Sitting of 15 May 1893

QUESTIONS.

  INCOME FROM LAND.
  MR. LOGAN: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury if his attention has been called to Table 14 of the Statistical Abstract for the United Kingdom for 1892, compiled by the Commercial De-

  897
  partment of the Board of Trade, in which, while the income from land subject to Income Tax is stated to have decreased in England and Wales to the amount of £10,432,645, and in Scotland to the amount of £1,314,854, between the years 1877 and 1891 inclusive, the income from land subject to Income Tax in Ireland has increased by £3,687 during the same period; and whether he can state the class of land to which this increase is due, and say in which portion of Ireland it is situated?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Sir J. T. HIBBERT,): The Tables to which the hon. Member's question refers show the gross assessments to Income Tax. But, whereas these assessments in Great Britain are based upon rack-rental, in Ireland they are based on Griffith's valuation, which was, on the average, 20 or 25 per cent. below rack-rental. Until the actual rental fails below the valuation the assessment is not changed. Hence, although there may be, and, as a matter of fact, has been, a great fall in the value of laud in Ireland since 1877, the Income Tax assessment in most cases shows no change. The small increase to which the hon. Member refers is believed to be due to an increase of value from the erection of farm buildings, which, for Income Tax purposes, are valued with the land. I have no figures enabling me to fix the situation of such increase.

  INLAND REVENUE CLERKS.
  SIR FREDERICK DIXON-HARTLAND: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, with reference to the 50 Second Division Clerks of the Inland Revenue Department who have been promoted to the Higher Division and to superior posts, how many were promoted to Higher Division clerkships in the Secretary's Office, in the Accountant and Controller General's Office, in the Controller of Stamps and Stores Office, and in the Legacy Duty Office; of this number how many were required to pass a special examination before being promoted; and of the 50 promotions mentioned, how many were appointments to Assistant Surveyorships of Taxes in the Outdoor Service, subject to a special examination?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The figures are as follows:—Secretary's Office, none;
  898
  Accountant and Controller General's Office, none; Controller of Stamps and Stores Office, 6; Legacy Duty Office, 13. Of the last 13, 8 were called upon, after selection for promotion, to pass a qualifying examination in law. 31 of the 50 eases were appointments to Assistant Surveyorships of Taxes, made after success in a competition conducted by the Inland Revenue Authorities in "the Law and Practice relating to Taxes."

  THE WEST COAST OF SCOTLAND FISHERIES.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Department will provide, instead of the old sailing ship Vigilant, a steam cruiser for the North-West Coast of Scotland to protect the fishermen from trawlers?
  THE CIVIL LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. E. ROBERTSON,): The Vigilant is not an Admiralty vessel, and it is not proposed, therefore, to replace her with a steamer provided by the Admiralty.

  THE CASE OF MICHAEL O'KEEFE.
  MR. FLYNN: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War if the case of Michael O'Keefe, formerly of A Troop, Madras Horse Artillery (now in the refuge for aged poor established at Montenotte, Cork, by the Little Sisters of the Poor), has been brought under the notice of the War Office; is he aware that this man fought through the Indian Mutiny, took part in several engagements, and received a medal and clasp for distinguished services in the field; and whether, in view of these services and his advanced age, he will entertain his claim to a moderate pension?
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN,): Michael O'Keefe's service was entirely under the Honourable East India Company. I regret that he did not servo long enough to be qualified for a special pension.
  MR. FLYNN: Is there any special machinery for inquiry into these cases?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes, Sir; the Chelsea Commissioners are most trustworthy, and discharge the duty most efficiently.

  THE ACCOMMODATION IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he has observed that large numbers of hon. Members are daily unable to find seats from which they can take part in the proceedings of the House, and that when a Division is called there is a crowd of several hundred Members so jammed together at the Bar as to be unable to hear or understand what is taking place; and if, under such circumstances, the Government still persists in refusing to appoint a Committee to consider the enlargement of the present Chamber? Is it not also a fact that at 3 o'clock this afternoon there was not a vacant seat on these Conservative Benches?
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. SHAW LEFEVRE,): I think the hon. Member has rather overstated his case. On Monday last, the first day of the Committee of the Home Rule Bill, the House was certainly most inconveniently crowded during its whole Sitting, more so than on any other day since Easter; since then, however, during the remainder of the week, although very large numbers of Members have been in the precincts of the House, and have taken part in the Divisions, I have not observed that the House has been filled except during the few minutes preceding Divisions, and there has seldom been a time when 30 or 40 more Members might not have found seats in the body of the House. I am rather confirmed by this in my view that it would be wise to wait for further experience as to the normal requirements of the present Parliament before appointing a Committee.

  RETIREMENT IN THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE.
  CAPTAIN BAGOT: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, on the Comptroller and Auditor General calling attention to the payment of salaries to officers of Her Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular Services when those officers were beyond the limit of ago at which they should have been retired under the Order in Council of
  900
  15th August, 1890, he was informed that the provisions of the Order in Council do not, in Lord Rosebery's opinion, apply to members of the Diplomatic and Consular Services; and whether he can state the reasons which have induced the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to come to a conclusion on this point in contradiction with that of the Comptroller and Auditor General?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,): The Diplomatic Service has always been regarded as distinct from the Civil Service, and in many points the Consular Service must be also regarded as distinct. The Royal Commission on Civil Establishments made a separate Report on the Diplomatic and Consular Services, and their recommendations require separate consideration. No question, therefore, arose of applying the Order in Council to those Services.

  COVENTRY CHARITY TRUSTEES.
  MR. BALLANTINE: I beg to ask the Parliamentary Charity Commissioner whether the Charity Commissioners will refuse their sanction to the ten vacancies in the body of Trustees of the general charities of Coventry being filled up on the nomination of the existing Trustees; and whether the Charity Commissioners will give effect to Sir John Swinburne's Resolution, agreed to by the House of Commons on the 18th May, 1886, by proposing a scheme placing the election of the new Trustees in the hands of the Town Council of Coventry?
  THE PARLIAMENTARY CHARITY COMMISSIONER (Mr. T. E. ELLIS,): The proceedings upon the application for the appointment of Trustees received in the month of June, 1892, have been suspended until the Commissioners shall receive from the Trustees such a further application as will enable the Commissioners to establish a scheme providing that a certain number of future Trustees shall be appointed otherwise than by co-optation.

  H.M.S. "DAPHNE."
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Ad-

  901
  miralty whether be can afford the House any information regarding the boiler explosion which occurred on board H.M.S. Daphne, twin screw, when on her way in March last from Esquimalt to Hong Kong, to join the China Squadron; whether there are no appliances in Hong Kong Dockyard sufficient to effect even temporary repairs, and that the vessel must wait until a new furnace is sent out from England; and what measures the Admiralty intend adopting for the purpose of providing appliances necessary for the repair of Her Majesty's ships in hull and machinery engaged cruising in Chinese waters?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: A furnace crown of one of the Daphne's boilers is reported to have come down on the bars. The appliances in Hong Kong Dockyard are sufficient to effect the repair. Very extensive repairs are carried out at Hong Kong Dockyard to both hulls and machinery of Her Majesty's ships on the China Station with the present plant, to which additions will be made as required.
  MR. GOURLEY: How long will the repairs occupy?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: That I cannot say.

  DESERTIONS FROM THE ROYAL NAVY.
  MR. GOURLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether about 70 men have deserted from H.M.S. Blake, and other vessels forming the British Squadron attending the International Naval Review at New York; if so, have the Admiralty received any official information as to the cause of the desertion; if not, is it the intention of the First Lord to institute an inquiry; and whether any Consular Convention exists, applicable to seamen of the two Navies, between this country and the States, or whether similar regulations exists between the two countries with regard to desertions, as in the days of slavery?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: No official Report has been received relative to alleged desertions from H.M.S. Blake and other vessels of the British Squadron. The Treaty between Great Britain and the United States of 3rd June, 1892, respecting desertions from the Mercantile Marine does not include the surrender of
  902
  deserters from ships of war. No other arrangement bearing upon the subject exists between the two countries.

  THE HANSARD UNION PROSECUTION.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what fees in addition to salary are payable to the Solicitor General, under the new system recently introduced, in connection with the prosecution of Bottomley and others at the last Old Bailey Sessions?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am not yet in a position to state the amount of the fees; but the Solicitor General will be paid professional fees under Clause 5 of the Treasury Minute of December 5th, 1892. Neither under the old nor the new system did the salary of the Law Officers cover contentious work.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: When will the right hon. Gentleman be able to state the amount of the fees? I am well aware the salary does not cover such cases as this.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I cannot say how soon.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: I will put the question down for Thursday.
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I do not think it will be possible to give a reply before Whitsuntide.
  LORD R.CHURCHILL: Are not the fees marked on the brief? Will a statement be made at any time during the Session, or will there appear in the accounts for the year anything showing the exact amount received by the Law Officers under the new arrangement?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I must ask the noble Lord to put the question on the Paper.
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: Arising out of that answer, I should like to remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Civil Service Estimates are to be taken on Thursday. Will he undertake the Vote relating to this matter shall be postponed until we get the information we are asking for?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I will endeavour to get the information in time.

