion of their own purposes, and to extract from the Imperial Parliament those concessions which were the ambition of the Dublin Parliament? He had only touched upon the borders of a very large field which the Committee was bound to explore. It was a subject upon which not a single word had dropped from any supporter of this Bill. It was a subject on which the House had been left in complete ignorance; it was a matter of vital consequence, and yet the Leaders of the Gladstonian Party had never vouchsafed to the constituencies of the country a

  1575
  word to show how the Government meant to forestall those dangers. Then Subsection 6 said that the Irish Legislature should not make laws with regard to treason and treason-felony. There were historic words of the Prime Minister in introducing his first Home Rule Bill when he talked of laws coming to Ireland "in a foreign garb." Were there any laws which came to Ireland in a more foreign garb than the laws of treason and treason-felony; and would these laws assume a native aspect because they had been entirely withheld from the purview of the Irish Legislature? The whole Irish Party of both sections were united in condemning the use of these laws, and they asserted that the right hon. Gentleman himself had put men in gaol most unjustly under them, and kept them there. What would be the position of the officers of justice and the Ministers of this House if the Irish Parliament passed a Resolution of condemnation upon every conviction and imprisonment of an Irishman under the laws of treason-felony, prospective or retrospective? Lastly, he came to Subsection 7, which forbade the Irish Legislature from making laws in regard to trade with any place out of Ireland. Here, again, the governing word was "laws." The Prime Minister had told the country he desired to withdraw this subject from the cognisance of the Irish Parliament. Let the Committee consider once more what the position of the Foreign Secretary would be in his future commercial negotiations. England was the only country that had adopted a thoroughgoing Free Trade policy. Every other country almost was endeavouring to raise higher and higher a Protectionist barrier against her. What would be the position of an English Minister if, while he was trying to negotiate from a Free Trade point of view, the Irish Legislature passed Resolutions in favour of a Protectionist policy? For it was notorious to the Committee that the sympathies of the Irish Nationalist Members in matters of fiscal policy were on the side of Protection. The late Mr. Parnell openly avowed the fact. He expressed the hope that Ireland might yet be benefited by the adoption of a Protectionist policy, and all those who were once his followers were generally supposed to hold the same views. Was
  1576
  it to be supposed that the Irish Nationalists would not give vent to those views when the time and opportunity came? Thus the two Parliaments might be promulgating directly opposite principles, and thus any English Foreign Minister would find it a very difficult task to negotiate any Commercial Treaty of a Free Trade character with another Power. He had drawn attention to some of the dangers which were involved in this clause of the Bill—dangers which the Prime Minister and the Government evidently intended to meet. But he maintained that the clause did not carry out the avowed intentions of the Government as explained by the Prime Minister. If the Government did not accept the Amendment, or insert in the clause words to the same effect, it must be assumed either that the Prime Minister, in his statement in introducing the Bill, went beyond what his real meaning was, and thus gave the country a wholly erroneous impression, or that the point must have escaped the observation of the Government, and the words used by the Premier went further than their policy was intended to go. Either the Government meant to withdraw the subjects he had referred to from the cognisance of the Irish Legislature or they did not. If they meant that that Body should have the power to pass Resolutions condemning the foreign policy of the Empire, censuring the Lord Lieutenant, dictating what the fiscal policy of the Empire should be, and in favour of establishing Military Forces in Ireland, now was the time for them to tear off the mask and let the country know. If they did not mean this, then he could only say they had failed in the Bill to carry out their intentions, and that it would be necessary for them to insert effective words enabling them to do so.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 19, after the word "to," to insert the words "discuss or pass Resolutions, or to."—(Viscount Wolmer.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I confess that the Amendment appears to me to be one of great importance, and I should have desired to discuss the question apart from those Party differences which under-

  1577
  lay the consideration of the Bill, and in a temperate spirit, looking straight at the real difficulties of the case—the prohibition of any proposed Irish Legislature discussing certain subjects. It must not be supposed that the prohibition is merely against the passing of Resolutions, it is a prohibition against discussion, requiring the Irish Legislature to maintain absolute silence on certain subjects. I will endeavour to discuss the question with that dryness which ought to be observed in handling questions of a delicate and serious nature. Let us consider the meaning of these words. I am unable to agree with the noble Lord that the question is to be ruled by previous expressions and previous proceedings in this House. We are speaking of a Legislative Body, and in expressing the intention to withdraw certain subjects from the cognisance of that Body, necessarily I meant, in relation to the subject, legislative cognisance. I am reminded that I used the phrase, "do not act," and undoubtedly in using those words I had in view legislative action, no act having force beyond itself, no act of a binding character. If it had been my intention to say that the Parliament of Ireland should not be allowed to discuss particular subjects, it would have been my absolute duty, in justice to the House at. large, and especially to the Representatives of Ireland, to let them know that there were certain subjects on which the mouths of the Members of that Parliament must not be opened. The noble Lord has gone through a number of instances, and here I could not but remark the bias with which he approached the subject. He spoke of the great and serious danger of the interference of the Irish Legislature with matters of foreign policy. I accept the justice of the description of such interference as serious; but what interference could there be? The noble Lord spoke of the sending of an Envoy abroad; but that is what the Irish Legislature will not be able to do. Money cannot be voted and paid in any civilised country that I know of without an Act of Parliament. There must be an Irish Act to sanction the payment of every farthing. Suppose the Irish Parliament were impassioned for evil and animated by all those unworthy and hostile motives which have been
  1578
  attributed to it—suppose the Members of that Parliament wore incapable of using rational powers in a rational manner for rational purposes, which is the assumption of some critics of the Bill—otherwise why should it be supposed that the Irish Legislature, appointed for domestic purposes, would send Ambassadors to a Foreign Power? The Irish Legislature would have no power to pay such an Ambassador, or to accredit such a Representative to a Foreign Court, and he could not be received at a Foreign Court without being accredited. I fully admit that if the Irish Legislature were animated by this astounding spirit which is attributed to it—if it were so impassioned for evil as seems to be sometimes assumed, it would lead to much inconvenience. We have heard of paper supremacy, and of supremacy which, though declared, must be of no value. In my opinion, no course would be more unwise for the Committee to adopt than to make it declaration of power without having adequate means to support it. That you have never done. I would ask the noble Lord whether it is wise, not for the sake of the Irish Legislature, but for our own sake, to make prohibitions which we supply no means of enforcing? This we have never done. If hon. Gentlemen opposite can show any instances in which it has been done, I will be prepared to discuss them. The noble Lord has not shown any means of enforcing the prohibitions which he proposes. I would like to put it this way:—What would be the position of this House if the prohibitions which we are now asked to impose were disregarded? Those prohibitions might be flourished in the face of this Parliament, and might be disregarded by the Irish Parliament. This House would have no means of enforcing them. It would be out of the power of this House to interfere. But this is not the whole objection. There is a still wider one. I am not now opposing the prohibition on the merits. I would have no sympathy with the Irish Legislature if it should proceed to perform acts which were manifestly inconsistent with the Act of Parliament; and I would say— "If you can stop such acts without inconvenience, stop them." The difficulty which I feel, however, is that they could not stop them; and, what is more important, we might, in the attempt to stop

  1579
  them, be stopping that which we ought not to stop, and which we would have no Executive means of stopping. My first proposition is that such prohibitions could have no executory or operative means. The effect of passing an Amendment of this kind would be to place Parliament in a false position, and to expose its dignity to disparagement. I now come to another question which I consider of still greater importance. I do not know whether it is what the lawyers call inter apices; but what I want to know is — Are you prepared to adopt as a principle that when you appoint a Legislative Body you should inhibit that Body, as a proper portion of their arrangement with it, from doing anything except legislating? That is a thing which, in my opinion, you cannot do. I think that every hon. Member should consider this question in some such terms as I have propounded. Take the case of Canada. Would it have been desirable to prohibit the Canadian Parliament from doing anything save legislating? If you had done so and the Parliament wished to pass a Resolution, as it did pass one on Irish Home Rule, could you have enforced your authority? This subject led me to request my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy (Mr. Bryce) to go and consult a book which I had made certain would be in the Library of the House, where the selections are, I may say in general, admirably made. The book I wanted to consult was The Life of Lord Sherbrooke—a most interesting book it is—in the first volume of which it is stated that the Legislative Council of New South Wales petitioned this House with regard to a matter of law—not in New South Wales, but in Great Britain. They petitioned this Parliament to allow Australian corn to be admitted on the same grounds that Canadian corn had been admitted. Is this Committee prepared to say that the Irish Legislature should be prevented from petitioning Parliament or the Crown upon any and all subjects which were excepted from its competency? Is the noble Lord prepared to prohibit the Irish Legislature from petitioning the Crown, for example, against the continuance of a war which the Irish Legislature might consider to be burdensome and unjust?
  *VISCOUNT WOLMER: I thought the Irish Members were to continue to
  1580
  sit in this House for the very purpose of expressing their views on these subjects.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I had hoped the noble Lord would have given me an answer, not an argument; but I presume the noble Lord does mean to prevent the Irish people from petitioning, on the ground that they are legislatively represented in this House. How far is that principle to carry? Is the noble Lord prepared to prohibit petitioning wherever there are Legislative Representatives? What, then, would be the state of the case? In one hall in Dublin there would sit the Municipal Corporation, with very limited and purely local powers; while in another hall in Dublin would sit a subordinate, but still a legislative, Assembly. The Municipal Corporation might petition Parliament and the Crown upon any and every subject: but the same power of petition would be denied to the Legislative Assembly. I do not wish to lay down any wide and sweeping proposition; but I am inclined to say that you could hardly show mo a case, whatever subject or persons it affects, in which I am prepared to give the slightest countenance, or to assume the smallest participation in any limitation of the right of petition. Will the noble Lord and his friends say that a Resolution is one thing and a Petition another? Have they examined the law of Parliament on the subject? The inexorable rule of Parliament is against the noble Lord. (Turning to Mr. Bryce, Chancellor of the Duchy)—Would you just read the passage for me, please?
  MR. BRYCE(reading from Sir Erskine May's book on Parliamentary Practice)—
  "Every question when agreed to assumes the form either of an Order or a Resolution of the House. By its Orders the House directs its Committees, its Members, its Officers, the order of its own proceedings, and the acts of all persons whom they concern; by its Resolutions, the House declares its own opinions and purposes."
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Thank you, Sir. Now, the question is — Do you mean to stop petitioning or not? That is a serious question. The Amendment of the noble Lord is perfectly clear, because you cannot petition without discussion, and the noble Lord would prohibit discussion. I hope I have argued the question fairly. I have not said anything impugning the character of the

  1581
  Amendment as one otherwise than quite worthy of discussion. I have not said that the prohibition of an abuse is an illegitimate purpose. Every abuse of power that can be prevented ought to be prevented; but I am not prepared to say that, while the mouth of every Local Authority in Ireland should be open, the mouth of the Legislative Body in that country should be closed. I need only add we are opposed to the proposition.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The right hon. Gentleman began his reply to the speech of the noble Lord by expressing the hope that this discussion—which must be important, and which can hardly be brief—should be conducted with dryness. I do not know whether, by that remark, the right hon. Gentleman intended to convey any implied censure upon the way in which the noble Lord presented his case; but I have seldom heard a speech in Committee in which there was more argument, and which was more admirably adapted to the occasion. Though the right hon. Gentleman, in the dry arguments he has laid before the Committee, has made quite clear the nature of his own objections to this proposition, he has not met, and has not attempted to meet, the arguments of the noble Lord. To not one of the noble Lord's arguments did the right hon. Gentleman reply, except the one connected with the sending of a Representative by the Irish Legislature to some Foreign Court, and of that he disposed by saying it would be impossible for the Irish Legislature to pay such a Representative, and, as they could not pay him, they would not send him.
  MR. W.E. GLADSTONE: He could not be received without credentials.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that he was once a Member of a Government which did send to a Foreign Power a Representative who was never paid out of the Votes of the House; and what was open to the right hon. Gentleman to do without the consent and without payment by the House would evidently be still more open to the Irish Legislative Body to do, because they could do it in a more open manner than suited the policy of the right hon. Gentleman when he sent Mr. Errington to Rome. The right hon. Gentleman went on to speak of a paper supremacy. This is a paper safeguard—
  1582
  "You have always objected to paper safeguards." He added, "How can you be so inconsistent as to suggest a safeguard which you yourselves must admit could not be effectively enforced by this House? "If this is to be a possible Bill, the Government has told us over and over again that it involves a contract between the Irish people and the English people, between the Irish Legislature and the British Legislature. Is the right hon. Gentleman now going to tell the House that if we make a contract with the Irish Legislature that contract is to be absolutely worthless because it cannot be enforced? By that one argument the right hon. Gentleman has demolished the whole fabric by which he endeavours to support his Bill. We now know from his own lips, and on his own authority, what value he attaches to these contracts between the British Parliament and the Irish Legislature. True it is that, if the Amendment is carried, it will certainly not effectively and completely restrain the powers for mischief which must necessarily be given to any new Legislature created in Ireland; but it will do something towards correcting that mischief. The right hon. Gentleman got hold of some precedent of what happened in New South Wales; but there is no parallel between the Colonial case and the Irish case. My noble Friend has taken a list of subjects on which the Government propose that the Irish Legislature should legislate, and the Government says—"As they may legislate about them, they may deal with them." Is there any similar list of prohibitions in the Colonial Acts? Is there any analogy between the Colonies and the case of Ireland? If there is such a list of similar prohibitions then they would be logical in their contention; but until there is such a list how can they bring forward the Constitution of the Colonies as an argument on which to base their action as to the list of prohibitions they introduce into the Bill? Is it not evident that the case of the Colonies and the case of Ireland are so widely different that to argue from one to the other is really wholly illusory? Then the right hon. Gentleman said— and that is the argument that appears to him conclusive against the Amendment— "Would you prohibit the Irish Parliament from petitioning the English Parliament?" Before I answer that ques-

  1583
  tion directly I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, another question—Are you going to keep the Irish Members in the House of Commons, or are you not?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the 9th clause, which it is our intention to propose, and to do our best to induce the House to adopt.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I confess I have never heard a more explicit statement from the right hon. Gentleman at any previous stage of our Debates. We now have it from him that the Government not only mean to propose the 9th clause, but to do their best to induce the House to accept it. These words are now on record. I am sure if they had been put on record some weeks ago a good deal of Debate would have been avoided.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: They were put on record by me in introducing the Bill, when I stated our distinct intention to propose the retention of the Irish Members in deference to what we believe to be the wishes of the House.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: The distinct intention of the right hon. Gentleman in introducing the Bill seemed to be so worn away by the subsequent utterances of his Colleagues, and I must add of himself, in reference to the Amendment spoken to by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), that I confess I had not understood it was the intention of the Government to do their best to pass the clause in its present shape.
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I said to pass the clause which retained the Irish Members.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I admit that is what the right hon. Gentleman said; but I think I was justified in interpreting that as meaning the clause in its present shape, because the right hon. Gentleman, if he refers to his speech in introducing the Bill, will see that the only method of retaining the Irish Members other than that contained in the clause was one which he deliberately rejected when he introduced the Bill. But it is only necessary for my argument to know that the right hon. Gentleman means to do his best to retain the Irish Members; and if they are retained I do not see what function in the way of petitioning the Irish
  1584
  Parliament need have at all. The proper organ of the Irish people in Imperial matters will be their Representatives returned to this House as representing Ireland, and there is no conceivable reason why the liberty of petitioning should be left to the Irish Legislature with regard to the list of prohibited matters. Therefore, by the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman that he means to retain the Irish Members, it appears to me he has finally disposed of the one argument which he appeared to think unanswerable. If the right hon. Gentleman's arguments against the Amendment appeared to be singularly weak and almost self-destructive, the strongest argument in its favour was to be drawn from the right hon. Gentleman's silence. He had to admit—and his silence was a most eloquent admission—that the noble Lord had not gone beyond the bounds of truth when he pointed out what injury might be done, not to Ireland alone, but to the whole Empire, by giving this power to the Irish Legislature. [Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE dissented.] If the right hon. Gentleman did not admit the argument he did not reply to it. Has he an answer which he has withheld? If the right hon. Gentleman has, I hope he will communicate it to some of the eloquent gentlemen who sit around him, and that at some later stage we may hear the un-uttered part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. For the present I am content to assume that, as the right hon. Gentleman has left nine-tenths of the noble Lord's speech unanswered, an answer did not occur to him at the moment. If that be so, is it not obvious that in every matter of internal administration and of external policy, in time of peace and in time of Avar, if there were any cause of difference between the Irish nation and the English nation, between the Irish Legislature and the British Legislature, we should, if we left the Irish Legislature with full powers of passing Resolutions, put into their hands a weapon which they would not be slow to use, and which, if used, would shatter the unity and organisation of the whole fabric of your Government? The right hon. Gentleman must know well enough— for no lesson stands out more clearly upon the face of political history—that the possession of an organised and admitted mouthpiece of public opinion, or