  ATTACK OK THE EDITOR OF THE"SIAM FREE PRESS."
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he is aware that on the 28th March last, as Mr. Lillie, editor of The Siam Free Press, a British subject, was on his way to meet by appointment the chief of the Bangkok Police, his carriage was stopped at the city gates by a number of natives who were lying in wait for him; that six of these natives attacked him with bamboos in the presence of the police, who did not interfere; that Mr. Lillie was knocked down insensible, and carried, bleeding from wounds, to the British Legation; and whether the British Resident at Bangkok has reported on the subject?
  SIR E. GREY: No Report on the subject has been received from Her Majesty's Minister at Bangkok since an answer was given to the hon. Member's previous question on the 17th ultimo. As then stated, Mr. Lillie's proper course, if a British subject, is to make his complaint to the Siamese Authorities through the British Consul.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Will the hon. Baronet communicate with the British Minister, and find out if the report is true?
  SIR E. GREY: I have no objection to asking for a Report, although it is not usual.

  SPIRIT DEALERS' LICENCES.
  VISCOUNT CURZON: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the licences coming within the provisions of the Liquor Traffic (Local Control) Bill include the spirit dealers' additional retail licence to sell spirits by retail for consumption off the premises in any quantity not less than one reputed quart bottle, and in premises occupied and used exclusively for the sale therein of intoxicating liquor; and, if not, whether it is the intention of the Government to bring these licences within the scope of the Bill?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,): Not being Justices' licences, they are not included in the Bill. It is not intended to interfere with these licences.

  SOLICITORS AND BOARDS OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. COBB: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the provisions of Section 14 of "The Poor Law Amendment Act, 1842," a solicitor acting professionally, personally, or through his firm, for a Rural Sanitary Authority, and receiving payment for such professional work out of the poor rates of the Union, and notwithstanding that such payment is not illegal, is capable of serving as a Guardian in such Unions; and, if not, whether, upon the facts and names being placed before the Local Government Board, they would make any representation or suggestion to the Board of Guardians, with a view of any such solicitor ceasing to serve as a Guardian?
  *THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. H. H. FOWLER,): The Poor Law Amendment Act, 1842, to which my hon. Friend refers, provides that, if any question should arise as to the right of any person to act as an elective Guardian, the Local Government Board may, if they think fit, inquire into the circumstances of the case, and issue such order therein as they may deem requisite for determining the question. Looking to the appellate jurisdiction of the Board in the matter, I should not feel justified in expressing any opinion, directly or indirectly, as to the right of a Guardian to act in a particular case, except on an appeal, and after the previous inquiry into the circumstances which the Statute contemplates.

  THE TRALEE AND DINGLE RAILWAY.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDE: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that five houses have recently been set on fire by sparks from engines of the Tralee and Dingle Railway, and two of them burned to the ground; whether any recommendations have heretofore been made by the Board of Trade to the Tralee and Dingle Railway, with a view to preventing such occurrences; and, if so, with what effect; if he can state the number of houses set on fire, and the number of horses and cattle killed and injured by the Tralee and Dingle Railway during

  905
  the past 12 months; and whether any steps will be taken by the Board of Trade to prevent the continuance of the injuries done by this railway to the inhabitants of the district through which it runs, and for which injuries they and not the railway have to pay?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,): I have been in communication with the Company with reference to the hon. Member's question, and I am informed that only one house has been completely burned, another slightly damaged, and a forge belonging to the Company partially destroyed. I am also informed that ten head of cattle were killed and four injured by the Company's trains within the last 12 months; but in all these cases they were trespassing on the public road by night. All the engines are fitted with the most approved appliances to prevent the emission of sparks.
  SIR THOMAS ESMONDS: I beg also to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that lately a train on the Tralee and Dingle line left Tralee at 2 p.m. for Castlegrogory, and had to pull up twice between Camp and Castlegregory to raise steam, the delay on each occasion being for about half-an-hour; that when near Castlegregory, at a place called Kelly's Height, it was found that the engine was unable to pull the carriages up the hill, and that two of them were detached while the engine ran on with one for Castlegregory; that, before going far, the engine, going round a sharp curve, ran off the rails; that the travellers by the train had to walk into Castlegregory, where they were detained until 11 p.m., then another engine was sent from Dingle to take them back to Tralee, which place they reached after midnight; and whether, in view of the circumstance that this railway was passed by the Board of Trade Inspector as properly constructed and properly equipped, against the protest of the representative of the ratepayers of the district, the Board of Trade will take steps to have the condition of the line and the capacity of the engines investigated?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The facts are as stated. A light engine was run with the train in question in place of the
  906
  heavy engine, which was undergoing repairs. The engine left the rails (partially) on a straight between two curves; but the Company can assign no reason for the accident except expansion of the rails caused by the very warm weather. An inquiry will be held into the cause of the accident; but it must be remembered that the circumstances of these light railways differ from those of an ordinary railway. I am not aware of any protest against the opening of the railway in 1891.

  TOTTENHAM FEVER HOSPITAL.
  MR. HOWARD: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether, having regard to the unanimous opposition at the recent local inquiry by the authorities in the Tottenham Division to the proposal of the Metropolitan Asylums Board that the temporary fever hospital there should be made a permanent institution, he will suggest to that Board that they should complete the inquiry by themselves taking fresh evidence and making further investigation as to alternative sites within the Metropolitan area?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The inquiry with reference to the hospital at Tottenham was held by two of the Inspectors of the Local Government Board on Tuesday last, and their Report has been received to-day. I understand that the Metropolitan Asylums Board were satisfied with respect to the proposed site before they submitted it for the approval of the Local Government Board.

  ALLEGED DISTURBANCE BY FOREIGNERS IN HYDE PARK.
  MR. PICTON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a disturbance occasioned in Hyde Park on Sunday the 7th instant by the interference of foreigners, apparently Russians, with the proceedings of the Society of Friends of Russian Freedom; whether he has been made acquainted with the statement of a lady, an English member of that Society, to the effect that the police, instead of affording protection to her and her friends, treated her with rudeness and even violence; whether he has been informed that a

  907
  young person, the domestic servant of the lady in question, was so seriously injured, owing to a refusal of police protection, that she had to be removed in an ambulance; whether he has any reason to believe that the disturbers were emissaries of the Russian police or in any way under their direction; and whether he will take means to secure to British subjects and foreign exiles effective protection against molestation of this sort?
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,): I am informed that there was no disturbance on the occasion referred to by my hon. Friend. From the Report which I have received from the Commissioner of Police, it appears that the police constable on duty opposite the Marble Arch saw a number of printed bills tied to the park railings and two men and a lady selling papers to a large crowd. The sergeant informed them that they were infringing the rules of the park and requested them to move, and offered them police protection; but, on being informed by the lady that they had been in the same place by permission in former years, he did not interfere further until the arrival of the Inspector, when he drew his attention to the matter. The lady informed the Inspector that they had permission to be there, and declined to move the books and papers. On being asked from whom they had received permission, she stated that an Inspector had allowed them to stand there last year. The lady became excited, and, on finding a crowd was being attracted, the Inspector turned to the man and said that if the posters were removed he would take no further action; and, on this being done, he moved the crowd back, and, leaving a police constable and two sergeants to see that they were not molested, left them. The Inspector states that they were not attacked by the crowd in any way, and he noticed no foreigners around or near them, that there was no young girl present, and no ambulance was brought into requisition. There is no foundation whatever for the statement that the police were influenced or actuated in any way in their action by private persons.
  MR. PICTON: Is it not a fact that papers have been allowed to be sold on previous May Days? Did not the In-
  908
  spector push the lady back somewhat violently?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have given the facts as supplied to me. With regard to the sale of papers on previous occasions I will inquire.
  MR. BYLES: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the lady's statement? Is it not in direct conflict with that of the police? Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries as to the bona fides of this lady?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have seen the statement, and submitted it to the police for their report. I do not see any reason for doubting the accuracy of the police statement.

  BURIAL FEES IN WALES.
  MR. HERBERT ROBERTS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that the recently appointed Rector of Llanarmon-Dyffryn-Ceiriog, Denbighshire, has declined to accept a fee of less than 10s. for conducting the Burial Service under the new Act, and has refused to agree to the customary "offering" being handed to him, varying in amount according to the means of the relatives of the deceased; whether his attention has been drawn to the proceedings of a Vestry meeting summoned in this parish on the 6th of April last, at which only five persons, exclusive of the Rector, were present, and where a resolution was passed exacting for the future the payment of a fee of 10s. and £\ for the right of placing tombstones on the graves in the churchyard, according to the size of the stones; whether such fees have, within the memory of the oldest residents, ever been demanded before; and whether such a resolution is legal and can be enforced; if not, whether he will take steps to prevent any further interference by the Rector with the rights and ancient and unbroken customs of the parishioners in regard to the churchyard referred to?
  MR. ASQUITH: I conclude that the hon. Member, in referring to the "new Act," means the Burial Laws Amendment Act, 1880. That Act did not interfere with the fees for burials; and any person previously entitled by law to receive a fee is entitled, in case of a burial under the Act, to receive the like fee. But the Rector informs me that he has

  909
  not declined to accept a fee of less than 10s., or a customary offering, inasmuch as, on two occasions, no payment or offering of any kind was tendered or made to him, and on the only two other cases under the Act the usual offering was made and accepted. The Rector also informs me that at a Vestry duly convened and held on the date mentioned in the question, a resolution was come to, declaring that the Rector was entitled to a fee of £1 for every inclosed grave, with a flat stone or kerb-stone, and 10s. for every head stone, and that the size of the stones was not under discussion. The Rector further informs me that fees had, previously to such resolution, been demanded and received, but that no definite scale had been fixed. I have no jurisdiction in the matter of fees collected by incumbents for burials or gravestones; but of course, if more than what is legal is demanded, payment cannot be enforced.

  IRISH BANKRUPTCY LAW.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Official Assignees of the Court of Bankruptcy, Ireland, have complied with Section 68 of "The Irish Bankrupt and Insolvent Act, 1857," which provides that on or before the 1st March in every year there shall be laid before Parliament a Return by the Official Assignees in the form contained in Schedule B; whether it is the duty of the Judges or the Chief Registrar of the Court of Bankruptcy to ascertain that the said Returns are duly lodged within the time named in said section; whether the Chief Registrar before certifying the said Returns, as required by the said section, takes any, and what, stops to satisfy himself of the accuracy of the same; and why the Returns for the year 1892 were not lodged by the Official Assignee for nearly two months after the prescribed time?
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. J. MORLEY,): With reference to the 1st and 4th paragraphs of the question, I am informed that the Return referred to has not been presented for many years back at the date mentioned. It has, however, always been presented early in the Session, and no objection has appa-
  910
  rently ever been raised as to the requirement of the section of the Act quoted not having been strictly complied with. The Return required by the section is very long and complicated, and the time limited rather short. There appears to be no statutory enactment-dealing with the point raised in the 2nd paragraph of the question; but it may be assumed that the duty devolves upon the Chief Registrar. Regarding the 3rd paragraph, there do not seem to be any grounds for supposing that the Chief Registrar has neglected his duty in this respect.

  THE SUMMER NAVAL MANœUVRES.
  MR. FIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is intended to make Queenstown the headquarters of this year's Summer Naval Manœuvres; and whether it is proposed to utilise this port as a rendezvous for the Channel Squadron during next winter?
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: No information can be given as to the scope or plan of the Summer Naval Manœuvres. The movements of the Channel Squadron during next winter have not yet been considered.

  INDIAN HEMP DRUGS.
  MR. CAINE: I beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for India if he can now state who are the persons composing the Commission to inquire into the growth and sale of Indian hemp drugs in Bengal, and the terms of the Reference?
  THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL,): No, Sir. The information required by my hon. Friend has not yet been received from India. A telegram has, however, been sent to India on the subject, and I shall be happy to furnish my hon. Friend with the names of the members on the Ganja Commission, and with a copy of the Instructions to the Commission as soon as they are received.

  EDINBURGH SCIENCE AND ART MUSEUM.
  MR. PAUL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he has received any communication from the Education Department

  911
  on the claim of the clerks in the Museum of Science and Art at Edinburgh to be put on the same footing as Civil servants of the same class at South Kensington; and what steps the Treasury propose to take in the matter?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: I am unable to trace any such application.

  INCOME TAX DEMAND NOTES.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that in many country districts the demand for Income Tax, Land Tax, and Inhabited House Duty is made upon ordinary paper instead of on official forms; the amount of assessment, rate of duty, and other particulars which are provided for in the official forms being often omitted; and whether he will give instructions for the use of proper official forms in all cases in future?
  SIR W. HARCOURT: The particular form of Demand Note to be used is not specified by law; but certain particulars are required to be given therein. Collectors of Taxes are mostly appointed by the General Commissioners of Income Tax. The Commissioners of Inland Revenue have no power to prescribe the special form of Demand Note to be used by such Collectors; but if a case were brought to their notice in which the form did not give the particulars which the law requires to be given, they would consider it their duty to call the General Commissioners' attention to the omission.

  THE MAXIM GUN AND CORDITE POWDER.
  MR. HANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the use of cordite in the Maxim gun has been found to injure that gun more rapidly than the powder previously in use?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: It is the case that cordite has been found to wear out the Maxim gun more rapidly than the powder previously in use.

  THE LEE-METFORD RIFLE.
  MR. WEIR: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the Lee-Metford magazine rifle, Mark No. 1, can be converted into Mark No. 2; if so, is it proposed to make this conversion,
  912
  and what would be the cost per rifle to do so?
  *MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Mark 1 of the Lee-Metford rifle does not admit of conversion to Mark 2; but experience has proved that the Mark 1 rifles now in the hands of the troops and in store are thoroughly serviceable weapons.

  THE LEGNATRAGHTA SCHOOL MASTER.
  MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he can say when the last payment of salary was made to the teacher of the Legnatraghta National School, County Cavan; has such salary been recently withheld, and why; and who is the manager of the school?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed by the Commissioners of National Education that the last payment by way of salary to the teacher of the school referred to was made in April, 1892, and that, serious complaints requiring investigation having been preferred against the teacher by the manager of the school, the salary has since been withheld. The manager is the Rev. Mr. Corr, P. P.

  ALLOTMENTS IN SCOTLAND.
  DR. MACGREGOR: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland, considering that many of the inhabitants of Portree and Newtonmore, both in Inverness-shire, have applied for allotments, and the County Council refused to put its powers into operation owing to the heavy expense necessary to compel unwilling landlords to give the laud asked for, will the Government take steps to simplify and cheapen the procedure by which land may be obtained by the people on fair terms?
  MR. MACFARLANE: Will the Government support a Bill which I have introduced and which is appointed for Second Reading, the object being to make proceedings in the matter of small holdings by County Councils and other Local Authorities compulsory?
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Sir G. TREVELVAN,): In reply to the hon. Member, I rind, on inquiry, that the County Council have resolved to put into operation the provisions of the Allotments (Scotland) Act, and have appointed members of their Finance Committee to be

  913
  the Statutory Committee to deal with all Petitions presented thereon. As regards Newtonmore, I understand that an Amendment against the Motion in favour of the Petition was carried by 18 to 13; and that as regards Portree the Council have as yet been unable to make any arrangement for the acquisition of land. I regret that in the places named by the hon. Member the County Council has not seen its way to put the Act into force. Both in Scotland and England the provision of allotments was placed under the County Council as a body representative of the people, and it would only be in case of a general failure proved by a complete experience that the Act would be modified.
  MR. MACFARLANE: But the present Bill does not contain compulsory powers. Will the Government support the introduction of such powers?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: The question of introducing the compulsory principle into the Small Holdings Bill for the United Kingdom is one for the Government to decide.
  DR. MACGREGOR: If the County Council refuses to exercise its powers, what is to be done?
  SIR G. TREVELYAN: It was considered that when matters were placed in the hands of the County Councils the power was really given to the people. I am inclined to think that it is so.

  THE NATIONAL GALLERY.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether there is at the pre-sent time any picture by Albert Dürerin the Collection of the National Gallery; whether the attention of the Trustees of the National Gallery was recently called to the fact that a valuable picture by that artist was for sale in London; whether any of the Trustees inspected the picture; and, if so, which of them; whether the picture was eventually purchased by the authorities of the Berlin Museum; and how it was that the opportunity of adding such an important picture to the National Collection was allowed to pass?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The National Gallery contains no picture by Albert Dürer. A small portrait ascribed to that master was lately for sale in London, and, though not then offered to the
  914
  National Gallery, was inspected by the Earl of Carlisle (one of the Trustees) and by the Director, who is ultimately responsible for all purchases made. This picture has been very long known to the Director. But he has always considered, and still considers, the evidence in favour of its attribution to Albert Dürer insufficient. The fact of an offer for the picture having been made by the representative of the Berlin Museum was afterwards communicated to the Director. But, as he regarded the authorship of the picture as by no means a settled question, he forbore to outbid the offer already made in another quarter.
  MR. J. W. LOWTHER: Is it the custom of the Trustees of the National Gallery themselves to inspect pictures on sale, or does the matter rest entirely in the hands of the Director?
  SIR J. T. HIBBERT: The matter rests entirely in the hands of the Director.