  1585
  of any form of opinion, adds enormously to the value and weight and strength of that opinion; and if it should so turn out that in any great crisis of our national history the minority of the citizens of the United Kingdom who live in Ireland should not agree with the majority of those citizens who live in Great Britain, then you put it in the power of that minority to thwart the Imperial policy of this country, perhaps at a most critical moment of its history, and, by doing so, increase ten-thousand-fold the dangers of this most dangerous measure.
  *MR. DUNBAR BARTONwas surprised that no Member had risen on the Government side to reply to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister had admitted that this was a most important Amendment, which ought to be considered and discussed; but that opinion did not seem to be shared by the Party of the right hon. Gentleman, for not one of its Members had risen to take part in the discussion. The Prime Minister had given four reasons why this Amendment should not be accepted. In the first place, he laid stress upon the point that if this Amendment was accepted the Irish Legislature would not be able to petition this Parliament. It seemed to him that that was a most extraordinary confusion, and that no such argument could be sustained. Every Member knew the difference between a Resolution of that House and a Petition to that House. Every Member of the Irish Legislature would still be able to petition the House of Commons; all its Members could join in signing any Petition; but what he understood his noble Friend to mean by his Amendment was that when that House took certain subjects away from the Irish Legislature it desired that that Legislature should not indulge in impotent discussions on those subjects. The intention of this Statute was that the Irish Legislature should not legislate upon the matters mentioned in Section 3, and what he understood was the Prime Minister's view was that with reference to other subjects the Irish Legislature could legislate, but with reference to these subjects it should be a Debating Society, and that these excepted subjects might be proper matters for discussion by a
  1586
  Debating Society in Dublin, although they might not be matters of actual legislation by that Body. It seemed to him that the first argument of the Prime Minister about Petitions fell completely to the ground. Every man in Ireland, including the Members of the Irish Legislature, would be able to petition the House as now. All the people would be able to bring their grievances before the House as at present, and all the Amendment sought to do was to provide that the Irish Legislature should not be permitted to render the subject of fruitless discussions matters which were by this Statute removed from their jurisdiction. Another argument of the Prime Minister was that this Amendment would be impossible of enforcement. That, again, he contended, was an argument that could not be supported. If anything in the Bill would be enforceable, the Amendment would be no less enforceable. There were certain Resolutions in that House which were irregular, but the Speaker did not put them from the Chair: and just it as was within the jurisdiction of the Speaker in that House not to put such a Resolution, so it would be the duty of the Speaker of the Irish Legislature not to put a Resolution which was within these excepted subjects. Again, that House could not make an Address relating to a pending Bill, and it was no more a slight to the Irish Legislature or unenforcable to say they should not pass a Resolution with reference to these excepted subjects than it was to say that that House should be prevented by Orders and Rules from making an Address and passing Resolutions on certain subjects; and if that House could not pass Addresses and Resolutions on certain subjects, and if the Speaker could refuse to put them if brought before the House, could it be any indignity to the Irish Legislature to tell them there were certain subjects on which they should not move Resolutions or pass Addresses; and if there were such subjects, what better subjects could they be than those which that House said they were not to deal with? The third argument of the Prime Minister was that if this Amendment were adopted it would interfere with the freedom of discussion. But what did that 3rd clause do? It

  1587
  interfered with the freedom of legislation; and if they interfered with the freedom of legislation on certain points, why should they not interfere with discussion on these points? Public meetings could be held in Ireland just as before on those questions, but they would, in effect, say to the Irish Legislature, "We prohibit you from freedom of legislation in reference to these particular matters, and we do not think it unwise or unnecessary to add that we prohibit you from freedom of discussion on these particular matters." Therefore, instead of there being any interference with freedom and liberty of discussion, it came to this: that the limitation of the freedom of discussion in reference to certain matters was the natural corollary, and ought to be the sequence, of the prohibition with reference to legislation. The fourth point of the Prime Minister with reference to this matter of resolution was that it was not an act. He had said he would prevent the Irish Legislature from doing acts with reference to these matters, but he said that did not cover the question of Resolutions. But the right hon. Gentleman and his Government had taught that House that Resolutions were serious matters, and were to be treated seriously, because, as he understood, the principle laid down by him and his Party—was that when that House passed a Resolution the Government ought to take some opportunity of giving effect to it. Were they, then, to understand this: that while a Resolution of that House was to be treated as a matter of importance to which the Government would give effect if it could, the Irish Parliament was to pass Resolutions with reference to naval and military matters and Treaties, which were to be of no importance, or disregarded? If, however, they were to be of importance, then the argument of the Prime Minister fell to the ground, because he would be permitting important and serious matters to be taken up by the Irish Legislature—only one degree less in importance than legislation. But there was a still more serious argument in favour of this Amendment. The history of Grattan's Parliament would teach the right hon. Gentleman that Resolutions had in that Assembly been a greater source of danger to Imperial interests than legislation. The Regency (one of the matters excepted by this
  1588
  clause from the legislative powers of the Irish Legislature) was actually the subject of dispute between the Imperial Parliament and the Irish Parliament during the time of Grattan's Parliament in 1789. The Irish Parliament at that time asserted the right of differing from the Imperial Parliament on the question of appointing a Regent during the mental incapacity of George the Third. Accordingly the Irish Parliament proceeded to invest the Regent with powers differing altogether from those granted by the British Parliament, and they asserted that right not by Bill or legislation. On the contrary, Mr. Grattan said he would not proceed by Bill with reference to the matter. He well knew that if he had done so he would have had to get the Great Seal of England to an Irish Bill—even in Grattan's Parliament; therefore, he did the very thing which the Irish Legislature would do if they wanted to make themselves disagreeable to the Imperial Parliament—and proceeded by Address, which, as Sir Erskine May points out, is a particular kind of Resolution. If, therefore, they wore to take lessons from history, they would not for a moment admit that there was no danger in Resolutions, because it was on account of this very power of passing Resolutions that a great danger occurred in the last century, under Grattan's Parliament, with reference to one of these very excepted subjects—namely, the Regency. These were matters which called for some reply from Members of the Government, and he appealed to the Chancellor of the Duchy, or some of his Colleagues, to make some reply to the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. They were setting up in Ireland a subordinate Parliament, and they found that in Grattan's Parliament the power of passing Resolutions was a great danger, which nearly brought the two countries into collision, and which did bring the two Parliaments into collision; that the point which caused this danger was the subject of the Regency, which was one of the matters excepted in this very clause; and how, therefore, could it be contended that there was not likely to be any danger in reference to Resolutions as to the Regency and other matters of that sort? The House ought to pause before it incurred the danger which history showed confronted the

  1589
  Imperial Parliament in the past. If the Government were really determined to keep these matters outside the Irish Parliament—if they were sincere in that desire—now was the time to test it. If they meant that the Irish Legislature was not to deal with all these great topics which were excluded by the clause, let them show their sincerity by also telling the Irish Legislature that they should not have the power of moving Resolutions on them and of rendering them subjects of serious discussion. Was it the intention of the Government that the Irish Legislature should be permitted to play with these subjects without doing any work with reference to them? He believed his noble Friend had performed a most useful duty in showing this great danger which underlay this particular clause. Apparently it was contemplated by the Government that these Imperial questions might become the subject of fruitless discussion and dangerous agitation in an Irish Legislature.
  MR. PARKER SMITHsaid that, of course, the House accepted the explanation of the Prime Minister as to what was in his mind when he made use of the expressions which had been quoted by the noble Lord. He explained that his phrase as to allowing no act of the Irish Legislature was intended to mean no legislative act. Here wore the words in the speech which the right hon. Gentleman made on the 13th February last—
  "That power is subject to a double limitation, which I will describe. First of all, it is subject to the necessary and obvious limitation that certain heads are reserved to Parliament—not reserved as given to Parliament, but reserved by way of excluding the new Irish Legislature from doing any act in relation to them,"
  That seemed to him most decidedly to mean from doing anything of any sort, and it appeared to him a somewhat forced construction to say that by "act" the technical words "Act of Parliament" was signified. He should have thought it would have included the power of passing Resolutions. He thought the other passage in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman delivered in 1886 was almost stronger. In his speech on the First Reading of the Home Rule Bill of that year the right hon. Gentleman said—
  1590
  "I will now tell the House, and I would beg particular attention to this, what are the functions we propose to withdraw from the cognisance of this Legislative Body."
  Surely that signified an absolute and complete withdrawal. But the right hon. Gentleman now said it meant simply the withdrawal of the power of legislating. This Bill would create not only a Legislature, but an Executive for Ireland, and the acts of that Executive would be influenced not only by the legislation, but also by the Resolutions of the Legislature. If there was one thing more certain than another it would be that the Irish Executive Officers would be far more ready to carry out measures which lay on the doubtful line of the Irish Legislative Assembly if they were covered by the broad shield of a Resolution of the Irish Lower House. His noble Friend gave a large number of examples in which the various Resolutions carried by an Irish Parliament might have a very grave and deleterious effect upon this country. There was one other matter on which he should like to say a few words, and that was the question of foreign enlistment. He was puzzled to know whether that question was intended to be dealt with by this clause. They knew that any Resolution dealing with that matter might have the effect of forcing a fresh Alabama question upon the country, and he should certainly have thought they had learned a sufficient lesson from one Alaboma not to desire to open the door for another similar question in the future. At any rate, it was clear that any Resolution the Irish Assembly might take in regard to that question at a critical moment would very largely affect the action of the Executive. They had heard no answer to the arguments brought forward in support of that Amendment, except that everything was to be trusted to go right, and that to suggest that things could possibly go wrong was to suggest that Irishmen in the past and future were fiends in human form. Without people being fiends, or destitute of every scrap of human virtue, they had a way of differing in opinions and taking different sides, especially with regard to great foreign questions. This difference on the part of an Irish Parliament, if it had freedom of action, might lead to disastrous consequences, and to obviate such ill effects they asked for the adop-

  1591
  tion of this Amendment. As to the question of petitioning, he pointed out that the Irish people would have Irish Members there to represent their views and the right to petition would in no way be interfered with. He denied that by supporting such an Amendment hon. Members were expressing unworthy distrust of the Irish people. He felt just as much confidence in Irish gentlemen as anybody else. He felt, as the Chancellor of the Duchy said in a recent speech, that they were neither saints nor devils. They had, perhaps, rather more of human nature in them than other people. When they gave powers to a man he used those powers not in any spirit of malice or wickedness, but he would naturally use those powers for the purpose of obtaining what he believed to be his rights. This Bill was to give to the Irish Nationalists one-half of the loaf they desired. It gave them certain powers subject to very large and definite restrictions. What the Irish Nationalists had contended all along was that Ireland was a nation. They found that their claim to he a nation was acknowledged by the Front Bench; but, all the same, their rights were not the rights of a nation, but wore subject to all kinds of embarrassing restrictions. If history could teach them anything, it seemed to him to teach them this: that when they put men into that position they would feel themselves bound to use the powers that had been given to them for the purpose of getting what they (the Liberals) have acknowledged to be their rights, and what they would think was wrongfully and weakly withheld as a concession to the prejudices of the British people. The supporters of the Amendment were justified in demanding that the British people should be safeguarded against the consequences of such a use of the measure, and he trusted that the Amendment would be accepted.
  MR. GRIFFITH BOSCAWENsaid, for the third time they had no attempt on the part of Her Majesty's Government to answer the objections and arguments of Members on the Opposition side. Nor did any Member of the Nationalist Party rise to support the views entertained on this question by the Prime Minister. He was rather surprised at the silence on
  1592
  the Ministerial Benches. He doubted whether this silence was duo to the fact that the Government and their Irish friends were in a desperate hurry to get this Bill through somehow.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present.
  MR. BOSCAWEN (resuming)said, as he had already declared, his view was that it might be doubted whether the Government were anxious to hurry through the Bill. However, he thought it would be admitted that no rational grounds had been advanced to show why this Amendment should not be accepted. At the General Election the country certainly understood the Prime Minister to say that the Irish Legislature should not have power to discuss and pass Resolutions on the subject it was precluded from legislating upon; and the opinions of some of those who supported Home Rule would certainly be changed when they found that, by the non-acceptance of this Amendment, the Irish Legislature would be able, by discussing and passing Resolutions, to obtain further concessions. The power of passing Resolutions, as exercised by Grattan's Parliament, was used to the detriment of the Imperial Parliament and of Imperial interests; and it would be dangerous to have an Irish Legislature passing Resolutions on subjects upon which they were forbidden to legislate. If, as the Prime Minister said, they could not restrain the Irish Legislature from discussing and passing Resolutions, how could they enforce prohibitions against legislation upon excepted subjects? How could they enforce any prohibitive sentence in this Bill? How could they enforce the declaration that the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament was not to be impaired? To say that the Amendment could not, be enforced was to give away the whole of the declared intention of the Government. The Amendment would stand precisely upon the same footing as the exceptions in the clause. If it was impossible to prevent the Irish Parliament from passing Resolutions, it would be equally impossible to prevent their passing laws. Had the power of Local Bodies to pass Resolutions been beneficially exercised? The Boards of Guardians in Ireland had neglected their proper

  1593
  business in order to discuss evictions and the tyranny of landlords, with which they had nothing to do——
  MR. FLYNN: How about the Grand Juries?
  MR. BOSCAWENsaid, there could be no doubt that the Bodies he referred to had wasted time in discussing questions that did not come within their business cognisance, and that to the neglect of the regular business which they were appointed to discharge. It was very difficult, owing to the action of these Bodies, for the authorities to enforce the law. But they had examples nearly as flagrant nearer home. During the tithe agitation in Wales the County Councils could not proceed to their proper business without first discussing whether there ought to be an Established Church in Wales and whether the police ought to be allowed to attend distraint sales. At every meeting resolutions were passed in favour of Disestablishment and against the police attending tithe distraint sales, which were necessary to the carrying out of the law; and then the regular business was done in a hurry at the end of the meeting. It never entered into the head of anybody who voted for Home Rule that the Irish Legislature would be allowed even to discuss such matters as Foreign Treaties, such matters as the Crown or a Regency; and without this Amendment the clause would leave a dangerous power in the hands of the Legislature; and, when England might happen to be in difficulty, the working of such a clause might lead to Imperial disaster. He should support the Amendment.
  *MR. H. HOBHOUSEsaid, one of the remarkable features of that Debate was that all the argument was on one side; but perhaps the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Morley) would redress the balance when he came to address the House——
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): No, no!
  *MR. HOBHOUSEsaid, the Prime Minister, in the speech which he had delivered early in the evening, had shown a full sense of the importance of the Amendment and of the extreme difficulty
  1594
  of meeting it. The right hon. Gentleman adduced two arguments—the first dealing with the power to discuss and pass Resolutions; and the second with reference to the right of Petition. It was an ominous reflection that the Prime Minister had admitted that he proposed to create a Parliament, the action of which he could not control to the extent of preventing it from discussing and passing Resolutions. He had told them that in his view the Irish Legislature should be the organ of the general voice of the Irish people. If that was the view of the Prime Minister and the Government, they ought not to have introduced this clause into the Bill at all. There was no doubt that over and over again, in the clause, subjects were mentioned in which the people of Ireland would be most legitimately interested, but which, nevertheless, the Government asked the Committee to prevent the Irish Legislature from legislating upon. These arguments, if they were valid at all, went a great deal too far. They were directed not only against the power of passing Resolutions, but also against the power of making laws. Some of these Resolutions might have an extremely important bearing on the action of the Irish Government. There had recently been a very striking illustration in that House of how the action of a Government might be affected not by passing laws, but by passing a Resolution—he referred to the Resolution passed after a very short discussion a fortnight ago, on which the Lord Chancellor was pledged to act in creating Justices of the Peace throughout the United Kingdom. That would reverse what had been the established practice time out, of mind. The natural way of reversing such a practice in a Constitutional country would be by passing a law with the consent of the two Houses of the Legislature and of the Crown. That course, however, was not taken, and it was, at least, possible to conceive that there might be similar action on the part of the Irish Government in the future. There would be a much more potent reason for such action actuating a new Irish Government, for they, instead of representing the majority in a Sovereign Parliament, would be "cribbed, cabined, and confined" by a law