  THE METROPOLITAN MAGISTRACY
  MR. WHITMORE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has now come to any decision as to the action he will take with regard to the recommendation contained in the Report of the Departmental Committee on Metropolitan Police Courts, that two additional Magistrates should be appointed at once?
  MR. ASQUITH: I am in communication with the Lords of the Treasury on the subject of this Report, upon which no final decision can be announced at present.

  THE TRANSPORT OF INFECTIOUS DISEASE PATIENTS.
  MR. STEPHENS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware of the sanitary dangers arising through the transport of persons suffering from infectious disease, beyond the area of the Local Authority to which they belong into the district of another Local Authority; whether, in the case of hospitals so established at considerable distance from the homes of the infectious sick, he has power to prevent the use of public conveyances by the persons, medical or otherwise, in attendance during their journeyings to and from

  915
  such hospitals; and whether, if he has such power, he will consent to use it?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Due care should, of course, be taken in the transport of persons suffering from infectious disease, in whatever district they may be. I have no authority under which I could prohibit the use of public conveyances by persons who are employed in an infectious hospital; but the managers of such an institution can make stringent regulations with a view to such precautions being taken by persons in attendance on patients before leaving the hospital as will prevent their being a source of danger to others, and such regulations have, I believe, been made by the managers of the Metropolitan Asylum District.

  THE LEITRIM MAGISTRACY.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that eight months ago the Lord Chancellor of Ireland was requested, by memorial and otherwise, to appoint amongst others Mr. Patrick M'Griskin, of Kiltyclogher, to the Commission of the Peace for the County of Leitrim; has Mr. M'Griskin been appointed up to the present date; has the Lord Lieutenant of the County of Leitrim been communicated with by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland in regard to the appointment of Mr. M'Griskin, and with what result; has the Lord Chancellor considered the case of Mr. M'Griskin without regard to the opinion of the Lord Lieutenant; and how long has the Lord Chancellor been considering the application for the appointment of Mr. M'Griskin to the Commission of the Peace, and when may his Lordship be expected to arrive at a decision?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The observations of the Lord Chancellor of Ireland on the particular case mentioned have not yet reached me. I must, however, deprecate the course of bringing the names of individual candidates for the Commission of the Peace before the House. The Lord Chancellor is bound to satisfy himself that a candidate has the requisite qualifications; and it may happen, however excellent the individual may be personally, that some essential qualification may be wanting. It would be clearly unfair to the candidate concerned
  916
  to publish his case, and I trust the House will not expect me to give detailed answers to such questions.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I desire to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that, under the late Government, Mr. Patrick M'Griskin was offered an appointment on the Commission of the Peace on condition that he would support the Tory candidate at the General Election?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I have no information of the kind.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: As the right hon. Gentleman is unable now to answer my question, I beg to give notice that I shall repeat it on an early day.
  MR. J. MORLEY: In case the hon. Member places such a question upon the Paper, I warn him that, unless the House considers that a question of this kind ought to be answered, I shall probably refuse to answer it.
  MR. MACARTNEY: I beg to give notice that I shall on some future occasion ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, considering the dissatisfaction which appears to exist, he will consider the advisability of transferring the power of making such appointments from the Lord Chancellor of Ireland to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?

  LICENSED PUBLICANS AS MAGISTRATES.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Lord Chancellor of Ireland has adopted any settled and definite practice in regard to the appointment of licensed publicans in Ireland to the Commission of the Peace; and, if so, will he state to the House what the practice is?
  MR. POWELL WILLIAMS: May such Magistrates act as Licensing Justices?
  *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is it not the fact that persons engaged in the spirit trade, either as publicans or as wholesale dealers, are prohibited from sitting at Licensing Sessions? In case publicans are appointed without surrendering their spirit licences, will they be allowed to sit at Petty Sessions and adjudicate on cases of alleged breach of the Licensing Laws?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I should assume not. I will ask for information on that point. The Lord Chancellor does not propose to alter the rule as to the appointment of publicans to the Commission. That has been that, as a general rule, persons holding a retail spirit licence should not be appointed; but, in a very few and exceptional cases, when, for instance, having regard to the wants of a district, there is no other Magistrate available, and a licensed house not being in the place where the Magistrate is to adjudicate, such appointments have hitherto been made, and the Lord Chancellor proposes to retain a discretion as to such exceptional cases.

  JUSTICE OF THE PEACE RETURN.
  MR. P. A. M'HUGH: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland what Department of the Irish Government is responsible for the delay in issuing the Return (Commission of the Peace, Ireland), ordered 10th February, and can he inform the House when the Return will be issued?
  MR. J. MORLEY: No unnecessary delay has taken, or is taking, place in the preparation of this Return, which, as I informed the hon. Member for West Kerry on the 1st instant, is a voluminous one. It cannot be furnished before a couple of months.

  THE MIDLAND GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY OF IRELAND.
  MR. COLLERY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has had any communication with the Midland Great Western Railway Company of Ireland relative to a refund of the excessive charges put on by that Company in January last; whether he is aware that those charges amounted in some cases to 40 and 50 per cent. on certain goods between Dublin and Sligo; whether those rates have been voluntarily withdrawn by that Company, or whether it was owing to competition from a competing line; and if any, or all, those increased charges are still continued on goods to intermediate stations where no competition exists; and whether these charges are regulated by mileage rates, or by such as the circumstances of the case will permit them to make?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have communicated with the Company, but have not had time to receive their reply.

  THE CONSTITUTION OF ALDERNBY.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether a Petition has been received from the inhabitants of Alderney, reciting various abuses that, as they allege, have arisen from the defects of their Constitution, praying Her Majesty to cause inquiry to be made into these alleged abuses with a view to remedy them, should they be proved to exist; and whether it is intended to take any action in the matter?
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes; such a Petition has been received, and is now under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government.

  TOTTENHAM FEVER HOSPITAL.
  MR. JAMES ROWLANDS: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he has been made aware of the anxiety amongst the working population of Tottenham at the proposal to establish a permanent fever hospital in that locality; and how soon the decision of the Local Government Board on the subject will be made known?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: The Report of the inquiry which was held last week has been received to-day. The decision of the Local Government Board will be given as early as possible.

  BOYCOTTING IN NORTH CORK.
  MR. DANE: I bog to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that a meeting was recently held in the vicinity of Ballyclogh, North Cork, to take into consideration the conduct of two families named Davidson and Connor for going into occupation of evicted farms; that in consequence these families have since been severely boycotted; and that members of these families are hooted at whenever they enter the adjacent village; and what steps, if any, have been taken to afford them protection?
  MR. FLYNN: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the question, I should like to ask him whether the incidents referred to did not occur in 1892, long before the meeting in question was held;

  919
  and whether one of the parties named has not been prosecuted by the police for firing a revolver, and whether a claim for malicious burning has not been preferred by these people, and for reasons best known to themselves abandoned?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am not well informed with respect to the particulars to which the hon. Member opposite refers. I am, however, aware of the disgraceful proceedings that have recently taken place at Ballyclogh with regard to the little children attending the schools, and I have expressed a very strong opinion with regard to them. I have instructed the police to closely watch the case, and to afford all necessary protection to the two families named, and proceedings will be instituted against certain persons who have been guilty of acts of violence.

  THE CORRATAWY NATIONAL SCHOOL.
  MR. DANE: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that Miss Dolan, a teacher, was recently dismissed without any notice by the manager of the Corratawy National School, County Cavan, and was compelled to threaten legal proceedings in order to get paid the salary due to her; what is the usual and proper notice prior to the dismissal of a teacher; is he also aware that the manager in question appointed William Monagle teacher in the place of Miss Dolan, and compelled him to refund him the amount of the salary paid her; and will the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland direct the manager to recoup William Monagle the money so paid, and prevent a recurrence of such a transaction?
  MR. J. MORLEY: I am informed that Miss Dolan was the teacher of the Cree National School up to the loth October, 1889, and that she never had charge of Corratawy National School, which did not become operative till January, 1890. A few months before the manager, the Rev. Mr. Corr, P. P., closed the Cree school he notified his intention not to appoint Miss Dolan to the charge of the new Corratawy school, and explained as his reason that he desired to appoint a teacher of higher class than Miss Dolan, who was only in the third or lowest class. There is no record in the Office of the Commissioners of National
  920
  Education of the dismissal of Miss Dolan without notice by the manager, or of legal proceedings taken in the case. The usual and proper notice of dismissal of teachers by managers is one of three months; and if such notice be not given, then three months' salary must be paid, unless the summary dismissal was for misconduct or other sufficient reason. The Commissioners have no information of the alleged transaction between the manager and Mr. Monagle, the new teacher, whose appointment in succession to Miss Dolan was duly notified by the manager to the Commissioners. The Commissioners are quite ready to receive any representation which may enable them, if it be deemed necessary, to institute an inquiry into the matter.

  WORKING MEN MAGISTRATES.
  MR. SAUNDERS: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he can state the number of working men who have been appointed Magistrates in the United Kingdom since July last?
  MR. ASQUITH: Thirty-six working men Justices of the Peace have been appointed in England, exclusive of Lancashire. This refers only to Borough Benches. In Scotland many working men may have been made County Justices of the Peace; but I am not in a position to give the number, having no information at hand.
  MR. SAUNDERS: Then I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy how many working men have been appointed in Lancashire since the present Government came into Office?
  *THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (Mr. BRYCE,): The total number of working men appointed to the Borough Benches of Lancashire since (but not including) August last is 33.
  MR. DARLING: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman what is his definition of a working man upon which he has compiled his statistics?
  *MR. BRYCE: The question of the hon. and learned Member opposite is a difficult one to answer. It is not altogether easy to find a satisfactory definition. In the number I have given I have included certain persons who are in the employment of working men's Co-opera-

  921
  tive Associations, and have excluded some who, though practically representative of the working classes, have ceased to be actually working men. The very large majority of the 33 are actually working men.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEY: Is this the first occasion on which working men have been placed upon the Commission of the Peace?
  MR. BRYCE: No, Sir; I believe not.

  PRISON SCHOOLMASTERS.
  MR. MAC NEILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has received a great number of Petitions which have been recently forwarded to him from the warder schoolmasters in the local prison service setting forth their grievances; and whether he will receive a deputation from the warder schoolmasters of the London prisons?
  MR. ASQUITH: I have received Petitions on the subject referred to; but I do not think it is a case in which any good purpose would be served by receiving a deputation.

  DUTCH FRUIT BASKETS.
  MAJOR RASCH: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board whether he is aware that many thousands of Dutch fruit baskets, without a mark of origin, are delivered at the Port of London, to the prejudice of makers, chiefly of the poorer class; and whether this practice is not in contravention of the Merchandise Marks Act, Clause 5?
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: As I understand the policy of the Act, it was intended to prevent the importation of goods bearing false trade descriptions, and purporting to be of English make. Unless, therefore, the baskets referred to bear marks which would otherwise be illegal under the Act, no mark of origin is required to satisfy the law.

  SEED LOANS IN IRELAND.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Irish Local Government Board have considered the Resolution adopted on the 4th instant by the District Board of Guardians, protesting against the Order of the Local
  922
  Government Board impounding rates of the Union to the amount of £600, being the balance of a loan to the Guardians of the Glin Union, under "The Seed Supply Act, 1890," for the benefit of certain electoral divisions of that Union, since amalgamated with the Union of Listowel; whether it is correctly stated by the Listowel Guardians that the rate for repayment of the advance could not legally be levied with the Poor Rates for 1891 in the Glin Union, as those rates were struck before the 1st of August; whether the rate for repayment of the loan has, in fact, been levied according to law with the Poor Rates of the Listowel Union struck last August, making the balance of the first instalment legally repayable to the Local Government Board next August; and whether, if the circumstances be as stated, the Order impounding the rates will be revoked?
  MR. J. MORLEY: The loan obtained by the Guardians of the late Glin Union, under the Seeds Act of 1890, amounted to £1,170, payable in two instalments, the first falling due on August 1, 1892, and the second on August 1, 1893. The 6th section of the Act provides that the amount duo by the purchasers of seed shall be payable in two equal instalments, to be assessed along with the ordinary Poor Rate. At the first-named date no Poor Rate was made in the late Glin Union, and the first rate made after the amalgamation of that Union with the Listowel Union was in 1892, when the first assessment was made on the purchasers in the Glin Division of the Union. When the first instalment became payable by the Guardians the Irish Government, in view of the above fact, and on the recommendation of the Local Government Board, and with the consent of the Treasury, postponed the date for the payment until the 31st of last December, and the Guardians were thus afforded an opportunity of collecting the rate between August and December. The debt was not paid at the latter date, and on the 11th April the Commissioners of Public Works certified to the Local Government Board that a sum of £587 13s. 9d. remained due, and the Local Government Board issued an Order assessing the amount on the division concerned, as the money had to be paid to the Board of Works. Under all the

  923
  circumstances, I am inclined to think that a considerable indulgence was shown by the Local Government Board in postponing the issue of the impounding Order to so late a date.

  THE NAVY VOTES.
  MR. FORWOOD: I beg to ask the Civil Lord of the Admiralty what was the aggregate amount of the Parliamentary Vote for new works and buildings and the sites thereof, as specified in the Navy Estimates for the years 1891–2, 1892–3, and 1893–4, the amount expended thereon in each of the financial years of 1891–2 and 1892–3, and the aggregate sum of the Re-Votes for these purposes for the years 1891–2, 1892–3, and 1893–4.
  MR. E. ROBERTSON: The net Vote for new works and buildings and the sites thereof, exclusive of superintendence and repairs, for 1891–2, was £281,605; for 1892–3, £308,114; and for 1893–4, £234,489. The net expenditure for 1891–2 was £237,349; that estimated for 1892–3, £270,700. The Re-Votes for 1891–2, £14,900; for 1892-3, £22,100; and for 1893–4, £34,450.

  IRISH POST OFFICE BUILDINGS.
  *SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury what is the estimated value of property located in Ireland (in freeholds, leaseholds, material, plant, &c), now vested in the Post Office, which it is proposed to hand over, free of charge, to the Irish Government; and will these properties be transferred by deeds to the Irish Government, and will they have the power to sell the same without the consent of the Imperial Parliament?
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): I cannot give any trustworthy estimate of Post Office property in Ireland which would be available under the Home Rule scheme. Such an estimate could only be obtained by making a special valuation of the property. The Government do not see the necessity for incurring the expense and time which would be necessary for making the valuation. With regard to the latter part of the question, under the Bill as it at present stands, the Irish
  924
  Government will have full powers to deal with the property for all the purposes of establishing the Post Office Service.
  *SIR J. BLUNDELL MAPLE: Might the value of the property in question be between £3,000,000 and £4,000,000?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I should look upon such an estimate as entirely fabulous, though I have no means before mo at present for testing its accuracy.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: May I inquire whether, in view of the fact that, under the Bill, the management of the postal rates will rest with the Imperial Government, it would not be proper to leave all the plant, by which the Imperial Postal Service is carried out, in the hands of the Imperial Government?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No, Sir. We should retain no part of the rates derived from the Postal Service in Ireland. Everything, beyond the mere fixing of the rates, will be left to the Irish Government.

  COMPANY LAW.
  MR. THOMAS BAYLEY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, in view of the strong remarks made by one of Her Majesty's Judges in a recent trial, if the Government will move to appoint a Committee to inquire into the working of the Limited Companies Acts, with a view of giving greater legal protection to shareholders and creditors in Limited Companies?
  MR. ADDISON: May I ask whether the attention of the Government has been called to the fact that fraudulent Directors and promoters are not now liable to be adequately punished, and that Directors giving their names to Public Companies for reward, and then scandalously neglecting their duties, are not now liable for anything but civil action; also, whether attention has been called to the Report recently presented to the Board of Trade by the gentleman who has the superintendence of the winding up of Companies, and to the startling disclosures made as to the injury caused to the country, and especially to the trade of Lancashire, by the Rules regulating Limited Liability Companies; and, further, whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware of the strong

  925
  desire throughout the country, and particularly in Lancashire, in favour of the request put forward by the hon. Member for Derby for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the grievances which now exist?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Last week I gave a full answer to the latter question. In reply to the question on the Paper, the remarks made by the learned Judge were apparently directed to the state of both the Civil and Criminal Law. A Committee to inquire into the working of the Companies Acts could hardly deal with the latter branch of the subject; and it is not desirable to institute a general inquiry into the working of the Companies Acts until fuller experience has been gained of the effect of the very drastic provisions contained in the Act passed so recently as 1890.

  IRISH GUARANTEED LAND STOCK.
  MR. JACKSON: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that under the Home Rule Bill the guarantees and the Guarantee Fund prescribed by the Purchase of Land (Ireland) Act will no longer exist, it is intended to make further issues of Guaranteed Land Stock under the authority of that Act after the passing of the Home Rule Bill?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: There is no intention to interfere in any way whatever with the working of the Land Purchase Act. All proceedings under that Act will go on as heretofore. It may be found necessary to introduce some Amendment into the Bill for enabling that object to be attained; but due notice will be given of any such Amendment.