  1595
  imposed from without—the alien law of the Imperial Parliament coming in, what the Prime Minister had once called, a "foreign garb." Under those circumstances, the Irish Administration might be disposed to take the Resolution either of one House or, if they liked it better, of both Houses of the new Legislature, and act on it to the best of their ability. And yet they were told that the intention and wish of Her Majesty's Government was to prevent the Irish Legislature from passing any Act which would be binding in respect of the various matters mentioned in the section. He would allude to a few things which might be done in this way by Resolution. His noble Friend had suggested that in the case of a Regency the Irish Government, acting on Resolution, might proclaim a different Regent from that recognised by this country. Then, the Irish Parliament might release an Alabama, acting on a Resolution of the Legislative Assembly—an act which might very well involve not the Irish Government, but the Imperial Government, either in a foreign war, or in compensation to the tune of several millions of money. Surely that was a matter which concerned the taxpayers of Great Britain. It was not a matter of small importance, and he ventured to think that an Irish Government who refused to act on a Resolution of this character passed in deference to the feeling of the American friends of the majority in the Irish Parliament would incur great danger of being hurled from power by that majority. They might establish a Volunteer Force, conclude a secret Treaty with America or any foreign country, or extradite political prisoners without the protection of the Extradition Laws. They might release treason-felony prisoners whom the majority of the Irish Parliament might think unjustly sacrificed to the law of the Imperial Parliament. In fact, a very large number of instances might be mentioned in which the most serious acts of policy might be taken on the strength of a Resolution, and would be taken, because the Irish Government would depend for their power on the very majority which passed the Resolution. It was an important fact that a large part of the clause was concerned with things that could naturally be done without any
  1596
  legislative action whatever on the part of the Legislature. They (the Unionist Party) had been accused, and not for the first time, of attributing to the proposed new Legislature improper motives, because they suggested that the Members of that Legislature might not only be willing but anxious to go beyond the functions conferred upon them by the Bill and enter into relations with Foreign Powers. Surely, considering the remarkable relations which existed at this very moment between one of the Parliamentary Parties in the House and the large body of their friends and relatives in America, it was not beyond the bounds of ordinary expectation to expect that they would wish to show their gratitude and make an adequate return for the favours they had received and the favours they undoubtedly would continue to receive from the other side of the Atlantic. Nothing, to his mind, was more probable than that action would be taken to enter into closer relations with some Foreign Powers—with Rome, for instance, seeing that the majority of the Representatives would be, to a great extent, controlled by the Catholic priests. Money could not be voted for the purpose, but it would only be necessary to pass a Resolution on the subject, and the Government would be bound to find the means for establishing these diplomatic relations. With America and Rome an Irish Parliament would be almost certain to establish close relations. It had been pointed out that elective bodies in Ireland at present discussed and passed resolutions on political questions. That was true, and, if he remembered rightly, some Irish Boards of Guardians had been suspended for neglecting their proper business for matters outside their proper functions—matters such as the evicted tenants and the Coercion Act. He did not suppose his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary would be willing to suspend the Irish Parliament for such neglect of duty, as he had ridiculed the suspension even of a County Council that did not perform its duty. But in creating a brand new Body with brand new functions they were bound to take into consideration the possibility of their not confining themselves to their proper duties and sacrificing the interests of the public by discussing and passing

  1597
  Resolutions on subjects with which they had nothing to do. It was said that the proposed prohibition could not be enforced. But should the Irish Legislature be as orderly as it was always represented to the Committee that it would be, there would be no difficulty in enforcing this proposed prohibition; because when a Resolution on a forbidden subject was proposed, all that the Speaker or Chairman would have to do would be to call the Member proposing it to Order. Judging from the respect for order now exhibited by Nationalist Members when Unionists were attempting to depart from the strict ruling of the Chair, they might rest satisfied that if this prohibition were introduced it would meet, with ready acceptance from the Members of the Irish Legislature. He ventured to commend the Amendment from two points of view—first, that of those who thought that the new Body was very likely indeed to exceed its functions and to be disorderly; and, secondly, from the point of view that nothing was likely to be more businesslike or orderly than the new Body. From whatever point of view the matter was regarded, the Committee would see that if they inserted a clause for the purpose of prohibiting the Irish Legislature from passing laws on particular subjects it was only reasonable and logical and consequential to forbid them from passing Resolutions on similar subjects—Resolutions on which a Government would be bound to act if it wished to continue a Government.
  MR. RENTOULthought that this discussion was about the most valuable that had taken place since the Bill was before the House, because it had brought to notice certain matters with a clearness that they had not attained to before. It seemed to be admitted on all hands that there was no power under the Bill to prevent the dangers which the noble Lord who moved the Amendment had so eloquently pointed out. The Prime Minister had frankly admitted it. The reality and greatness of those dangers must have struck every Member who had listened to the noble Lord's speech, for he showed that safeguards were useless—if, indeed, it was necessary to point out the fact to the House, seeing that the Ulster Members had always maintained their useless-ness, and had declared that they would
  1598
  rather be without them. One important point which had been gained was a deliberate statement from the Prime Minister that, if he could, the Irish Members would be retained in that House. But if the Irish Members were to be retained to the number of 80, which would be the full representation to which Ireland was entitled, it would be quite unnecessary for the Irish Parliament to indulge in petitioning. The noble Lord had called attention to several important matters which might become the subject of discussion and Resolution in an Irish Parliament. He had first called attention to Resolutions as to the Crown and the succession. He had pointed to the well-known fact that Grattan's Parliament had actually discussed the question of the Regency during the illness of George III., and had come to a Resolution as to how it should be filled up. The noble Lord had also referred to the power of the Irish Parliament to pass Resolutions with regard to making war. They had seen Resolutions of that kind before. They had had illustrations of such things so frequently that it was not wonderful that they should expect that Resolutions in this direction would be proposed in an Irish Legislature. There was a gay and festive locality called Letterkenny, which owed its notoriety to the fact that the senior Member for the City of Cork (Mr. W. O'Brien) made a speech there while war was going on between this country and another during the term of Office of the Prime Minister, and the audience very largely cheered the Power with which we were at war. That being so, and the sentiments of that constituency having been expressed with great unanimity, it would not be wonderful if in the Irish Legislature the Member for that part of East Donegal in which Letterkenny was situated proposed a Resolution of sympathy with such a Foreign Power. Then, again, the noble Lord had called attention to the matter of sending Envoys and Ambassadors to foreign countries. Many Members of the House had not had their attention turned to this matter before. It. came as a surprise to most Members of the House to learn that the Irish Legislature could send Envoys or Ambassadors to a Foreign State. Could anyone imagine that the Irish Parlia-

  1599
  ment, composed, as it would be, mostly of Roman Catholics, would not send an Envoy Rome? He did not think they would be true to their convictions if they would not. These things had been pointed out, and the Prime Minister had risen in his place and had admitted the gravity of every one of them, and his answer was that they could not possibly be prevented. With that statement they must all agree. They did not think it would be possible to prevent those dangers; they did not believe that the Imperial Parliament could control the Irish Parliament in any possible way; and, that being so, he accepted the Prime Minister's statement most fully. Then the right hon. Gentleman said that the Canadian Parliament had passed a Resolution in favour of Home Rule, and that we should only have stultified ourselves if we had attempted to interfere. That was absolutely true. We had no power over the Canadian Parliament. Canada was, for all practical purposes, totally separated from us, except in the matter of that which was called the golden link of the Crown. Were they going to give to an Irish Parliament the same powers as the Canadian Parliament possessed? If so, the fact ought to be stated, so that Members might know where they were. If the analogy was to be taken from Canada or Victoria, or any other Colonial Parliament, the Committee should know it. The Prime Minister asked if they would prevent the Irish Parliament from exercising the right to petition—a right which every Vestry and Local Board and other small authority possessed. And if, said the right hon. Gentleman, they permitted the Irish Parliament to petition, as a necessary consequence they must allow them to discuss the subjects upon which they would petition. That was true; but, without interfering with that right, a clause could be inserted in the Bill preventing the Irish Legislature from passing Resolutions on prohibited questions, and providing that the Speaker or Chairman should not put such Resolutions from the Chair. In this respect the presiding authority in the Irish Parliament would only be following the example of the Chairman of the London County Council, who, when a resolution was moved in respect of meetings in Trafalgar Square, refused to submit it to the
  1600
  Council on the ground that it was ultra vires. A clause might be inserted in the Bill declaring that if the Irish Parliament and Irish Members wandered into forbidden bye-paths of discussion, nevertheless no Resolutions founded on those discussions should be put from the Chair. The Prime Minister had said that if men set themselves deliberately to do wrong and go away from their contracts there was no power to restrain them—whilst declaring it to be his desire to safeguard the minority in Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman said it could not be done. He seemed to think there was only one thing to be done—namely, to trust to the majority of the Irish people. Well, he (Mr. Rentoul) did trust those who would form the majority in an Irish Parliament absolutely. He trusted them to make thorough good use of this Bill when they got it, and to do their best to bring about that which they so much desired—namely, total separation between this country and Ireland. On these points he trusted them, but on the other point, in regard to the loyal minority in Ireland, he had no trust in them whatever. For these reasons he desired to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, and to impress on the Government the duty of inserting in the Bill some clause which would prevent these Resolutions being passed in the Irish Legislature.
  *MR. FREEMAN-MITFORDsaid, that no part of the speech of the Mover of the Amendment was more convincing than that in which he showed the possibility of the Irish Legislature establishing relations with Foreign Powers. The Prime Minister, in his reply, had raised two objections. He had objected, first, that there would be no power on the part of the Irish Legislature to pay Envoys; and, secondly, that, unless such Envoys were properly accredited and had credentials, they would not be received by any Foreign Power. His right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition dealt effectively and thoroughly with the first of these objections. He showed how Missions had been sent before now without Parliament having been called upon to vote a penny towards their support, and he had given one instance. But, in the case of Ireland, it would not be necessary for the Irish Parliament to vote any money

  1601
  towards the expense of a Mission that might be undertaken to make representations to, or communicate with, the enemies of England. Whenever Ireland had needed money to inflict an injury on England that money had been forthcoming without making any call upon Ireland. As regarded the question of credentials, supposing that the Irish Parliament desired to send Envoys to a Power with which England was on friendly terms, no doubt that Power, acting loyally by us, would refuse to receive Envoys from the Irish Parliament, unless they were backed by credentials from the English Government. But supposing that we were not on friendly terms with the Government to which Ireland desired to send Envoys—supposing there were strained relations, that we were even on the eve of war, that the issues of peace and war were under discussion, who could doubt that, at such a moment, Irish Envoys, coming with a message from the traitors in the camp, would be received with open arms? That would be their opportunity. England's difficulty would be, "under the blessing of Providence," as was, he believed, said by the Member for Clare, once more Ireland's opportunity; and it would be exactly when relations were in the most difficult stage that the Irish Envoys would come further to embarrass our Ambassador or Minister. That was the great danger with which they would have to contend. He was not speaking of an imaginary danger, for he had seen something of these things in the course of a tolerably long diplomatic career. He had seen men sent over by the enemies of the Government that happened to be in power in the country to which they belonged, and he had seen how they embarrassed the Ambassadors who were acting for their own country, and were alone holding full powers. There were times when friendly relations between two countries might be imperilled by these unauthorised and amateur diplomatists. That was a great and real danger. Imagine a Mission sent out to America, such as the Mission undertaken so ably by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham some time ago. Suppose that our Representative arrived at Washington to carry out difficult and delicate negotiations, but that, at the
  1602
  same time, the Member for Louth or the Member for North Kerry came out on behalf of the Irish Government for the express purpose of throwing sand and grit in the wheels of the coach of the English Representative. How would that act on the negotiations? Would the English Representative not be sorely impeded? He took leave to think that no diplomatist, however able, could afford to neglect the danger of such intrigues going on around him. In the case of the Mission of the Member for West Birmingham there was a friendly negotiation between two friendly Powers anxious to arrive at the solution of a difficulty which they both acknowledged. In a case like that the intrigues of unauthorised persons might not be effective, though they would always be embarrassing. But how would it be in a case of peace or war? How would it be if a Foreign Government dealing with our Minister or Ambassador at a moment when the fate of nations hung in the balance found that there were men on the scene nominally subjects of the Queen, but, in fact, traitors in the camp, who were ready to assist to the utmost of their power the nation with whom we might be in difficulties? He held that this was a most real and a most vital question in regard to the proposed Legislature. If this clause stood in its present form they would have in it—as, indeed, they had in every part of this disastrous measure—a standing danger to England. It was a danger that they could not afford to neglect, and he ventured to think that any hon. Member who would carefully consider the points which might be raised under that clause would see that it was a clause which he could not vote for without adding to the difficulties and dangers of this country precisely at moments when those difficulties and dangers might be most pressing.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he did not rise to go into the details of the question, because at the present moment the noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh had made a statesmanlike speech which had not been answered on any single point. The Prime Minister bad contented himself with referring to one or two matters which were, perhaps, a propos to the subject under discussion, but without dealing with the questions raised by the noble Lord, The right

  1603
  hon. Gentleman had mentioned Petitions, but the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had satisfactorily dealt with that point. The whole question was what, was to be the representation of the Irish Members in the House. If the Irish Members were to be retained at; Westminster, the constituencies would have the same right of presenting Petitions to this House as they had now. He thought the Committee had derived one advantage from the discussion, for they had heard something which they did not know before. They now knew, from what was said, and what was not said, by the Prime Minister, that Ireland would be represented in its full strength of 103 Members within the Imperial Parliament. It might be assumed from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman that he fully intended to accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), so that the Irish Members would not only be supreme in College Green, but at Westminster also, over English, Scotch, and Welsh concerns. He doubted whether the Government would find a great number of their supporters to vote for such a proposal; and the Scotch Members especially were pledged to the eyes against Ireland having any such representation after she had a Parliament of her own. The Prime Minister argued that if the Amendment were carried there would be no means of putting it into effect; but if that argument was a good one against the Amendment, it was equally good against the clause as it stood. If it. were impossible to prevent the Irish Parliament from passing Resolutions and voting money, it would also be impossible to prevent their making laws, except by the force of arms, and that meant nothing short of civil war. In fact, what the Prime Minister had said constituted the very strongest argument against the Bill that, had been used throughout the whole Debate. The right hon. Gentleman had thrown away the whole case for the Bill, and had admitted that there was no power in the world by which the British Parliament could effectually maintain its supremacy. It. was clear the noble Lord had not exaggerated the importance of the point with regard to Foreign Envoys. Many Envoys who had performed great service for this
  1604
  country had been sent out without being paid: and why should that not be done in Ireland, especially if the Executive, in sending them out, were acting on the authority of a Resolution of the Irish Parliament? This question, to his mind, was most important. He did not think that either this clause or Clause 4 would be of the slightest use so long as the Executive power in Ireland had unlimited influence. If the Irish Parliament was to have the power of passing Resolutions its hands would be materially strengthened if at any time it desired to set at defiance the power of the Imperial Parliament.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, that when this Debate was spoken of in the future, it would be described as "the lop-sided Debate." The discussions on the Bill consisted, as a rule, of many speeches from the Opposition and one speech from the Prime Minister. The present Debate was an instance in point. The Amendment, which had been moved in a speech of such conspicuous ability, raised a question not so much of Irish as of Imperial interest. He was bound to confess that if the Bill could be shown to affect only Ireland, he believed it would have much more chance of being accepted by the country, which, as it was, it never would be. The country was beginning to see, and would see more and more as these Debates went on, that the question was not simply an Irish Question, but that Irish affairs were inextricably mixed up with Imperial affairs; and the opinion was, therefore, gaining ground that it was beyond the power of Parliament to disentangle them. The noble Lord who moved the Amendment was answered by the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman had practically taken all the rhetorical efforts out of the bauds of his Colleagues, and he supposed the reason was that none of them exactly knew what the right hon. Gentleman meant. Members had thought that evening that they had got an authoritative declaration from the right hon. Gentleman in plain English, but the right hon. Gentleman jumped up two minutes afterwards and informed the Committee that he did not mean what he had said just before. If the right hon. Gentleman did not himself know what lie meant, how could his Colleagues

  1605
  be expected to know. The right hon. Gentleman had only touched one of the arguments used in the noble Lord's speech, and that was the very last one he ought to have touched, for it related to sending an unpaid Envoy to represent the Government at a Foreign Court. The right hon. Gentleman forgot Mr. Errington, who was sent to represent the Government at a Foreign Court, and paid no one know how. He (Colonel Saunderson) had been glad to learn from the lips of the Prime Minister that he looked upon the speech and the Amendment as serious. By that he understood the right hon. Gentleman to mean that he did not intend to move the Closure before 10 o'clock. But, although the right hon. Gentleman looked upon it as a serious Amendment, he studiously avoided meeting a single one of the arguments brought forward by its Mover, with one single exception. Still, the right hon. Gentleman's speech was important, because it amply justified the speeches which had been made by Members of the Opposition in support of various Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman asked what power there would be of giving effect to the Amendment if it were embodied in the Bill. This was what the Opposition had been asking the Government all along with reference to their safeguards. They had pointed out that even if the Bill were saturated with supremacy, the saturation would be of no good if there was no power to give effect to it. The Prime Minister said that the Amendment, if adopted, would be an isolated statement of absolutely no value. But he (Colonel Saunderson) understood that the Amendment was to form the foundation for the introduction into future clauses of the Bill of very clear and definite legislation which would give effective power to the statement which the Committee was now asked to accept. Certainly, isolated and alone, a declaration of the kind would be of absolutely no value. ["Hear, hear!" from the Nationalist Members.] He was glad that the patriots below the Gangway agreed with him. The reason they did was that they knew that the words which were embodied in the Bill for the purpose of maintaining the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament could not be of any value. The Prime Minister said
  1606
  that the way we had dealt with Canada and Australia ought to give the Committee courage to pass this Bill. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman was that the relations of Ireland with the Imperial Parliament should be the same as those of the Australian Colonies, which were on the other side of the world, and the Dominion of Canada, which was on the other side of the ocean. He thought that very few of the supporters of the Government were returned to Parliament at the last Election on the understanding that the Home Rule Bill would be one that would place Ireland in the same position as Australia or Canada. He wished to look at the Amendment, however, not so much from an Imperial as from an Irish point of view. Any Amendment which would have the effect of restraining the authority of the Irish Parliament would, as far as it went, be an improvement. If they were to have a Home Rule Parliament in Ireland, and if that Parliament was not to be destructive of the liberties of the Irish people and ruinous to the peace and welfare of the Empire, there ought to be created by legislative enactments and restrictions a sort of legislative paddock carefully walled and restricted— a kind of legislative menagerie, in which Land League legislators might carry out their varied forms of legislation without danger to other people and only with danger to themselves. That was the only reason why he voted on any of these Amendments. The more power that was given to the Irish Parliament the worse it would be from the point of view of the Irish Loyalists, and they proved this conclusively by what their future rulers had said and done in the past. It was because the Amendment had a restrictive tendency, and because if the House had any common-sense left it would be enforced hereafter by other clauses, that he thought it deserved the support of the House. The Opposition were anxiously waiting for light on those points—not from the Radical Party, who dare not speak, but from high authorities on the Treasury Bench. It must surely have struck the Committee with sorrowful amazement that the greatest authority on Parliamentary procedure—the Chancellor of the Exchequer—had not, only been conspicuous by his absence from the Debates, but had

  1607
  been absolutely dumb up to the present. Knowing what they did of his past history, and the great reputation he had made as a Constitutional authority, they had surely a right to expect and hope that the right hon. Gentleman would let loose the floods of information which he had boiling up inside him, and pour it out to satisfy the thirsty Opposition. But they had utterly failed to draw a word from the right hon. Gentleman. The whole affair of defending this Bill had fallen upon the Prime Minister, although he (Colonel Saunderson) did not believe he was its author. Its author was just going out of the House. [Mr. Bryce had just risen from the Treasury Bench.] The Prime Minister, charged with the Constitutional lore which his Colleague had gathered in every corner of the earth, generally got up and answered the arguments advanced against the Bill with declamatory ridicule and contempt. The right hon. Gentleman had, however, admitted that the question raised by the present Amendment was too great to laugh at and deride in the House of Commons. The right hon. Gentleman, from the serious character of his speech, appeared to realise that the mind of the country was becoming awake to the fact that the dearest and deepest interests of the Empire were at stake, and that the noble Lord had pointed out dangers and difficulties that must inevitably arise when an alien Parliament and an alien Government, composed of men who now sat in this House, and who were now supported by the money of foreigners on the other side of the Atlantic——
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must recall the hon. and gallant Member's attention to the Amendment.
  COLONEL SAUNDERSONsaid, he at once bowed to the Chairman's ruling, and would allude to the speech of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman dealt at great length with the idea of sending an Ambassador to a Foreign Court, and said that he could not conceive that the Irish Government would be so impatient for evil as to adopt such a monstrous course. [An hon. MEMBER: Impassioned for evil.] Well, impassioned for evil. That was equally understandable. At all events, his compatriots had been very open in their
  1608
  declarations. Though they never spoke inside the House, they did outside, and they had very clearly laid it down that there was no finality in the Bill. It was because the restrictions which this Amendment proposed to place upon the Irish Parliament, followed by others, might have the effect of making this Parliament, if it over existed, less potent for evil that he supported the Amendment.
  MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I think that those who have listened to the Debate, opened as it was by the noble Lord the Member for West Edinburgh in a speech of great merit and ability, will acknowledge that on the whole it has been extremely instructive, and has thrown considerable light upon the spirit in which the Government have entered upon their great undertaking. I will also say that it contains a lesson to those rather impatient Members of the House who desire to see a Bill of this importance disposed of in a few days. Here we are on a very early stage of the Bill, and a discussion has been raised the importance of which cannot be denied. It would, therefore, be a monstrous thing if such discussions, tending as they do to enlighten the public as to the character of the Bill, wore to be shut out by anything like a ruthless application of the Closure. I do not believe the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has any sympathy whatever with those ardent spirits. He has proposed and carried many Bills in this House, and he knows that it is a part of the traditions of the House to give Bills of importance a fail- consideration. But when the Government propose a Bill to create a now Constitution and to destroy an old one, we must expect rather more than the ordinary time for consideration. Anyone who doubts the importance of the Debate that has been raised would have had those doubts-removed had he listened to the speech of the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman did not deny the importance of the question. On the contrary, he put it in a category by itself as one of those subjects which he himself desired to treat with dryness, and he recommended that others should treat it in the same way. There are many subjects brought forward in this House

  1609
  which my right hon. Friend never treats with dryness, and, therefore, it must be a subject of an altogether exceptional character which requires that exceptional treatment. If this matter is to be treated with dryness because it is a proposal for limiting freedom of discussion in a Parliament which has yet to be created, then I would only say in passing how much more dry must be the treatment of any proposal to limit discussion in a Parliament which already exists. I now come to the proposition which my right hon. Friend has shown to be of great importance. Let us see what the position of matters really is. My right hon. Friend proposes to pass a Bill to give to Irishmen the management of exclusively Irish affairs. How many hon. Members are there behind him who have pledged themselves in the country that that is all they intend to do—that they will not go one atom beyond it—that they will not allow the Irish Parliament to meddle, even by one jot or tittle, in affairs that are Imperial? Unity of the Empire is to be preserved, and that is to be attended to by the Imperial Parliament. The Irish Parliament, a subordinate Parliament, is to deal only with exclusively Irish affairs. My right hon. Friend, as has been explained by the Mover of the Resolution, proposes to secure that result by refusing to the Irish Parliament cognisance of any affairs which are not exclusively Irish. My right hon. Friend has attempted to-night, I think without sufficient consideration, to minimise the importance of his statement, because he has said that when he spoke of not allowing the Irish Parliament to take cognisance of matters other than those which are purely Irish, he only meant by Act. That would be playing with the House, and, what is more important, it would be playing with the country. To allow an Irish Parliament to deal with Imperial affairs by Resolution, when you pretend that they shall not deal with them by Act of Parliament, is to allow this interference with Imperial affairs to come in by a side door when you refuse to allow it to come in by the front door. It is absolutely impossible that the Prime Minister can keep faith with the public, and establish a Parliament in Ireland dealing exclusively with Irish affairs, if it can be shown that by his proposal this Irish Parliament can—and, of course, pro-
  1610
  bably will—deal with Imperial affairs. My noble Friend the Member for West Edinburgh has shown, under almost every head of the excluded subjects, that the Irish Parliament will be able to deal by Resolution with those matters with which it cannot deal by Act of Parliament. One would have thought, under those circumstances, that the Prime Minister would at once have accepted the Amendment, or that if he objected to its terms he would have suggested a variation of them. He might have suggested such an alteration as would have provided that the Irish Parliament should not deal with these forbidden matters either by Resolution or Act of Parliament. That would have been more consistent than the position occupied at present by the Government. But how did my right hon. Friend meet the noble Lord who moved the Amendment? The noble Lord showed on half-a-dozen different points that it would lie possible, on critical and important occasions, for the Irish Parliament to interfere by Resolution, to the great disadvantage of British interests, in Imperial matters. The Prime Minister, however, referred to only one of those matters, and that was the suggestion that if the Irish Parliament was so disposed it might send Envoys to foreign countries, though it would be prohibited from making Treaties, and would thus hamper and embarrass British diplomacy. What was the answer of the Prime Minister? He simply said that those Envoys could not be paid, and could not be accredited. Permit me to say that that was a purely technical answer. There are many indirect ways in which payment could be found, and many Envoys have been rewarded in one way or another—in this country by Baronetcies. But in Ireland some good fat office may no doubt be the indirect reward for such services, although, of course, it is perfectly well-known that every patriotic Irishman is willing to serve his country for nothing. But my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister fays that the Envoys would not be accredited. Let me remind him, however, that Mason and Slidell were not accredited, and yet if they had not been taken en route, their presence in this country would have been extremely in convent to the Northern States of American at that time. I will take

  1611
  another case. What about Franklin and our Colonies? Franklin was not accedited "when he went to France, before that country recognised the United States, and yet he was successful in obtaining the recognition of his country and of at length getting himself accredited, and in procuring an alliance between France and the United States against this country. I merely refer to these facts for the purpose of showing how very weak the argument of my right hon. Friend is even as regards the one point out of the six which the noble Lord put forward, that my right hon. Friend selected to deal with. My right hon. Friend suggested that another answer to the arguments of the noble Lord—an answer the spirit of which we have heard of before, and of which, doubtless, we shall hear again. My hon. and gallant Friend opposite quoted the words of the Prime Minister, in which he said, "You assume that the Irish are impassioned for evil." My right hon. Friend admitted that if the Irish Parliament were inclined to do perverse things, if they were going to use their rights for improper purposes, no doubt they might make themselves extremely inconvenient. This is a point upon which the throwing of a little dry light may be very useful and necessary. Why does my right hon. Friend say that we believe that the Irish Parliament will be impassioned for evil if they adopt a foreign policy which may be opposed to the foreign policy of this country? I wish that my right hon. Friend would sometimes look at these matters from the point of view of a patriotic Irishman. Why should the Irish Parliament he impassioned for evil, if, hereafter, when we get into some trouble with a foreign country, they sympathise with that country rather than with ourselves? My right hon. Friend must not forget that the iron has entered into their souls for the last 700 years. Does my right hon. Friend believe that he can pull that iron out in the course of seven years? on the contrary, my right hon. Friend has himself done something to drive the iron in still deeper. Is it not possible that, after my right hon. Friend, some Body may arise who may have difference; with the Irish Parliament, and who may treat that Body in regard to Imperial matters with scant respect; and how can we, in such circumstances, expect that
  1612
  Parliament to be in entire sympathy with our foreign policy? Would it be fair for us in that case to accuse the Irish Parliament of being impassioned for evil because they took a view of events that was opposed to our own? I accuse my right hon. Friend of acting with extraordinary levity when he proposes to place the very existence of this country at the mercy of the Irish Parliament. [Cries of "Oh!"] Hon. Members who sit upon the Ministerial Benches may ridicule my remarks, but they are not the men who made England, though they may be indifferent to the chances of its destruction. We may well be indignant at the charge of obstruction that has been brought against us when we are determined to discuss these matters. Upon what basis are you creating this Parliament for Ireland? You are doing so on the ground that Ireland is a separate nation, and therefore ought to have a separate Parliament of her own. Therefore, we ought not to have any sentimental talk about that Parliament being impassioned for evil in case they should act as though they were the Parliament of a separate nation. We do not accuse France of being impassioned for evil because she takes a different view of Siamese matters from what we may happen to do. It is not only probable—it is absolutely certain— that the Irish Parliament will, in the future, as Irish Parliaments have done in the past, take a different view of foreign policy from our own. Therefore, if the Irish Parliament is allowed to discuss and to pass Resolutions with regard to our foreign policy, it will seriously hamper and embarrass us at a time when, perhaps, we may be in a position of great difficulty. This is a real danger to us. Does any man in this House believe that, if we went to war with France, an Irish Parliament would not, if it had the power to do so, pass Resolutions in opposition to our foreign policy? This is one of the most serious questions that the House of Commons can discuss. I ask with great confidence whether any impartial man, quietly considering the possibilities and the probabilities of the case, can doubt that an Irish Parliament, influenced as they would be both by tradition and by interest, would not sympathise, in such a

  1613
  case, rather with Franco than with this country? Can we conceive anything; which would do more to weaken the arm of England than to have such a Parliament within our own borders passing Resolutions opposed to our policy in such a case? It is not necessary, in such an event, to accuse the Irish Parliament of being impassioned for evil, or of possessing a double dose of original sin for taking that course. On the contrary, viewed by the dry light of reason, it is the most probable thing that they would do. We have had Irish Parliaments before, and we know what course they are likely to pursue in the future. In my opinion, the answer which my right hon. Friend has attempted to make to the arguments of the noble Lord is most inadequate. My right hon. Friend said that there was no restriction in this matter upon the Colonial Legislatures. We know that the Canadian House of Commons passed a Resolution sympathising with Home Rule. But does not that raise once more the difference between our Colonies and Ireland? Our Colonies are thousands of miles away; Ireland is quite close to us. What our Colonies can do with perfect impunity may not be done by Ireland without danger to this country. I think it will be agreed that the Resolution of the Canadian House of Commons was in-pertinent. If any Foreign or Colonial Legislature passed Resolutions which are impertinent, we can afford to regard them with perfect indifference. In all these cases it must, however, be borne in mind that it is one thing to have Parliaments thousands of miles away passing such Resolutions, but it would be quite another thing to have such Resolutions passed by a Parliament within a few miles from our shores. The Prime Minister saw that this was what he would term a plausible Resolution—that is, it was one which would be difficult to explain away in the country, and he may be sure that we shall do our best to point out what light this throws on the supremacy of Parliament as provided in the Bill. The Prime Minister's argument was that if we were to say to the Irish Parliament, "You shall not pass Resolutions and shall not discuss matters which are expressly taken from your cognisance," we shall be interfering with their sacred right of petition. That is a most
  1614
  wonderful argument. A Board of Guardians may petition, but not the Irish House of Commons. The Irish Legislature will alone be deprived of the right of petitioning the British Parliament. The Irish Members may here break their silence. There is the hon. and learned Member for Louth bursting with eloquence. Let him get up in his place and tell us in the course of a few hours what value he attaches to the right to humbly petition this Parliament. The subjects in Ireland would, of course, continue to have their right of petition. But how long is it since the Prime Minister conceived this extraordinary opinion of Petitions? Does he know anything about the Petitions to this House? It is an ancient and venerable practice, and continues down to the present day; and I am assured that there are Petitions against this Home Rule Bill which contain over 1,000,000 signatures. Here is a case in which my right hon. Friend can give practical proof of his opinion of the value of the right of petition which he gives to the Irish Legislature. When Petitions come to this House with 1,007,793 signatures against Home Rule and with only 47 signatures in favour of it, if my right hon. Friend would thereupon drop his Bill, we should understand his appreciation of the value of Petitions. But if the Prime Minister ignores Petitions in the proportion of, roughly, 1,000,000 to 40, what value will the hon. and learned Member for North Louth attach to the right of petitioning the House of Commons? The Prime Minister asked what would be the use of prohibiting the Irish Legislature from passing Resolutions which you would be unable to enforce. Why not? Hon. Members have been satisfied when in speeches equally dry he has assured them that the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament was assured. He said, "You have a Navy and Army. You are in the proportion of 30,000,000 to 5,000,000. You are so tremendously powerful, and you can enforce anything you like at any time you please." Exactly the same principle applies to the proceedings of the Irish Parliament, and you can at any time send an Army to Ireland. Suppose they pass an Act which they are prohibited from passing. What then?. When the Prime Minister answers that,