  THE IRISH REPUBLICAN FLAG.
  MR. DARLING: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury whether his attention has been called to the report, by Dalziel's Agency on 11th May, that a number of Irishmen on hoard the steamer Hazel Kirke, hoisted on that vessel the Republican flag of Ireland— namely, a gold harp on a green ground, and that the American and German vessels in New York Harbour saluted that flag; if so, whether Her Majesty's Government intend to take any notice of the incident?
  SIR E. GREY: No information on the subject has reached Her Majesty's Government, either from Her Majesty's Ambassador in the United States or from the Consul General at New York.
  MR. DARLING: Has the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs asked for any information?
  SIR E. GREY: There has been no time for any written Report to reach us. It would not be right on our part to simulate the nervousness and apprehension of the hon. and learned Gentleman by telegraphing.
  MR. DARLING: Will the Foreign Office, in the interests of the honour of this country, ascertain whether any such insult was or was not offered to this country?
  SIR E. GREY: If the matter has assumed the importance which the hon. and learned Member appears to attach to it a Report is probably already on its way; and if we were to ask for a Report now, it would show want of confidence in the vigilance of our Representatives.
  MR. DARLING: Does not the Foreign Office continually ask for Despatches from Ambassadors abroad, and is not that done without contributing to a state of nervous excitement?
  SIR E. GREY: I have stated it is quite possible that a Report is on its way.
  MR. A. O'CONNOR: Will the Foreign Office consult, the First Commissioner of Works as to the significance of the crownless harps on green ground emblazoned round this Chamber?
  [No answer was given.]

  THE FINANCE CLAUSES OF THE HOME RULE BILL.
  MR. WILLIAM KENNY: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if the Finance Clauses of the Government of Ireland Bill, the consideration of which in Committee is to be postponed, include only those numbered from 10 to 19 inclusive?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I think that Clauses 21 and 22, which relate to the management of the Post Office, will be postponed with the other Financial Clauses.

  THE IRISH £20 FRANCHISE.
  MR. SAUNDERS: I beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury if sufficient Returns have been received from Ireland to enable him to form an opinion as to the number of persons in Ireland who will be qualified to vote under a £20 franchise; and if he will inform the House?
  *MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: The number of persons possessing the £20 franchise is a matter which can be sufficiently estimated so far as occupiers are concerned from the Return No. 104 of the present Session, which gives 162,000 of these; deductions would have to be made for persons who are both occupiers and owners, and in respect of women occupiers. I may be asked, perhaps, what will be the estimate of owners entitled to vote under this franchise. To this I am unable at present to give an exact answer; but the Government are trying to get a reasonably approximate estimate, which will be made known as soon as the Government receive it.
  MR. W. M'LAREN: Will the Chief Secretary make the promised Return showing in parallel columns the numbers of female and male occupiers?
  MR. J. MORLEY: Since I made the promise I have found it will be very difficult to fulfil it. The authorities in Dublin are still considering it, and if it can be obtained I will give it.

  THE ATTACK. ON THE REV. MR. WALSH.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: A reply was given me by the Home Secretary on Monday last to the effect that the statement quoted from The Times as to the assault on the Rev. F. B. Walsh, after attending an anti-Home Rule meeting in Bermondsey, was exaggerated. I wish now to ask the Home Secretary whether his attention has been called to the following facts, which are taken from a letter written to The Times by the wife of the unfortunate clergyman:—
  "The account of Mr. Walsh's injury was not exaggerated in the least. A stone struck his foot, and, on turning; round to remonstrate, one struck the eye, cutting to the bone. Blinded with blood, he staggered to the railing, and another stone caught him at the back of the head, rendering him almost unconscious. He evidently had many blows, for he has many
  928
  bruises, but everything then was a blank. The blow on the back of the head was most serious, and he is suffering greatly from shock and nervous depression. Mr. Walsh said the street was filled with a howling mob."
  MR. ASQUITH: Yes; I adhere in every particular to my former answer, which was founded on the statement made by Mr. Walsh to the Superintendent at the time. What took place appears to have been as follows:—After the meeting broke up a noisy crowd assembled outside; but this did not prevent Mr. Walsh from proceeding to Alscot Road on his way home. After he had proceeded half-way down the street some disorderly lads threw stones, whether at Mr. Walsh or not is uncertain; anyhow he was hit and much hurt. The perpetrators of the outrage ran away before the police arrived; and they could, therefore, do nothing more than assist the rev. gentleman, first to a chemist's shop, where the wound on his face was dressed, and thence to his home.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: On what does the right hon. Gentleman, who expresses not the slightest sympathy with the rev. gentleman, base his statement that the report was exaggerated? I call attention to the letter in The Times of to-day.
  MR. ASQUITH: My statement is founded on the information given by the rev. gentleman himself. The hon. Member has spoken of a "howling mob," a description which is not borne out by the evidence of the police, or by the statement made by the rev. gentleman himself at the time.
  SIR E. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: The right hon. Gentleman seems to attribute the words "howling mob" to me. [Cries of "Order!"] I shall certainly move the Adjournment of the Debate if I am interrupted. The words "howling mob" were written by the wife of the rev. gentleman, and the House has a right to assume that they are used with his assent.

  RAILWAY RATES.
  SIR J. WHITEHEAD: I wish to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he can state definitely when his Motion for the appointment of the Committee on Railway Rates and the Reference thereto will be taken?
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Select Committee to be appointed to consider the subject of Railway Rates has now been arranged to the satisfaction of both sides. [Colonel HOWARD VINCENT: No.] Two Members have been added to meet wishes expressed on both sides, and in these circumstances I hope I may be allowed to move the Committee to-night. If it is not moved the responsibility will not rest with the Government, as they have done everything possible to meet the desires of hon. Gentlemen interested.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: There is a Notice of Motion in my name. I think it is absolutely essential that the right hon. Gentleman should himself be a Member of the Committee.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I consider that the Department is the best judge of what can be done in that respect. I should like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is in Order for the hon. Member to move me on the Committee without my consent?
  *MR. SPEAKER: The consent of the right hon. Gentleman must be obtained.
  COLONEL HOWARD VINCENT: In the interests of the right hon. Gentleman's and my own constituents I hope to obtain that consent.
  MR. BARTLEY: Are we then to understand the Committee will be moved to-night?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Yes.
  MR. BARTLEY: At what hour will consideration of the Government of Ireland Bill be suspended?
  MR. MUNDELLA: At the usual time. The Motion will be made in the customary way after 12 o'clock.

  THE SCOTCH SUSPENSORY BILL.
  MR. HOZIER: Do the Government intend to proceed this Session with the Suspensory Bill relating to the Church of Scotland?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: It will be inconvenient for me to give an answer with regard to the other Business of the Government until I know what time is to be occupied with the stages of the Government of Ireland Bill.

  THE WHITSUNTIDE HOLIDAYS.
  MR. MACFARLANE: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether, having regard to the state of Public Business, be will consider the desirability of cur-
  930
  tailing or entirely dispensing with the Whitsuntide Holidays?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: There is a limit to the demands which the House should make on the physical strength of Members. Hon. Members have lately been hard pressed, and they will continue to be hard pressed; and, therefore, I do not think the proposal the Government intend to make with regard to the holidays is unreasonable. At the same time, I admire the readiness of the hon. Gentleman to make the sacrifice which he has named.

  THE UNFOUNDED CHARGE AGAINST AN OXFORD TUTOR.
  MR. BYLES: I beg to ask the Home Secretary if his attention has been called to the extraordinary proceedings in connection with the arrest on imperfect evidence and without warrant of an Oxford tutor, and the failure of the police to deliver a letter which he sent to his friends? Will the right hon. Gentleman cause inquiry to be made into the circumstances?
  MR. ASQUITH: I must ask for notice of that question.

  THE DERBY DAY.
  SIR W. LAWSON: On a point of Order, I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether the practice of allowing a private Member to move the Adjournment for the Derby is not one which has grown up without any regular sanction by the Rules of the House; and whether, the Motion for such Adjournment having been defeated last year, it is still within the discretion of any private Member to bring it forward?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Up to the year 1878 it was the custom for the Government to make that Motion; but it has since been in the hands of private Members, and the fact of the Motion having been rejected last year is no reason why an hon. Member should not again bring it forward. Probably in a now Parliament the hon. Gentleman thinks he will have a better chance of carrying it.

  THE COURSE OF BUSINESS.
  MR. HENEAGE: The Prime Minister has informed us that Supply will be taken on the day the

  931
  House re-assembles after the Whitsun Recess. Will he state if it has been decided on the following day to resume the Committee on the Home Rule Bill and continue it day by day?
  MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Probably as to Tuesday, and with regard to a series of days forward from that time, it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the Government of Ireland Bill.