  1615
  I will answer his question as to Low we are going to enforce the prohibitions which we now propose. I suppose he looks to the Exchequer Judges. I do not know how that is to be done, but I am quite sure, I hope, that when we come to the clause, the right hon. Gentleman will explain what it is he expects from those two unfortunate learned gentlemen. The argument cuts both ways. It absolutely destroys the argument of my right hon. Friend, who can no more enforce the supremacy, or restrictions, or safeguards which he puts forward in his Bill than he can enforce the prohibitions which we propose. If he says he has convinced himself that the safeguards in the Bill are insufficient to enable this House to exercise control over the Irish Parliament, that admission applies equally to all the other safeguards—it applies to those which he has accepted just as much as to those which he has not accepted. The securities are insufficient by the confession of the Prime Minister himself. He has said—" You cannot enforce your will upon the Irish Parliament." We agree with him, and it has been our contention all through that, in order to enforce your will upon an Irish Legislature, you must have something more than the Army and the Navy to rely upon; you want something in the nature of a Civil force, something in the nature of a permanent Executive. This Debate has gained for us a most complete and satisfactory admission from the Prime Minister, and I hope and venture to believe it will bear fruit when we come to propose our Amendments to secure a satisfactory Imperial Executive in Ireland.
  *THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir JOHN RIGBY,): I must agree that this has been a most enlightening Debate, and it has brought out most distinctly the efficacy of the safeguards which are provided in the Bill, as compared with the triviality of those which it is proposed to substitute. For instance, Clause 3, Sub-section 10, provides that no laws shall be passed by the Irish Legislature in regard to trade marks, merchandise marks, copyright, or patent rights, and it makes that clear by saying that any law passed in contravention of the section shall be null and void. That is a genuine safe-
  1616
  guard. [A laugh.] At all events, it is a totally different safeguard from those which are now proposed, and a far better one. No law that could be passed by the Irish Legislature would have the slightest validity so far as it was not derived from the Act of the Imperial Parliament; and waste paper, indeed, would be all laws passed through the two Houses of the Irish Legislature unless they could show their authority in an Act passed by the Imperial Parliament. Of themselves Resolutions have no validity; you cannot take anything from them, because they have nothing. The proposal of the Amendment is, first of all, to prevent discussion; but I do not think you can fairly divide discussion, Resolution, and the right of Petition. If you allow discussion, it is vain to refuse to allow Resolutions; the moral effect produced by the opinion of the Irish Legislature would be equally plain whether a Resolution followed discussion or not, and would it be possible to put an end to discussion if you attempted it? The right of Petition, of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain) spoke in terms so contemptuous, has, throughout the whole of our Constitutional history, been most highly prized; and, unless you shut out the right of Petition, you cannot shut out the right of resolution or the right of discussion. The safeguards in the Bill, which hon. Gentlemen say cannot be relied upon, cannot but act; they act automatically. The authority of law which gives an Act of Parliament force without bringing about civil war, without requiring the aid of the military, and, except in extreme circumstances, without even requiring the intervention of the police, will be given to the Irish Acts only so far as they are within the powers marked out for them by the Bill. Pictures have been drawn of dangers that might arise if the Irish Legislature travelled beyond its functions. It has been said that Representatives might be sent by Ireland to Foreign Powers, and the case of Franklin has been quoted. But Franklin was accredited to one of our enemies, and there is nothing to prevent that being done again. Irish rebels, if such there are, might send their Ambassador to any Power with which we were at war. I do not disguise the difficulties of

  1617
  the position, but I wish to show that the Bill will neither increase nor diminish them. Franklin was a rebel, and was accredited to one of our enemies, and we should have had the right, if we had got him, to have hanged him. Franklin was kindly received by our enemies; but if he had been received in the same capacity by any of our Allies, that would have given us just cause to go to war with them, because it is against the Law of Nations to receive an Ambassador from the rebels of an Ally. The position is this. An Act passed by the Irish Legislature, if beyond its powers, is null and void, and yet it is suggested there is great danger from Resolutions which have no pretence of being laws, but are mere expressions of opinion. I do not deny that the utterances, however irregular, however unauthorised, of a representative body of men in Ireland must necessarily have weight: but do right, hon. Gentlemen think it would be good policy or that it would be wise to endeavour to shut down that safety-valve for the expression of opinion by the Representatives of the people?
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 238; Noes 259.—(Division List, No. 102.)
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: In accordance with the pledge given this afternoon, I now move, Sir, that you do report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report. Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Mr. W. E. Gladstone,)—put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolution [29th May] reported.
CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS. 1893–4.

  FURTHER VOTE ON ACCOUNT.
  "That a further sum. not exceeding £4,810,250, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charges for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March, 18!)4."—(see pp. 1427–9.)
  Resolution read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."
  *SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he wished to call the attention of the Vice President of the Council to a Circular which had been issued by his Department in January, lost as to the accommodation and system of education in elementary schools, which Circular had been sent to all the schools throughout the country, whether Board schools or voluntary schools. It had been alluded to in the House of Lords by one of the very best living authorities on elementary education, Lord Sandford and from the purport, of the noble Lord's remarks it seemed clear that he considered the implied requirements of the Circular were such as to make it practically impossible for the voluntary schools to comply with it; and if anything like exact conformity with the Circular was to be insisted on the voluntary system would be seriously endangered. Lord Kimberley, in replying, said—
  "It seemed to be thought, in some quarters, that there was a desire suddenly to come down on voluntary schools throughout the country and make a peremptory demand upon them to bring their accommodation, sanitary provision, and school apparatus up to the higher standard; and so, by a side wind, to convert a large number of voluntary schools into Board schools. That, in his opinion, would be a perfectly unjustifiable proceeding."
  It would be well if the Vice President would kindly confirm before them the assurances given by the President of the Council in the other House. Lord Kimberley said the Circular was merely one of inquiry; but he ventured to say that it meant something more than that. Why, the Inspectors were told to see to the rectification of any defects which the inquiries under this Circular might bring to light. But the Inspectors had been doing this all along. Why, then, was a fresh inquiry started this year? It looked as if some new departure were contemplated. The voluntary schools were entitled to know what to expect. There had been spent on them in the last generation no less a sum than £13,000,000, and they had conformed to all the requirements of the Education Department from time to time. Now, all sorts of requirements were put upon them—as to warming, lighting, the providing of certain areas for playgrounds, even in places where no ground could be got. Surely the voluntary schools were entitled to know under what new rules

  1619
  they were to act. Why had the Department waited until this year of grace, 1893, for all these new requirements? It really did look as if there was an intention to impose fresh liabilities on voluntary schools. Lord Kimberley stated—
  "The Royal Commission which reported in June, 1888, stated that the time had come when the State might well be more exact in requiring for school children a proper amount of air and space, suitable premises, and a reasonable extent of playground. That Report was the foundation of the whole matter."
  Lord Norton stated that the Code of 1890 demanded generally that all schools receiving grants should satisfy the Department as to their healthiness; but it restricted the application of any new requirements as to space to new buildings. He trusted that now no immediate pressure would be put upon the older schools beyond a general warning to all voluntary managers to set their houses in order so far as their means would allow. He hoped some consolatory assurance would now be afforded to that effect. There was no more praiseworthy, deserving, and meritorious class than those for whom he was pleading. They were the pioneers of Elementary Education; before the creation of School Boards they were prophets crying in the wilderness. They had been the means of saving the State £40,000,000, which had been raised by private subscriptions and resources. It was the buildings erected by this money it was now desired to improve by this Circular. Notwithstanding the great number of Board schools, there were 5,000 more voluntary schools than there were in 1870. He hoped that, in the circumstances, the voluntary managers would receive the kindly, gracious, and sympathetic consideration of Her Majesty's Government.
  THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Mr. ACLAND,)said, if his hon. Friend had given notice of his intention to deal with the Circular, he would have been in a better position to answer him than he now was. The hon. Gentleman asked why the Circular, which dealt with the sanitary and healthy condition of schools, was issued in this particular year? He (Mr. Acland) only said that a large number of
  1620
  Inspectors, reporting upon all parts of the country, had been desiring some inquiry of this kind for a long period. They had reported again and again that the condition of many schools was such that the children suffered in health; and he drew no distiction between Board schools and voluntary schools, considering it the duty of the Department to deal equally with both classes of schools. Again and again School Inspectors had called attention to this matter, and had asked for some kind of Statistical Returns to show how the schools stood. The Commission of Lord Cross said the time had come when, in the very words of the Circular, it would be reasonable to limit the time for requiring compliance with certain conditions as to the healthiness of the buildings. The Circular asked questions of the Inspectors in order that the state of things might be ascertained. He submitted that the Circular did not ask for anything which was unreasonable. It asked, for instance, whether the site was open and airy and provided reasonable space, and whether the playground was of sufficient size and provided with gymnastic apparatus. He quite agreed there were various crowded parts where it was impossible to insist on the playgrounds being of a certain size for an old school as in the case of a new. But he considered it was a good thing they should have the information as to whether and where such schools existed. The Circular further asked whether the building was dry and in good repair, whether it was properly lighted, whether the class-rooms were of reasonable size, and the staircases properly arranged, and as to the cloak-rooms and offices. There ought to be good cloak-rooms in all our schools, whether in town or country. To have damp clothes steaming in the same room where the children were taught was most undesirable for health, as every medical man would testify. As to the offices, they ought to be disconnected from one another. The hon. Baronet said that great efforts had been made by voluntary managers as well as by Boards to bring their schools up to modern requirements. In bringing schools up to modern requirements—and he was glad to say that many clergy, landlords, and others had made admirable efforts in this direction —this Circular would not injure them in

  1621
  any way whatever. If the hon. Baronet inquired what action had been taken since the Department had received the answers to the Circular he would find there was no cause for great alarm; but he did not hesitate to say that in all matters relating to the warmth, light, sanitation, ventilation, equipment, and generally healthy accommodation, he, with the Department, thoroughly intended to do all he could to bring up our schools of all kinds, whether voluntary or Board schools, to a state of complete efficiency.
  MR. E. STANHOPEdid not think the statement of the right hon. Gentleman was by any means satisfactory, and he was afraid, when the proper time came, in Committee, there would be some further observations to make upon the matter. In the meantime, he desired to point out one important subject as to which the right hon. Gentleman had said nothing. Many schools within the last few years had made great structural alterations in order to comply with the requirements of the Education Department. The managers had done this at great cost, and in the face of great difficulty, at the request of the Education Department, although they themselves did not entirely up prove of the alterations. Notwithstanding the fact that those structural alterations had been made in the case of many of these schools, the right hon. Gentleman or his Inspectors were actually calling upon the managers to reverse what they had done three or four years ago, and make further changes and incur additional expense.
  MR. ACLAND: That has nothing to do with this Circular.
  MR. E. STANHOPE: I am quite wella ware of that; but I want to call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the matter, and when we go into Committee I should like to ask him a special question about it.
  *DR. MACGREGORdesired to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he could definitely state whether the Government would give its support to the Bill for amending the Crofters' Act?
  *MR. SPEAKERintimated that it was out of Order to refer to the Bill on the Report of the Vote on Account.
  *DR. MACGREGORdesired to ask a question or two relating to the Royal Commission in the Islands and Highlands. The excuse was made that this Commission could not begin its operations until the weather had improved. In the middle of April, the weather having improved, they had commenced, and now, after a month's work, they had suspended operations for three weeks, when the days were at the longest and the weather was at its best. Why had they suspended operations at this juncture, when there was so much urgency with regard to the question of land in the Highlands? He would like to ask what remuneration was being made to the Royal Commission? He was aware that the expenses of its members were allowed; but he would like to know what that meant! The Mail Service in the Highlands and Islands was in a very unsatisfactory state, especially in the Islands, where there was great irregularity. The people complained that they could not get their letters, in some instances, more than once a week. He would ask the Secretary for Scotland whether he could not, by conference with the Postmaster General and the Treasury, make such arrangements as would effect a much-needed improvement in the Mail Service? With regard to Secondary Education in the Highlands, he would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would not act upon a hint which he had given him, and provide small annual bursaries for boys who would have to come a long way to the central school?
  VISCOUNT CRANBORNEdesired, for a few moments, to allude to a matter on which he had ventured to trouble the House on several occasions, by way of questions to the Home Secretary. He had the honour to represent a constituency in which there was a large convict prison, the warders of which had a great many grievances with respect to hours and other matters, to which the attention of the Home Office had frequently been called. He had assisted the warders to the best of

  1623
  his ability, and the Home Secretary had been courteous enough to give directions that he should be furnished with an elaborate Memorandum dealing with those grievances. The tone of that Memorandum, however, was very disappointing. It was the tone of an advocate defending his cause, rather than of an impartial Department deciding upon a case which had been laid before it. This Memorandum differed very seriously from the allegations made to him by his constituents; but upon many matters in the Memorandum he did not think the facts were disputed. He would venture to call the attention of the House and the Home Secretary to one or two of the facts in regard to the hours of these prison warders. They often heard in that House of the necessity for shortening the hours of labour, and he thought the House would admit that the hours of labour among the employés of the Government itself were very long. These warders were sometimes on day and sometimes on night duty. The hours of labour of those on day duty were as much as 65 per week, exclusive of meal-times. That was a very large figure. The Department, in reply to his statement on this subject, declared that he had taken the months in which the hours of labour were longest, and had not taken into account the days of leave. But the months on which the duty was longest happened to be about 10 in the year, and the days of leave were only 14 at the outside, and in speaking of the length of hours in that House they did not take into account the days of leave granted to employés. If they were to take account of the leave, they ought also to take account of the patrols necessary during meal-times. As to night duty, it would be admitted, considering the character and strain of the work, that the hours should not be long, yet the warders had to do 60 hours' night duty a week; and when the change was made from night to day duty, or the opposite, the warder had to be on service for 17 hours out of the 24. Then there was the question of a half-holiday. The warders on day duty had an occasional half-holiday on a Saturday. But those on night duty had no half-holiday, and nothing corresponding to it; and that was the principal grievance
  1624
  of which they complained. Night duty was far more laborious than day duty, and he urged the Home Secretary to make some mitigation in this respect. It might be asked, if these men had grievances, why did they not lay them before the Visiting Director? They had done so themselves, and also through their Governor, but apparently without success. He appealed to the Home Secretary to re-consider the whole matter, especially the point of the half-holiday. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might be willing to grant a Departmental Committee of a small character to inquire into the grievances of the warders. If the right hon. Gentleman could not see his way to do that he would ask him to receive a deputation of the warders, who might themselves lay their case before him. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to mitigate the grievances of a very deserving body of men to whom the country owed a great deal, and who were worked harder than would be allowed in most private employments.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Asquith,)said, he regretted that, not having had notice of the intention of the noble Lord to bring forward the subject, he had not with him the materials which would enable him to go in detail into the various points to which to which the noble Lord had referred. But he would remind him and the House that the whole question of the treatment of warders of convict prisons—their status, pay, hours of labour, and holidays—was most carefully and laboriously investigated in 1891 by a Departmental Committee presided over by Lord de Ramsay, and in consequence of the Report of that Committee very large changes and improvements were made in the positions and conditions of labour of the warders less than two years ago. He had satisfied himself, after careful inquiry, that the position of the warders in Rochester Prison did not differ in any respect from the position of the warders in other convict prisons. The rules and the system which prevailed there were those recommended by the Committee with full knowledge of the circumstances and after