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

    COMMITTEE. [Progress, 12th May.]
    [SIXTH NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Legislative Authority.
    Clause 2 (Powers of Irish Legislature).
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 14, to leave out from the beginning of the Clause to the word "there," in line 15.—(Mr. Cavendish.)
    Question again proposed, "That the words, 'With the exceptions' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, he thought this was one of the most important Amendments they had had upon this Bill, and it was another of those tests by which they sought to ascertain the intentions of the Government. They had already heard them say that the Parliament was to be a subordinate Parliament; and when they got their answer to this Amendment they would learn further as to the quality of the Legislature which was not to be called a Parliament, but which, it appeared, was to have all the powers of a Parliament. They had spent a great deal of time in speaking— he would not call it discussion, because discussion presumed the existence of two parties; whereas, up to now, they had had arguments and inquiries on the one side, and, on the other hand, they had had nothing but lectures, platitudes, and interruptions, so that up to that moment it could not be said they had had half-an-hour's discussion on the Bill. He hoped the Government had seen they had wasted time enough over this attempt to carry out the policy which they
    932
    successfully carried out in the country during the past six years—namely, to observe all the issues of this measure. ["Question!"] He expected that; but he would remind hon. Members opposite that they could no longer go on the vague phrase of "Home Rule," which might mean anything, but they now had the Bill before them; and the Amendment sought to elicit from the Government some meaning as to the measure which they had at last been obliged to discuss. Perhaps the hon. Member who called "Question!" had not yet been consulted by the Government as to the answer they should give to this Amendment, because on Friday night a Member said that hon. Members were in "a tight place!" It was the Government who were in a tight place over this Amendment and others that had been brought forward, because they were unable to give a definite answer as to whether they accepted this Amendment until they had ascertained the wishes and had obtained the views of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Hon. Members wore not in any tight place, and they had a perfect right to be silent, seeing they had the Government Bench to say what they wanted said, and to do what they wanted done. There would be a considerable amount of support to this Amendment. His hon. Friend below him the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) he hoped would say something on it, because, in his election addresses, the hon. Member laid down this principle in a most statesmanlike manner—he said the Home Rule he was going to affirm was that in which the Imperial Parliament delegated certain measures and subjects to the Parliament in Ireland; and all that was not so delegated in the Bill he declared should be retained for what he called "the Mother Parliament." He (Mr. Collings) thought that was a very statesmanlike statement. If he consulted the feelings of the Government Bench, he should wish his hon. Friend not to speak, because they were very uneasy under his utterances. But he had no doubt the hon. Gentleman would vindicate his position by speaking on this Amendment. Then there were a large group sitting on that (the Ministerial) side of the House who had in their addresses gone on the same lines, but very much further than his

    933
    hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey). They had been unwilling —at least, they had not expressed their willingness further than to include such measures as Gas and Water and Private Bill Legislation; and he would be curious to know what they would say to delegating from this Parliament everything, with the exception of what was held back by the Bill itself. It might be said it would be difficult to define in a Bill the measures which should be delegated to the Irish Parliament; but the same difficulty existed with regard to those measures which they kept out of the Bill, and which would produce the same amount of discussion and anxiety. In Canada everything was retained in the power of the Federal Government, except those subjects which were delegated to the Provincial Parliament. It was not only due to the Committee, but it was due to the constituencies, that they should know something more about the powers of this proposed Parliament, because the interest taken in the measure by the constituencies, now that the actual text of it was before them, was really astonishing. He should wait with anxiety to know what the Government had to say on the point, if they were allowed by hon. Members opposite to answer. Perhaps the Government would tell them frankly; but, at any rate, there were Members on the Government Bench who had spoken very much on the lines of this Amendment. He did not see his right hon. Friend the Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler), who was equal to all and superior to a good many on the Treasury Bench in making his ideas clear and explicit, so that they could all understand them; but if that right hon. Gentleman would give them his opinion on this Amendment, and tell them why the Parliament in Ireland should not be restricted to those measures which were distinctly delegated by the Imperial Parliament, they would be very much indebted to him. At any rate, he hoped their appeals would not be treated as previous Amendments had been treated, but that they would have a discussion upon this Amendment. By discussion he meant a debate in which both sides should give their reasons and arguments, and not waste the time of the House, as
    934
    the whole Session was likely to be wasted, by a fruitless attempt to get at the mind of the Government with regard to the proposals of the Bill and their intentions regarding it.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I waited because I hoped some Member of the Government would tell us what is the view of the Government with regard to the very important Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. Victor Cavendish), in a speech which the Committee will consider was extremely excellent and well-reasoned. My hon. Friend bears a name which will always be honoured in this House, and I think it will be a pleasure to all sides that he is himself likely to add to its lustre. The Amendment itself has suffered a little, perhaps, because it is one of a series of Amendments; it is only by putting them together that the exact effect of what my hon. Friend proposes can be ascertained. However, I think it is pretty generally understood that my hon. Friend desires that in this Bill we shall specify the powers we are to give, not, as is done here, by giving up all our powers with certain exceptions, but by keeping all our powers except those we specifically delegate. I think the House will see there is a great deal of difference between the proposal of the Bill and that of the Amendment. It is not merely a matter of drafting; it is also a matter of principle. My hon. Friend said he had not thought it necessary to put on the Paper the powers which should be delegated to the Irish Legislature. The fact is, my hon. Friend is not raising that point at all, but is merely raising at the present time the question of the method. If the Government view the Amendment favourably, it would be natural that they, who must know exactly what are the powers which they desire to delegate, should put them on the Paper. If they decline to do that and wish to throw the responsibility on the Unionists, no doubt we can furnish a list of the subjects we should think it safe to entrust to an Irish authority. I imagine the list would be considered rather short and rather incomplete by the Government. The proposal of the Amendment is that the Government should state to the Committee what powers the new Parliament is to

    935
    have, and not what powers it is not to have. In the first place, I wish to point out that that course would be in accordance with all the best precedents with regard to the creation of subsidiary Legislatures. It would be in strict accordance with the precedents of the United States of America and Canada. They may not appear, on first sight, to be in accordance with precedent in the United States of America, and I must explain that the principle in all these cases has been that the power which claimed supreme authority should state definitely what portion of its power it was willing to delegate. In the case of the United States the separate States all claimed supreme and independent authority before they made the Union, and when they united they delegated to the Central Authority those powers which they did not intend to retain in their own hands. In the case of Canada the opposite course was followed. In Canada it was intended that the Dominion Parliament should be the supreme authority, and the powers reserved for the Provincial Parliaments were all specially delegated to them; whereas all the rest, unnamed or unforeseen, were retained in the hands of the Central Authority. The Dominion Act not only declared the powers to be given to the Provincial Parliaments, but also declared the powers to be reserved to the Dominion Parliament, but with a provision that that was not in any way to lessen the authority of the Dominion Parliament to deal with all such matters not specially reserved to Provincial Parliaments. Now, I would urge, in the second place, that the method which we propose is the more natural and easier way—easier to the Government, I mean, as well as to the Committee—of dealing with this subject. Let me put an illustration. Suppose a man told his friend that he was in difficulties and asked for money, would not the friend be certain to ask, in the first place, how much money was required in order to relieve the difficulties? And if he were satisfied he would advance the sum asked for. Surely he would never hand over his purse to the petitioner and say, "Keep back £5," or some other amount which he would name, "for me and take all the rest," knowing that, in doing so, he might be giving more than was asked for and more than he wanted to part with.
    936
    The case now is precisely the same. This is a Bill brought in on the demand of the Irish Members. I suppose the Irish Members know exactly what they want; and I assume the Government are willing to give it. Would it not be right that we should state in the Bill what it is the Government are going to give to them, instead of leaving the matter in such a form that we may be giving to the Irish people more than they ask for and more than we want to give? In the third place, I should point out that this plan is the only way of letting the Committee and the country know what it is we are doing. I defy a layman, and I do not believe there are many lawyers who, without more consideration than they are willing to give, could say exactly what it is which, under this Bill, is being given to the Irish Parliament. We retain certain things for ourselves; hut the moment you give the remainder you find heaps of things which you have not retained, and as to which it would be difficult to say beforehand whether the Government would be willing they should be handed over to the Irish Parliament. I will take two or three matters as an illustration, as showing the kind of questions that arise, and which will have to be raised by Amendments to this clause, with the probability that even after we have exhausted our ingenuity in raising Amendments on all the principal subjects that may be discussed, we may still have forgotten something which the Committee would have liked to have brought before it. Take the case of marriage and divorce. That is one of the subjects that is not named by way of exception, and, consequently, would be handed over to the Irish Parliament. I do not know what is the opinion of the Government; but I would ask them, is it their opinion—is it their intention—that the Irish Legislature should have the power of dealing with the question of civil marriages? That is an important question, and one worthy of lengthened debate. It may be the Government do not intend that a matter of this importance should be taken from the Imperial control. If so, it was an omission on their part, caused by the particular way in which they have drafted the Bill. Then there is another question. Foreign trade is not to be in