  1625
  full inquiry. He had no responsibility in the matter, except that he had inherited the system. He could not accede to the noble Lord's suggestion to start a fresh Departmental Inquiry within so short a time of the last one; but if any well-founded case was brought before him and were proved to his satisfaction to be a real grievance he should gladly attend to it and do everything in his power to meet it. He would suggest to the noble Lord that between now and the Committee of Supply—which he admitted was a contingent and indefinite time— the noble Lord should bring before him officially any complaints he had to make, and he would promise to give them his personal attention and most careful consideration.
  MR. H. R. FARQUHARSONcommented on the way in which the Votes had been closured in the attempt to rush through the Vote on Account on the previous night. He desired to know from the Minister of Agriculture what his intention was with regard to the great distress in agriculture? Nothing surprised him more than the apathy and indifference in the House generally as regarded the condition of agriculture. The agricultural industry in England was positively on its last. legs. Day after day and night after night they had interminable discussion about Ireland, whilst the most important industry of the country—that of agriculture— was positively going to the dogs. He considered that before they finally disposed of the Vote for the Hoard of Agriculture they ought to hear from the Minister of Agriculture what his views were as to some remedy for the present state of agriculture. There was the matter of swine fever, for dealing with which the President of the Board of Agriculture promised to bring forward a measure; but no such measure had as yet been laid before the House. He should like some information as to this. He desired also to put one or two questions to the President of the Local Government Board. He had very great, fault to find with the way the Annual Report of the Local Government Board was brought out, and with the tables and figures given. With reference to the
  1626
  lunatic and insane children, who were described as indoor paupers in the workhouses, he asked how many such cases there were, and whether the lunatic children were kept apart from the sane children? Nothing could be more harmful than to allow the two classes to be mixed up. He expressed the opinion that the agricultural localities had to support more workhouses in proportion to population than other localities, and proceeded to ask for information respecting what were described as able-bodied inmates in workhouses. As regarded children, he did not understand what an able-bodied child meant, but he supposed children under 16 were not able-bodied. One more point to which he would draw attention was that of the maintenance of paupers, and the expense of that maintenance as applied, distinctively, to indoor and outdoor patients. It. was impossible to arrive at a conclusion as to the distinction on the face of this Report. There was a number of other items, dealing with matters of expense, which might have the careful consideration of the right hon. Gentleman and his subordinates at the Local Government Office. He would only express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman would in future instruct his subordinates to draw up the Report of the Department so that the items, as affecting indoor and outdoor pauperism, would be made clearer to the public, for whose information the Report was intended.
  *MR. WEIRsaid, it was, no doubt, very inconvenient to raise important questions at that late hour of the night (after midnight), but he would undertake not to make a speech, and not to detain the House long, in calling attention to one or two matters affecting that part of the country in which he was specially interested. He had, first of all, to call attention to the neglect of the Scotch fisheries. Much might be done to develop this important industry. Then, with regard to the Board of Supervision, its re-construction was absolutely necessary. At present this Hoard did its work very badly, and he did trust that the Secretary for Scotland (Sir G. Trevelyan) would inquire into its method

  1627
  of conducting public business, and apply adequate remedies? The hon. Gentleman then referred to the negligence of the Board of Supervision in the matter of the proposed fever hospital at Auchtermuchty, which town he visited during the Recess, and when there, was asked by the Provost and Burgh Authorities to help them in their efforts to get the Board of Supervision to act. With such inattention to the state of matters in the Lowlands, and this, too, in the constituency of his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, what would the Board of Supervision not do in the Highlands? He wished the right hon. Gentleman, in his management of the affairs of Scotland, not to confine his purview to the mainland, and to the principal place in each of the Islands, but to extend his inquiry—or, better still, his visit—to the various districts of the Islands and the mainland, and so be better able to learn something of the requirements of the people, and of the indifference of the Board of Supervision to the wants of the population in the remote districts. The Board of Supervision had too many lawyers among its members; and it was for the Secretary for Scotland to prevail upon his Colleagues to bring about such reforms as were demanded. The number of lawyers should be reduced, and these sanitary theorists replaced by practical men. The policy evidently was at present to find work for a number——
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is wandering from the question before the House.
  *MR. WEIRsaid, he would bow to the ruling of the Chair, but he hoped the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Scotland would do something in the direction he had indicated. he trusted that the Fiscals would be better looked after than they were by the Lord Advocate (Mr. J. B. Balfour). Another matter upon which he had a word to say was the manner in which the business of the Board of Trade Offices was conducted. There were officials who used the offices for their own private purposes. In his opinion, all Government Departments should be above suspicion. If private firms allowed their employés to do such things as had been permitted by
  1628
  the Board of Trade, the result would be the Bankruptcy Court for the firms and commercial immorality amongst the employés. These officials were paid sufficiently high salaries for attending to the business of the Department, and he thought they should give their services to the Department wholly and exclusively. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Mundella) was in a position to assure the House that the business of his Department would be conducted on the lines of probity, honour, and honesty henceforward.
  COLONEL R. GUNTERsaid, he was anxious that some guidance should be given to Boards of Guardians who might find it necessary or desirable to take buildings for use as cottage hospitals. The Guardians frequently had actions brought against them which were expensive to the ratepayers, and they would like their duties and liabilities to be more clearly defined. The question was, Were they entitled to take buildings, and, if they were, what arrangements had been made to safeguard them against litigation?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELYAN,)said, the hon. Member for' Inverness-shire spoke of the Royal Commission having made a break in its sittings. But they must remember what this Commission was, and what its labours were. It was a Commission composed of gentlemen with important avocations of their own, who could not be taken from those avocations continuously, and their labours involved great physical inconvenience and physical hardship in the very roughest and wildest parts of the United Kingdom. They never asked from the unpaid members of the Royal Commission the same sort of work that they had a right to ask from public servants with a continuous salary. The Commission had arranged its work most admirably. They had gone, first, to the important district of the Isle of Skye, where they stayed a mouth or more thoroughly examining the country. They would re-commence their labours at Beauly, in the very centre of what might

  1629
  be called the sensational deer forest district of the Highlands. The Chairman of the Commission, Sheriff Brand, would find during the three weeks' recess public duties which it was necessary for him to perform. This was not a paid Commission. The members received £1 1s. per day for maintenance for each day they were on service, and their travelling expenses—that was to say, nothing but a bare maintenance, so that they should not be absolutely out of pocket except for the time they were taken from those avocations by which they earned their livelihood. There was only one exception, Mr. Gordon, a surveyor, who was paid £5 5s. for each day that he was commissioned by his brother Commissioners to perform professional work. As to the bursaries, there were no bursaries given out of the funds voted by Parliament. This was a question for the localities, and if the District Committees proposed to spend the money that was given for secondary education upon providing bursaries for Highland children, he was quite sure that the Department over which lie had the honour to preside would help them in every way to carry out that intention. The hon. Member sitting below the Gangway (Mr. Weir) asked when the Board of Supervision, which he said did its work very badly, would be re-constructed. He (Sir G. Trevelyan) did not admit that it did its work badly, and more especially would he not admit that the individual members of the Board failed to apply to their work very great industry, great diligence, and great public spirit; but, as he had said, both in the House and elsewhere, he thought it was a Board faultily constructed. He was prepared to re-construct it in a manner which, when the time came, he should be glad to explain to the House; but he could only do it by legislation, and when he brought in the Local Government Bill for Scot-laud the construction of the Board of Supervision would be an interesting part of the measure. In regard to the other points brought forward by the hon. Member, he must say he thought the hon. Member was too ready to appeal to the Central Authority on matters that ought to be left to the Local Bodies who represented the public opinion of the localities; but. in all matters where the
  1630
  Board of Supervision ought to interfere, he could promise the hon. Gentleman that that interference should take effect.
  *DR. MACGREGORasked if the right hon. Gentleman could inform them when the Royal Commission would finish its work?
  MAJOR RASCHsaid, he had to congratulate the Government upon the fact that they had doubled the grant to the Association which found employment for Reserve and discharged soldiers. They had a very interesting Debate on the subject of such employment last night, and he could only say that the matter was one of extreme importance. Other countries provided employment for their soldiers when discharged after long and honourable service, and it was found an excellent system, helping largely to popularise the Army and to strengthen it. France, Russia, and America provided State-aided employment. The English Government, among the Governments of the civilised nations, did not do so. They had voluntary enlistment, and voluntary enlistment would be more popular if the Government followed the examples of other Governments. It was, of course, gratifying that this grant had been made, but he would prefer that the Government should seriously consider the whole question of employing men discharged from the Army or finding employment for them.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,)said, he could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down that the Government were sensible of the importance of the subject, and that they were doing their best in reference to it.
  SIR T. LEAsaid, he rose to appeal to the Government, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir W. Harcourt), to postpone the Vote on Account, in order that an opportunity might be given for discussing the lawless condition of the Counties of Clare, Kerry, and Limerick. It was obvious that at 25 minutes to 1 o'clock in the morning it was impossible to raise that question.

  1631
  Many hon. Members were anxious that the discussion should take place, and he believed the Chief Secretary was desirous of giving his answer. [Mr. J. MORLEY dissented.] If that were so, he presumed it was because the case was as bad as some hon. Members believed it to be. He asked that the Vote should be taken as the first Order on Thursday, and he did so in the interests of order in Ireland.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,)said, he would explain that it was necessary that the Vote should be taken before the House rose, as payments had to be made on June 1. He regretted that the matter which the hon. Member desired to raise had not been brought forward; it would probably have better occupied the attention of the Committee than some of the topics which were discussed. He thought it a pity that some arrangement was not made for seeing that matters of real importance and not trifling subjects should be discussed on the Vote on Account. That was a matter affecting both sides of the House. In his early Parliamentary days no one ever pretended to raise the trivial questions that now occupied so much of their time. Nothing, indeed, was ever raised to matters of urgent importance. He hoped the House would not delay the Vote any longer.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid, he only wanted to say a few words in reference to what had fallen from the Member for South Londonderry. For his part, he was anxious that a Debate should take place, because he believed it would result in showing that the condition of the three counties named had steadily improved. He would point out that the condition of his county (Clare) had been discussed three or four times within as many months. He did not object to that discussion, provided something new was brought forward. They had it debated on the Address, on a special Motion for Adjournment, and again during the ordinary Business of the House. Personally, he would be glad to enter into the matter again, as, with regard to the condition of County
  1632
  Clare, the hon. Member for West Belfast (Mr. Arnold-Forster) had declared him to be able to place his hands on the persons who had committed some recent shooting outrages. That was a statement which ought not to have been made by one hon. Member of the House of another. The hon. Member had widely circulated in the columns of The Times the statement that, if the hon. Member for Clare did not know who were the men who committed the outrages, which everyone deplored, he could find out for the trouble of asking; and the hon. Member declared the parish priest to be in the same position. He did not think that any hon. Gentleman would require him to place on record his denial of such a charge. He had been in the House, attending to his duties, since the beginning of the Session. The County Clare was well supplied with police, and it was a monstrous thing to maintain that it was his duty to leave the House and go to his constituency to perform police work. If the men were so well-known, how was it that the police did not know them? And how was it that, if he could find them for the trouble of asking, the hon. Member for West Belfast and his informants had not taken that trouble? It was a monstrous practice for one hon. Member to write to the newspapers because a murder had taken place in another hon. Member's constituency, and urge that it was that hon. Member's duty to track down the murderer. Everyone in the House would believe that he had not, and could not have, any knowledge, direct or indirect, of the men who fired the shots. He had repeatedly set his face against outrage of every kind, the only difference between him and the hon. Member for West Belfast being that he had impartially denounced every crime, whether on the part of the moonlighter or the landlord; whereas the hon. Member had nothing to say of the primary cause of most of the crime in Ireland—the evictions by landlords. If they were to have this Debate, his (Mr. Redmond's) conduct would be shown to be what it ought to be; but, having been allowed to make this statement, he did not care much whether the Debate on the condition of Clare was continued or not. If, however, the Debate should take place, it would

  1633
  be established that the condition of the county had improved, and that it was not for the general good of Ireland, or of Clare, that this matter should he talked about in that House over and over again.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, that he could well understand that the hon. Member did not desire further debate on the condition of County Clare. But this matter was much too serious for personalities. He wished, first, to deal with the public aspect of the question. The reason that this matter of grave public importance was not pressed the previous day was that there was a ruling of the Chairman declaring it to be impossible to take any question out of the order in which it was placed on the Paper. He and his hon. Friends were then and now anxious to raise the question, because it affected the lives and liberties of subjects and was on that account most urgent. The hon. Member said that nothing had changed in Clare. A great deal had changed, and many miserable outrages had been committed since the last Debate on the subject took place. With reference to the personal matter, the hon. Member had misrepresented him in one respect. Instead of attributing to the hon. Member a knowledge of the perpetrators of these acts he deliberately disavowed such a thing in his letter; and he was willing to believe that the hon. Member had no knowledge of the perpetrators of the crime.
  MR. W. REDMONDsaid, that he would quote exactly the words used by the hon. Member in his letter to The Times—
  "The men who persecute Mr. Blood are well-known. I assume for the present purposes that the Member for the division and the parish priest do not know them. If that be the case, they are the only human beings within a score of miles who do not know them, and for the trouble of asking they could find out who they are to morrow."
  If that statement meant anything at all it meant that he was in a position to find out who the culprits were, and that he refrained from doing so. That statement he called monstrous.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, that he was obliged to the hon. Member for so correctly stating his views, and he was willing to believe that the hon. Member did not know the names of the men [cries of"Oh!"], but he asserted that the hon. Member could ascertain the names in five minutes. Let him ask the Chief Secretary for them. [Cries of "Ask him yourself!"] The right hon. Gentleman, in answer to a question, said that the names of the men were notorious and known to the police. If the Chief Secretary would not give the names to the hon. Member he would himself. [Cries of "The names!" and "Order!"] If the hon. Member visited his constituency he would find scores of people who could give him the names at once. When a case of this gravity occurred in an hon. Member's constituency it was his duty to make an inquiry which would put him in a position to abate what was a great public scandal. He challenged the hon. Member to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who was responsible for the peace and government of Ireland, on what information he based his answer to the question put to him the other night that these men were known to the police and himself.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I do not know the names.
  *MR. ARNOLD-FORSTERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman, in his answer, said that these men were known; and he challenged the right hon. Gentleman to say that he could not, within two minutes after arriving at Dublin Castle, that he could not at the Irish Office— that he could not now, after two minutes' conversation with him (Mr. Arnold-Forster)—discover who the men were. Mr. Bindon Blood was living under the most damnable persecution. [Cries of "Order!"] The Chief Secretary told the House the other night that the men were known to the police. If the right hon. Gentleman had no ground for making that statement he ought not to have made it. He was certain that if the hon. Member opposite were to ask the Chief Secretary to find out who the men were he would get the names without difficulty. But if the hon. Member were to say that the Chief Secretary

  1635
  could not inform him, he would be very glad himself to try to put the hon. Member on the track. Hon. Members seemed to be unaware of a notorious fact —namely, that scores and scores of these men, who were perpetrators and abettors of crime, were perfectly well known to the police; but that it was difficult to get evidence on which to convict them, because witnesses and jurors had been openly threatened by hon. Members opposite. [Cries of "Oh!"] He repeated his challenge, and he asked every hon. Member in that House whether he did not feel in his heart—[Cries of "Oh!"]—that it was the duty of a Member of Parliament, as a public servant, to do all that he could, when the facts of a case like this were brought before him, to relieve a fellow-countryman from such persecution as Mr. Blood was now suffering under?
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the hon. Member for West Belfast had delivered a most perplexing speech. It contained a great deal of challenging, a vast deal of declamation, but not a grain or atom of sense. What did the hon. Member say in his letter to The Times? He said that if his hon. Friend above the Gangway (Mr. W. Redmond) or the parish priest were ignorant of the names of the persons who attempted to commit a certain murder, they were the only persons who were so ignorant. What was the necessary inference? That the population of the district knew the names of the guilty parties, and that the hon. Member who represented the district also knew the names. The hon. Member (Mr. Arnold-Forster) conveyed himself more than once that he knew the names, and at one point, before his speech was concluded, he seemed to give a promise that he would state the names. The Chief Secretary said he was unable to state the names, and everybody believed that in the next sentence the hon. Member for West Belfast would himself declare the names to the House. He (Mr. Sexton) now challenged him to state the names to the House. If he did not know the names, then his letter to The Times was a mere delusion. If he did know the names and would not state
  1636
  them, then he (Mr. Sexton) denounced him as an abettor of crime. Let the men be convicted, and let the men be punished. If hon. Members used language in public letters and public speeches implying that others and themselves were acquainted with these names, and if they would not give the names, then the House ought to be spared the annoyance of such mere drivel. He must say that the view the hon. Member took as to the duties of hon. Members of that House was one of the strangest of which he had ever heard. They were sent there to discuss public questions, to make laws for the public good; but the hon. Member appeared to put upon hon. Members of the House the duties which were placed upon the police. If a crime occurred in any constituency it was the view of this hon. Member that the hon. Gentleman representing that constituency should leave the discharge of his duties in that House, proceed to his constituency, and supplement the apathy or ineffectiveness of the local police. Surely that was a reading of their duties which hon. Members of that House would not accept. These crimes in Clare were secret, and they were perpetrated under circumstances which rendered it very unlikely that the perpetrators would be known to the public at large; but there were crimes committed recently in Ireland which were notoriously public. They were committed in the constituency of the hon. Member. They were committed in the open streets, to the knowledge, not of scores, but of thousands of the political sympathisers of the hon. Member. Let him betake himself to his own constituency. Let him find out and state to the House who were the miscreants who wrecked and looted houses in Belfast, and who were the wretched cowards who, in the name of politics, dragged poor girls by the hair of the head. Let the hon. Member who laid down such a rigorous view of the duties of others first discharge the duty of a Member of Parliament according to his own idea, and, when he had identified and exposed these criminals, then let him venture to lecture other hon. Members—but not until then.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that no hon. Member opposite had been led to take this view of the duties of

  1637
  Members of Parliament. Let them see what had recently been done by the hon. Member for East Belfast (Mr. Wolff). After the visit of the right hon. Gentleman the Loader of the Opposition (Mr. A. J. Balfour), the hon. Member for East Belfast was despatched by the Conservative Party to Belfast on an occasion when certain persons there were described as "damned fools." The hon. Member for East Belfast knew who it was who threw the bolts and nuts. They (the Nationalists) did not know who committed the outrages and murders in Clare.
  SIR T. LEAasked whether the hon. Member was in Order in making this statement about the hon. Member for East Belfast during his absence?
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, if the hon. Member was absent he hoped it was on a mission to prevent outrage in Belfast. He rose, however, not for the purpose of continuing the discussion, but for the purpose of asking the Chief Secretary a question. The right hon. Gentleman, in replying to a question, had given his view of the Statute 6&7 William IV., referring to the question of the displaying of flags from licensed premises. He would call the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that there were cases in which Nationalist publicans had been prosecuted and had their licences taken from them because they had hung out banners on certain occasions. The right hon. Gentleman said his view of the section was that, when a person hung out the Union Jack, he was not breaking the law, so that it seemed that if the guilt depended on the colour of the flag, and not on the question whether a flag was hung out. The words of the section prohibited the exhibition of any flag except the known, usual, and accustomed sign of the house. He would be inclined to agree with the view of the law expressed by the Chief Secretary, only the words of the section were absolute as to all emblems except the known and usual sign of the house. He wished to ask whether the wording of this section did not make illegal all emblems except known and accustomed signs? As Nationalist publicans had been prosecuted for 50 years under the section he desired also to know whether a test case could not be taken to the
  1638
  High Court of Justice, so that the exact scope of the provision might be defined? It was hard if a Unionist was, under colour of his loyalty, to be allowed to hang out a Party emblem, whilst a Nationalist was to be prevented from doing so. Why should a red flag with particular bars upon it be allowed to be used, when a green flag, having no bars at all, was not so allowed? Was the interpretation of the section to be reduced to a question of pigment? he respectfully contended that "any emblem except the known and accustomed sign of the house" did not mean an absolute prohibition of any emblem whatever. He thought that sufficient notice had been attracted to the subject to entitle those who were interested to obtain some valid decision upon it.
  MR. J. MORLEY: I do not know whether it is possible to take the course my hon. and learned Friend suggests; but I will consider the question with the Law Officers. In the meantime I may say that the clause as he read it, taken by itself, undoubtedly seems to point to the illegality of the exhibition of bunting of any sort—Union Jack or anything else. But when, along with the Law Officers, I read the whole of the Statute, it appeared to me that its intention was to prohibit the meeting in licensed houses of secret or other obnoxious Associations. It seems to mo that it would be impossible that the Statute could have meant the prohibition of such an emblem as the Union Jack, because one section empowers constables to take down a flag and to destroy it. I do not believe that Parliament ever meant to give constables power to haul down the Union Jack and destroy it. My impression, which is not contradicted by the Law Officers whom I have had the opportunity of consulting, is that the intention, as disclosed by the context, was to limit the prohibition to pieces of bunting which might be taken as symbols or ensign of one of those Associations whoso meetings within a licensed house was prohibited. What my hon. and learned Friend has said as to the apparent inequality of the views taken by different Administrations is quite true. Certainly there is a great difference between the view we take of what occurred last week and the view that has been taken of events

  1639
  that have occurred in the South and West of Ireland. In 1889 two publicans were brought up for having banners hanging out of their windows during Father M'Fadden's march. In the first of these cases the Magistrates made no order, and in the second they inflicted a small fine. When the Prince of Wales visited Dublin in 1885, during the Viceroyalty of Lord Spencer, publicans wished to hang out flags of various kinds; and the authorities of the day felt most sensibly that it would be absurd to punish publicans for welcoming the Heir to the Throne by putting out decorations and flags. They, therefore, took no notice. Though the constables who were concerned in the affair at Derry the other day did nothing but that for which perfectly good reason and excuse may be found, I think it was one of those cases in which the apparent breach of the ordinary reading of the section might well have been winked at. As it is, I think the time has come when we might have an opinion and perhaps a decision taken on the question, and to that point I will give my best consideration.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he did not think the speech made a little earlier by the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be allowed to pass without protest. The right hon. Gentleman said there was no time to discuss these matters, whether they were important or not, because the Vote must be passed at that Sitting in order that payments might be made on the 1st of June. The discussion and the redress of grievances were among the oldest and certainly the most valuable privileges of the House; but the Government were practically, by a side wind, destroying these privileges. They had put forward the Vote on Account on the last available day, so as to leave no time for discussion; and, as the Vote was for two months, it would carry them on to the ordinary end of the Session. They had, consequently, practically destroyed the privilege of discussing and obtaining redress of grievances before Supply was granted.
  Question put, and agreed to.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.—(No. 360.)
  Read a second time, and committed.
  WATER PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 1) BILL.—(No. 337.)
  Read a second time, and committed.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 7) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Burt, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade, under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Newmarket, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Burt and Mr. Mundella.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 373.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ODDER (NO. 6) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. John Morley, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Local Government Board for Ireland, under "The Public Health (Ireland) Act. 1878," relating to the union of Fermoy, ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Morley and Sir John Hibbert.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 374.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 7) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. John Morley, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Local Government Board for Ireland, under "The Public Health (Ireland) Act. 1878," relating to the town of Youghal, ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Morley and Sir John Hibbert.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 375.]

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 17) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Walter Foster, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the city of Coventry, and to the contributory place of Shevington, ordered to be brought in by Sir Walter Foster and Mr. Henry H. Fowler.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 376.]

  WAYS AND MEANS.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL.
    Resolution [29th May] reported,
    "That towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the Service of the year ending on the 31st day of March. 1894, the sum of £9,543,234 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."
    Resolution agreed to: —Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mellor, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir John Hibbert.
    Bill presented, and read first time.
    House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

Preamble
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
MILITARY LANDS (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) BILL.—(No. 74).

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OK STATE FOR WAR (Lord SANDHURST),in moving the Second Reading, said, the Bill was merely to confirm certain Provisional Orders under the Military Lands Act, 1892.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." —(The Lord Sandhurst.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2aaccordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

  CANAL BATES, TOLLS, AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
  Commons Message considered (according to order).
  LORD PLAYFAIR LORD PLAYFAIR moved that this House do concur in the following Resolution communicated by the Commons— namely:—
  "That all Bills of the present Session to confirm Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade, under the 'Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888,' containing the Classification of Merchandise Traffic, and the Schedule of Maximum Rates, Tolls, and Charges applicable thereto, be referred to a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons."
  He said this was practically the same Resolution as had been passed by the House of Lords for the last two years to consider Railway Provisional Orders under the Railway and Canal Traffic Act, 1888. The only difference was that on this occasion there were five Canal Bills to be referred to the Joint Committee instead of Railway Bills.
  Motion agreed to, and a Message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

BARBED WIRE FENCES BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD MONKSWELLsaid, this Bill proposed to give power to Local Authorities having the control of highways to order the removal by occupiers of laud of barbed wire fences so placed as to be dangerous to men or animals passing along such highways. If the barbed wire fences were not removed within the time specified in the order—namely, not less than one month and not more than six—a Court of Summary Jurisdiction might direct their removal. Clause 5, which related to fences over which wire was placed for the protection of property under the Act, might require amendment, as it hardly appeared well drafted as it stood. The Bill, he should mention, was not a Government measure, and he merely took it in hand to oblige a private Member of the House of Commons. He would also mention that "highways" in an Act of Parliament included footways, unless the contrary was expressed. When the Bill went into Committee it might, perhaps, be well for the benefit of occupiers and the public that a definition of "highways" should be given. He begged to move the Second Reading.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a" —(The Lord Monkswell.)
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN,THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, his objection to it was that it dealt with a matter which ought to be left for proceedings under the existing Common Law. In Scotland a judicial decision in reference to highways had been acted upon over since 1886. He thought it unwise that Bills should be introduced by private Members dealing with matters falling within the ordinary Common Law. This measure was introduced originally in a different form— namely, that any person might serve notice on an owner or occupier on whose lands barbed wire fence was erected requiring its removal within a month, and that in default the Local Authority might remove it and recover the cost of doing so from the owner or occupier. Its form was now very much changed, but these matters had much better be left to

  303
  be dealt with by the ordinary law. Whether he should divide the House on his Motion to reject the Bill would depend very much upon the opinion their Lordships might express. In Scotland it had been decided that a barbed wire fence adjacent to a road must have the barbed wires on the inside towards the land it was to protect, and that the posts must not be more than a reasonable distance apart, which had been held, he believed, by the Courts to be something like 80 feet.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months ").—(The Earl of Camperdown.)
  *LORD THRINGearnestly hoped their Lordships would read the Bill a second time, for it involved a much greater principle than at first appeared, expressed in an old Latin phrase which might be stated in English that "you must so deal with your property as not to injure others," and which involved the moral duty of "doing to others as you would be done by." Nothing was more calculated to destroy the amenities of country life than these barbed wire fences placed along highways and public footpaths. What reason was there why a child wandering along the roadside picking cowslips and blackberries should be liable to have its hands lacerated and its clothes torn by these fences, or why people walking along the highways and footpaths should run the risk of being dangerously hurt by them? There were no uglier wounds than those made by these fences. In regard to animals again, could anything be more shocking than to see a dog coming out of them torn and perhaps blinded? It was not right to expose hounds to such dreadful suffering. Plenty of means of protecting property existed without resorting to so barbarous a system. The noble Earl (Lord Camper-down) had said the existing Common Law remedy was sufficient in cases of injury occurring. What was the remedy? If an action were brought the lawyer would argue "contributory negligence," that the person had walked too near the fence, and so on. Was it fair to tell people, who suffered injury in walking along a road or footpath, which they had been in the habit of using daily, that
  304
  they might bring actions? Thee it was said an indictment might be brought, but their Lordships knew what that meant. There was, in fact, no practical remedy but that proposed by this Bill. As to the remedy by indictment, their Lordships knew that the sanitary laws had entirely failed so long as the remedy for nuisance was only by indictment. He believed that shutting up public footpaths did more real harm to the interests of property than all the Socialistic speeches which might be made in a century. These fences really interfered with the heritage of the stranger. Was not a wayfarer to be allowed to lie down by the roadside without fear of being injured by those horrible wires? This was, in his opinion, a most righteous Bill, and he hoped their Lordships would assent to it.
  *THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, the speech their Lordships had just listened to was not merely in support of the Bill, but in favour of the abolition of barbed wire fences altogether. He had had experience in these matters at the Aberdeenshire County Council. They had been told what the law in Scotland was under the decision of President Inglis as to putting up barbed wire fences along the roadsides; and he had brought forward a motion at the County Council that steps should be taken for their abolition; but it was pointed out that though sheep might suffer by having their wool torn in these fences, barbed wire was necessary in some parts of the country to keep the wild Canadian animals, imported by some proprietors and tenants, from invading their neighbours' lands: those animals were only kept in the fields by that means. He only mentioned that to show that there were two aspects to this matter. This was not only a question of the footpaths in suburban districts of London or Surrey, but it was one of considerable importance to farmers in the North and in rural districts throughout the country where, in many instances, these barbed wire fences were a necessary protection for the fields. If this Bill were passed the House would be setting up a most invidious distinction in regard to what was dangerous to persons or to animals. Notices would be served upon people who put up these defences to their crops,

  305
  and if no attention was paid they would be hauled up before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction. Thus an endless source of litigation would be provided. He had never road a more loosely-drawn clause than Clause 3 of the Bill. Who was to decide whether the fence was dangerous or not? And why should an occupier he called upon to come forward and prove that it was not dangerous? It seemed to him they would be putting into the hands of certain individuals a means of annoying one another, which would lead to no good at all. If the use of barbed wire wore to be stopped altogether, by all means let a Bill he brought in to abolish it; but this Bill was only leaving the door open for the Courts to decide whether or not what a man was doing for the protection of his property was dangerous to animals or not—a question which it would not be very easy, perhaps, to decide.
  *THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, I cannot say that I see any harm in this Bill. I believe it is in accordance with the law of Scotland, but I must protest against the strong language which has been used by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Thring), who got up an amount of feeling which I should not have thought possible on the iniquity of barbed wire fences. I am afraid I am guilty of having erected lately many miles of barbed wire. The real truth is that in the wild districts of Scotland and in the North of England there are large farms which have to be fenced, and there are no other means of fencing so effectively and so cheaply as by using this wire. Where you have heavy animals to deal with, their more leaning against fences is sufficient to break them down, and the barbed wire is not put there to lacerate the animals, still less to tear the hands and clothes of people who pass by. It is simply to give notice to the heavy horses and cattle that if they press against that wire it will have the effect of hurting them. There is no doubt that the barbed wire has a most protective effect in preventing horses and other heavy animals leaning against and breaking down fences. I believe it is not in the least with the design of preventing human beings passing, but simply for the purpose of preventing the egress of animals from the fields, and for that purpose it is necessary. I quite agree with my
  306
  noble Friend opposite that landlords ought not to erect such fences where they can be injurious to human beings; but I cannot understand how either man or beast properly using a roadway can come against a barbed wire fence. If a horse tries to leave a field, he may, no doubt, come against the fence; and if he succeeded in getting out, he would, in many districts in Scotland and parts of England, probably go over a steep bank into the sea. At the same time, my Lords, there appears to me to be a perfectly good remedy for any injury that may be done, as the Sheriff has power to move in the matter.
  LOUD HALSBURY: I doubt very much whether this Bill, beyond proposing to provide by a new Statute a new remedy, goes beyond the law as it is now, either in Scotland or in England. Of course, no one is entitled to put up along a highway, either to prevent trespass or otherwise, anything which will cause injury to man or beast. That, I believe, is the law. But if the Bill were read a second time, and words which I will venture to suggest were introduced, they will probably get rid of any objection. The object is not, I take it, to create a new offence, but only to create a cheaper and more easy and convenient remedy than the present procedure by indictment. I observe that some effort has been made to define "highways," and I expect, when you come to deal with that in a Court of Law, you will find some difficulty; but if you were to add the words "so as to create a nuisance," after that which constitutes the offence, the law would remain as it is now, and that which is the object of the Bill simply would remain—namely, to give a cheaper and more efficient remedy than existed before.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HERSCHELL): My Lords, I quite agree with my noble and learned Friend that this does not alter the substance of the law. I apprehend that you would very well define one form of nuisance as putting up a fence adjoining a highway which would make the highway dangerous to persons properly using it. That, undoubtedly, would be a nuisance in point of law. But the noble Earl who moved the rejection of this Bill seemed to think that, as that might now be left to be established in a Court of Law, that was

  307
  a conclusive answer to those who desire to deal with the matter by legislation and to pass this measure into law. It is quite true that that Common Law right to have the nuisance got rid of may be enforced by indictment; but everybody knows what the nature of a remedy of that description is, and how inconvenient it is. Surely if it be a right which those passing along the highway have to be guarded against a nuisance of this description, if the existing law is so cumbrous and so inconvenient that by reason of the trouble and expense that would be caused their rights cannot be asserted, that is an occasion when it would be more reasonable and right that you should provide a simple process for enforcing the law. That is all this Bill proposes, and, though it may be open to amendment in Committee, for that reason I support the Second Reading.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN, after what had been said, would not put their Lordships to the trouble of dividing.
  Amendment (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  Original Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Friday next.

INDIA—CASE OF MR. PHILLIPS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYcalled the attention of the House to the inconveniences of uniting executive and judicial functions in the same person in India; and asked the Secretary of State for India what notice had been taken by the India Government, or by himself, of the conduct of Mr. Phillips, District Magistrate of Mymensing, as set forth in the Resolution of the Bengal Government of 31st December, 1892, and of the conduct of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal in respect thereof; and moved for the Government Letter, No. 810, J.D., dated 5th October, 1892, to the address of Mr. Phillips, and the explanation submitted by him to Government. He said, that the case which he was going to bring before the House was a good example of the evils arising from the fusion of Executive and Judicial
  308
  powers in India. It would be obvious that when the same person acted as police officer, Magistrate, and Judge justice could not be administered satisfactorily. From the outset the Indian National Congress had urged the necessity of reforming this state of things. If nothing had been done yet, it was partly due to the penury of the Indian Treasury; but, at the same time, if any people had a right to expect a good and sufficient Judicial system, it was the people of Bengal, where the suitors' fees pay for the whole, or nearly the whole, administration of justice in India. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India might remember that he (Lord Stanley of Alderley) asked his attention to this subject and to Chief Justice Sir Richard Garth's Minute on it in July, 1884. He did not ask his noble Friend what had been done in the matter, since the fall of the rupee accounted for nothing having been done, but he mentioned it because it ought not to be forgotten, and because it added weight to the claim for reform of the Judicial Body. There was a Raja living at Mymensing; he had had a good English education, mixed freely in English society; he had spent large sums in works of public beneficence; not long ago he gave over a lakh of rupees for waterworks in the principal town, when the Lieutenant Governor, Sir Charles Elliott, declared that this Raja "was the leading benefactor of the district." He had also subscribed to most of the Viceroys' funds. This, however, did not avail to protect him, for last year he suffered a terrible disgrace; he was prosecuted under the Penal Code, and placed in the prisoners' dock, to stand there side by side with a common criminal. He had not yet told their Lordships what was the offence for which he was prosecuted; it was as described by Sir Richard Garth, formerly Chief Justice at Calcutta, in his article in India of 1st February last—
  "The Raja was erecting a palace at Mymen sing, and in building the outer wall of his compound he had inadvertently closed a small drain, which, in the rainy season, helped to carry off the water from the adjoining property. Upon his attention being called to this by the Municipality, the Raja at once proposed to build a more substantial drain at a cost of some Rs. 4,000, of which he had actually paid Rs. 1,000 in advance, and had been thanked for his kindness by the Municipality."

  309
  A similar ease happened in this country, and last February Mr. A. Chamberlain questioned the Home Secretary as to the case of a Mr. Sankey whose chimney had been on fire; he had sent his clerk and solicitor to pay any fine that, might be imposed, but the Magistrate had issued a warrant for his arrest. Mr. Asquith said that such a course was not usual in the Metropolitan Police Courts, and he concurred with the view of the Metropolitan Courts. Owing to the Raja being away on a shooting expedition, this work was not commenced as soon as it should have been; and Mr. Phillips, who knew of the arrangements made by the Raja and the Municipality, here intervened, and ordered his Deputy to try the Raja under the Criminal Law for a nuisance and malicious mischief, although no complaint had been made by the health officer. The Raja was eventually acquitted of both offences; but the trial, which might have been concluded in a few hours, was protracted to several days, so as to put the Raja to the expense of some £2,000 for counsel, &c. In addition to what he had already mentioned, Mr. Phillips was guilty of the following irregularities—during the trial he sent a posse of policemen with rifles and a number of labourers, who forcibly broke down the Raja's walk of inclosure and re-opened the drain. He constantly interfered with his Deputy during the trial of the case, and directed his action. This Deputy Magistrate was very much to blame, but as he appeared to have acted under compulsion of the District Magistrate he would not mention his name. The Raja appealed on the 6th August last to the Sessions Judge, who in the course of the proceedings said that Mr. Phillips
  "Had acted improperly in writing to him while the appeal was pending."
  He would now read to the House the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, Sir Charles Elliott's, opinion of Mr. Phillips' conduct, as published in a Resolution of the Bengal Government dated 31st December—
  "In regard to all judicial matters connected with this case, the Lieutenant Governor accepts the decisions of the High Court and of the District Judge of Mymensing as final, and he has confined his consideration of the Raja's Memorial and of Mr. Phillips' explanation to those points
  310
  on which Mr. Phillips' good faith and discretion have been impugned.
  "2. In respect of the latter question whether a sound discretion was exercised or not, Sir Charles Elliott must at once say that he considers that the prosecution of the Raja need not have been instituted. Looking to the position and the status of the Raja Bahadur in the district, to the fact that the Raja has been honoured by Government, and has been a great benefactor of the town of Mymensing, it was the obvious duty of the Magistrate of the district to have exhausted every means in his power of amicably settling a matter of such a nature as the obstruction of a drain before resorting to the extreme measure of prosecuting the Raja in a Criminal Court; and it does not appear that he did exhaust all such amicable measures, or even accept them when proffered. Mr. Phillips' indiscretion was aggravated by the fact that he instituted the prosecution of his own motion without consulting any medical authority or sanitary expert, and without any complaint having been made to him, that the filling up of the drain had caused a nuisance. His subsequent procedure was not less unwise. After the prosecution had been instituted, but before proceedings had been taken in Court, the Raja arranged with the Municipality to construct a main drain to carry off the water which had been obstructed, and actually deposited Rs. 1,000 with the Chairman for this purpose. The Municipal Commissioners in meeting then thanked the Raja for his action. Mr. Phillips did not, however, withdraw from the prosecution, but recorded an order that he would do so if the Raja would knock down the wall which obstructed the drainage, re-open the obstructed drain all along the bye-lane, and then build the main drain above referred to. Moreover, after the prosecution had commenced, although the counsel for the Raja proposed in Court to make a temporary drain within a week to carry off the water and then to complete a main drain according to any plan which might be approved, and although it appears that the Chairman of the Municipality was prepared to accept this proposal, Mr. Phillips rejected it at once, and on the same day, and while the prosecution was still pending, caused an opening to be made in the obstructing wall, and re-excavated and restored the bye-lane drain. It appears to the Lieutenant Governor that throughout, all these proceedings the action of Mr. Phillips was indefensible and characterised by a regrettable want of that discretion, suavity, and common sense which the Government has the right to expect, from a District Magistrate of his experience in the service."
  So far good, and he had now nothing more to say with regard to Mr. Phillips, as he had been removed to Monghir, and substantial justice had been done with regard to him; but he hoped that the Secretary of State would inform the House whether this had been done at the instance of the Viceroy or of himself. He said substantial justice, because it was as difficult for the Indian Government to dismiss an incompetent or mis-

  311
  behaving Covenanted Civil servant, as it used to be for a Bishop to get rid of a bad clergyman. It was possible that Monghir was a better post, than Mymensing, and that the friends of the District Magistrate might say that he was promoted; but Mr. Phillips would feel that it was not so. But the next paragraph of Sir Charles Elliott's Resolution was a perfect non sequitur, and after the censure which he had just read it proceeded to attempt to whitewash Mr. Phillips as follows:—
  "3. At the same time Sir Charles Elliott is convinced that there is no justification whatever for any imputation on Mr. Phillips motives in conducting this prosecution. That Mr. Phillips was satisfied that it was his duty, and no more than his duty, to repress by all legitimate means what appeared to be a highhanded and illegal obstruction on the Raja's part, there can be no doubt. For months previous to the institution of the prosecution the attention of the Raja had been called by the Municipality to the obstruction he had caused by filling up the ditch along the bye-lane and building a wall across it; and although he had admitted his liability to carry off the drainage water there from, and had promised to construct a main drain, he had deliberately neglected to take any action in the matter until the Magistrate personally inquired into the condition of the premises. He was acting in wilful defiance of his own promise. Mr. Phillips was indignant with what he saw, and put the law in force. The Lieutenant Governor has commented on his indiscretion, but he has no doubt that he acted in what he conceived to be in the public interest and in good faith, and with perfect integrity of motive and honesty of purpose."
  Now he was as ready to believe in the perfect integrity of motive of Sir Charles Elliott as Sir Charles Elliott was with regard to Mr. Phillips: and he was, moreover, certain and convinced of the integrity of purpose of the noble Marquess the Viceroy: but unless it were shown that the Viceroy has taken some steps to remedy the misconduct of Mr. Phillips, and the attempt to whitewash him by Sir Charles Elliott, the Viceroy would fall under the imputation of judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur. It was said that the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal was coming to England on leave. That was fortunate, as it would facilitate the laying aside of the several unpopular measures he had brought in. He had reconsidered the provisions of the Mofussil Municipalities Bill; and the Behar Cadastral Survey Bill, which is equally unpopular, might perhaps also be reconsidered. It was possible he might
  312
  not return to India, for he had been informed that he intended to endeavour to get into another place to swell Mr. Gladstone's majority. Though he might be glad if Sir Charles Elliott left Bengal, he would be sorry if a man of his undoubted energy and capacity succeeded in finding a place among Mr. Gladstone's followers; but, perhaps, if he did present himself on the hustings, the question of "Who tried to suppress trial by jury in India?" which would inevitably be asked of him, would effectually prevent his disturbing the Liberal Party as he had disturbed Bengal. He would conclude with a sentence from Sir Richard Garth, who wrote that—
  "He thinks his readers will agree with him that the subordinate Magistrate who tried this case is virtually the same person who directs the prosecution."
  He says—
  "This is a disgrace, not so much to the Magistrates concerned, who are the mere creatures of this system, but to the Government of India, who cling to that system to give what they call prestige to the District Magistrate."
  Moved—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for the Government Letter, No. 810, J. D., dated 5th October, 1892, to the address of Mr. Phillips, and the explanation submitted by him to Government."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OK STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, the first part of my noble Friend's question, which I apprehend arose from the late Lord Chief Justice's Memorandum or speech, has reference to the inconveniences of uniting the Executive and Judicial functions in the same person in India. My noble Friend was fair enough to say he did not suppose that in the present condition of the finances of India any great changes could be made in this respect. As the noble Lord has quoted from Sir Richard Garth, I am bound to state that I in no way admit Sir Richard Garth was justified in saying that the Government of India keep up this system for the purpose of enhancing the prestige of these officers. It is admitted on all hands that is contrary to right and good principle that the Civil and Judicial powers should be united in one person. That is not a matter in dispute. The difficulty is simply this—that if the

  313
  present system in India is altered it will he necessary to double the staff throughout the Empire there, and it is impossible that the Government of India can find means sit the present time of making this reform. Having said this upon the general matter, I hope, at the same time, your Lordships will understand that I am in no way insensible to the inconveniences which arise from the union of those two functions. As to the special matter the noble Lord has raised, the account he gave of the case is, no doubt, in the main correct. The whole matter arose about a drain, which the Raja of My-mensing was liable, in the opinion of the District Magistrate, to put in order, and it seemed that the obstruction in the drain was not removed by the Rajah within the time specified. So far there is no dispute. But as to the conduct of the Magistrate, the noble Lord has read the opinion of the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal on the proceedings of that official. The effect of it is that the Magistrate was, in the main, justified in the action he took by the strict letter of the law. The Raja, as the noble Lord has said, is a person of the very highest character and standing; he is a man of high position, and recognised as a public benefactor by the Government, and it is obvious that any man of common sense and discretion, in which, as the Lieutenant Governor says, the Magistrate appears unfortunately to have been singularly deficient, would not have proceeded in this way against the Raja until every possible effort to arrange the matter amicably had failed. That is the sum total, plainly stated, of the offence of the Magistrate. I do not wish to underrate it, for it was a grievous want of discretion, and a want of discretion of that kind which, no doubt, being exercised by a person in that position, does not reflect any credit on the Government. It appears to me that throughout those proceedings the action of Mr. Phillips was indefensible, for, as the Lieutenant Governor says, it showed a remarkable want of that discretion, suavity, and common sense which the Government has a right to expect from a District Magistrate of experience and standing in the service. In my opinion, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal took a right and proper course
  314
  in pointing out, the faults which he believed the Magistrate had committed, and, at the same time, absolving him from the charge of having been actuated by bad motives. It is impossible over here to understand thoroughly the details of a local Indian matter of this kind. The Lieutenant Governor, on the other hand, was in a position to understand and judge the case. I protest against the notion that the Viceroy should interfere in local matters such as this. Of course, if the Raja had presented a Memorial to the Viceroy asking him to take notice of what had occurred, the Viceroy would have been bound to do so; but no such Memorial was presented. Neither the Viceroy or the Secretary of State ought to interfere in a case of this kind when there is no ground for thinking that the Lieutenant Governor has been guilty of any indiscretion. He expressed that kind of censure of Mr. Phillips which, as far as I understand the case, would have been expressed by any person holding a high position and looking fairly and justly at the matter; and in fairness to Mr. Phillips, who had conducted himself satisfactorily before, he added, knowing that motives had been attributed to the Magistrate, that, he did not believe he bad been actuated by anything more than a sense of public duty, though he had performed it with a great want of common sense. I see no reason to find fault, with the action of the Lieutenant Governor. It seems to me to be thought that the Viceroy is bound to interfere in every local matter which may arise in any part of India, and that, if he will not do so, the Secretary of State should be invoked. I protest altogether against such a system. When you have appointed men to conduct such a Government as that of Bengal, and you find that they have dealt impartially and fairly with a case, I do not think it is advisable that the Viceroy should interfere. I am not surprised that the case has excited a good deal of feeling in India, and especially in the district; but I am satisfied that it is not a matter in which either the Viceroy or the Secretary of State ought to interfere, unless the Lieutenant Governor had been guilty of great indiscretion and want of knowledge of his duty. I do not say anything in defence of Mr. Phillips' conduct; but I

  315
  say the matter has been sufficiently dealt with. I quite agree in the condemnation of Mr. Phillips' action which has been expressed, and I think the case may be allowed to rest here. I do not think it at all desirable to produce the Papers which my hon. Friend has asked for, inasmuch as the Resolution of the Government of Bengal, which states the Phillips' case with perfect truth and fairness, has been published.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, I should like to say, though I know nothing at all about this particular case, because it has only lately happened, that in regard to the main principle involved, that is uniting the Executive and Judicial functions, it is a matter of the greatest importance. It is a matter which I was anxious to deal with myself. What the noble Earl opposite has said is perfectly true—that in the present state of the finances of India it is quite impossible to carry out this improvement, which would be of vast benefit to India if it could be effected. I hope when the noble Earl has discovered some means of improving the finances of India that matter will be taken in hand. I think in this case the censure of the Lieutenant Governor was entirely deserved, and that it is very unfortunate that Magistrates should treat men as this Raja was treated, because it is absolutely essential these Rajas should know that at the hands of the English Government they will always receive justice, and that they will not be insulted.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, as far as the answer had gone he had every reason to be satisfied, and he, therefore, withdrew his Motion. This matter had excited great interest in the locality, and what had been said would allay the feeling of discontent which had been aroused. As the noble Earl had said the Papers could not be produced, he would not press his application for them; but, at the same time, it would hardly benefit Mr. Phillips that his explanation could not be produced.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS(HOUSE OF COMMONS).
  Message from the Commons for leave for the Clerk of the Parliaments to attend
  316
  to be examined as a witness before the Select Committee of that House: Leave given accordingly, and a message ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

  HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
  Second Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed: To be considered on Friday next. (No. 88.)
  JOURNAL COMMITTEE.
  Report from, that the one hundred and twenty-fourth volume of the Journals (55th and 56th Vict. 1892), with an Index, was ready for delivery; read, and ordered to lie on the Table; and the said volume ordered to be delivered in the same manner as the preceding volumes of the Journals have been delivered.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 1) BILL. (No. 70.)
  Read 3a (according to order), and passed.
  RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION BILL [H.L.] (No. 64.)
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Reading—Was presented by The Lord Playfair; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. (No. 89.)
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 6) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to confirm a Provisional Order made by the Board of Trade under the Electric Lighting Acts, 1882 and 1888, relating to Islington—Was presented by The Lord Playfair; read 1a; to be printed, and referred to the Examiners. (No. 90.)
  CUSTOMS AND INLAND REVENUE BILL.
  Read 1a; and to be read 2a To-morrow; and Standing Order No. XXXIX. to be considered in order to its being dispensed with.—(The Lord President [E. Kimberley)].

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR THE STANDING COMMITTEE.
  Report from, that the Committee have added the Lord de Ross to the Standing Committee; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at twenty minutes past Five o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Five o'clock.