    937
    the hands of the Irish Legislature; hut, as I understand it, all that concerns domestic trade will he in their hands. Is it intended they should deal with factory legislation? I do not know the intention of the Government, but would point out this will have to be seriously debated, because we have, by our own factory legislation, imposed very serious obligations in the interests of the working classes upon manufacturers and other persons engaged in industry; and if the Irish Parliament is to be permitted to relieve manufacturers in Ireland from all these conditions, of course they would be in a better position, so far as competition went, than the English manufacturers, and that might be an indirect way of giving a bounty and encouraging and stimulating Irish industry. I say, again, I am not pronouncing authoritatively on the subject; it is one of very considerable difficulty; but I say it is very much fairer and better that the Imperial Parliament should state to the Irish Legislature it is one of the subjects to go to them, instead of leaving it, to be discovered by implication as we are obliged to discover it under the form of this Bill. Then there is another important question to be considered. Navigation is excluded from the control of the Irish Parliament; but does any-one know what it means? I have asked several lawyers, and they have told me that it is open to considerable doubt. It appears to be very doubtful whether merchant shipping legislation is included in the term "Navigation." Do the Government intend that the merchant shipping legislation is to be different in Ireland from what it is in this country? Is a shipowner in this country, upon whom a burden has been placed with the desire of protecting life at sea——
    DR. TANNERrose to Order, and asked whether the right hon. Gentleman was in Order in discussing these extraneous subjects— subjects that were not in the least connected with the clause?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The right hon. Gentleman is in Order, because the Amendment raises the question of the powers to be delegated to the Irish Parliament.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I am accustomed to these interruptions; but I think that they have got rather low down. Do the Government intend that the shipowners of the country, who object to the regulations imposed upon them, should be able to transfer their ships to Irish ports in order to escape all these regulations and obligations? If so, this will raise a very serious question; and it appears to me that this is one of the questions which might easily escape the notice both of the Government and of the Committee in consequence of the form of the Bill. Coinage is also excluded from the powers of the Irish Legislature. Banking and currency are not included. Banking and coinage will raise an infinity of questions with regard to which it may be extremely doubtful whether the Irish Parliament should be in a position to pass legislation differing from the legislation of this country. I would impress upon the Committee the extreme importance of having all the powers specified which it is proposed to confer, in order that Parliament may not, by inadvertence, find that it has conferred some power which Ireland does not desire, and which it might be inconvenient that it should possess. Under the proposal of my hon. Friend, mistakes, which must be made in forming a new Constitution, were much more easily corrected than they would be under the Bill; because nothing would be easier, if certain powers are granted, and it is found hereafter that something has been omitted which it is desirable to add, than to bring in a Bill making the necessary addition. On the other hand, if Parliament grants more than is wished, or more than is or has been asked for, nothing will be more difficult than to withdraw the power already granted. Under the proposal of my hon. Friend, also, it would be much more easy to treat this question as an experiment. I do not suppose that the Prime Minister is under the belief that he is making a final settlement of the Irish Question. Every reasonable man believes that even if the Bill passes as it stands now it would not be accepted as final by either the Irish Members or the Irish people; and certainly it would not be accepted by the Irish Members and their constituents of the future. The Bill, therefore, must be

    939
    in the nature of an experiment. If the proposal of my hon. Friend were adopted, it would be open to the Committee to treat the Bill as an experiment, in which case the Committee might think it wise to be very moderate in the concession of the powers to be made, retaining always in the hands of the Imperial Parliament the power of adding more hereafter and averting any mistake now of attempting to secure anything in the nature of a final settlement even by the largest concessions. The question of supremacy is connected particularly with this clause; but the very idea of supremacy goes to the wall if Parliament hands over to another Legislative Authority all the powers which are not expressly reserved. The Supreme Authority always delegates and defines its delegated powers, reserving to itself all the other powers which it does not specifically give away. If the Government refuse this Amendment it will confirm the impression which we have derived from their attitude towards previous Amendments—that, although they are willing to establish what has been described as a paper supremacy, they have no idea in their own minds of creating a real, vital, and satisfactory supremacy. The Prime Minister will no doubt remember that this was one of the points raised early in the discussions of the Bill of 1886 by the present Duke of Devonshire—then Lord Hartington— and as being one of the conditions which were preliminary even to the consideration of the question of establishing a new Legislative Authority in Ireland. Speaking from memory, I think the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) expressed a willingness to give the proposal of that time, now embodied in this Amendment, his favourable consideration if it ever came formally before him. I hope, therefore, that he will give every consideration to the terms of this Amendment.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,): There is one satisfactory subject in connection with this Amendment, and that is the manner in which it has been presented to the Committee. I join with my right hon. Friend (Mr. J. Chamberlain) in bearing testimony to the excellent performance of the Mover of it, and in expressing the hope that may
    940
    be entertained of the hon. Gentleman's future. I cannot, however, say as much with regard to the beginning of the Debate this afternoon. The right hon. Member for West Birmingham began his speech by saying that the result of the speech of the right hon. Member for the Bordesley Division (Mr. Jesse Collings) must have been to draw a reply from the Government. I have never in all my life heard a speech which appeared to me to less need a reply. I am surprised that the right hon. Member for West Birmingham has been under any difficulty or doubt as to the mode in which the Government must deal with a question of this kind. It is a misfortune of the Amendment that it does not contain any decisive words. As far as the mere verbal effect of the Amendment is concerned, it looks more like an enlargement of the powers of the Irish Government than their contraction; and it will, therefore, be understood that, though I am not making any objection to the Amendment verbally, yet I object to its obvious and recognised meaning. I do not think that it is a good Amendment verbally considered, because, considering the nature of the reservations which the Government introduce in a subsequent clause, it is right and even needful that there should be a reference to those reservations in the present clause, where they are conferring the main legislative power. There are two methods in considering this question which may be adopted and which have been fairly stated by the right hon. Member for West Birmingham. You may grant by the enumeration of that which is granted, or you may grant by the enumeration of what is not granted. That is really the point at issue. It is quite true that there is one method of dealing with the question which the Government have treated as a matter of drafting, and that is the method by which we have gone through the particular subjects of local government in Ireland winding up the catalogue with a covering clause; but that is not a method of proceeding which need, in any degree, narrow the distance between the Government and their opponents. Therefore, I put it aside. The Government have considered it largely, and their conclusion is that it is not attended with any recommendation of convenience or policy to

    941
    counterbalance the considerable complication which it would tend to introduce into the provisions of the Bill. What is the meaning and essence of this Bill? It is a Bill to constitute a Legislature in Ireland for the purpose of dealing, I may say, with all properly Irish concerns which are not Imperial concerns, subject, possibly, to some limited reservation like the limited reservation the Government have inserted in the Bill with respect to land; but, speaking generally, it must be well understood that the Government divide the subjects of government as between Ireland and Great Britain into two classes—one, those which are of common Imperial interest; the other, those which are of local interest, or are domestic matters belonging to Ireland. Our object is to reserve, as strictly as it is possible to do so, to the Imperial Parliament the subjects which are of Imperial concern. We have laboured to make enumeration as full as we can make it according to our reflections and inquiries. We do not say that it is complete. It is possible we may not have included in it something that ought to have been included; but that is a detail, and the line can be drawn in particular cases when they arise. But with regard to those matters which are Irish, domestic and local, we do not intend to proceed by giving a subject here and a subject there, and keeping back every other matter to be met by a covering clause. That would be totally contrary to our intention, to the distinct meaning of the Bill, to everything that has been done in all prior legislation of a developing kind, and to the policy and expediency of the case. My right hon. Friend has said that the Bill is in the nature of an experiment, and that the course he advocates would make the experiment more easy. But if the Government accept the Amendment and the consequent Amendments, will my right hon. Friend accept the Bill?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Certainly not.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Just so. I might best describe my right hon. Friend's attitude by a homely phrase which undoubtedly requires an apology, which is, that he intends to deal with the Government on the principle of "Heads I win, tails you lose." In the arrangements of the Bill we are to enter upon a new and complicated investiga-
    942
    tion; and when you have completed it within this year, or within some future years, you are to wind up——
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: Surely my right hon. Friend does not contend that it is not competent for us to try and amend this Bill unless we are prepared to accept it?
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: No; that is not my contention. I am merely unveiling a state of facts. When my right hon. Friend used this honeyed language as to the blessings and benefits of this experimental form, some soft-minded man might think that he was relenting a little in this matter, and that he was ready, in conformity with the precedents in former years, to proceed on the principle of the delegation of certain subjects to an Irish Legislature. There might be some reason in giving way, if we had it authentically that by doing so we could conciliate our opponents without endangering the vital essence of our measure; but as it is, the case is this: We are to undergo the very considerable labour of re-construction, and we are to have our return not is £ s. d., but in nought, nought, nought. My right hon. Friend has raised a number of questions, most of them of vast importance, in order to terrify the Committee; but there is not the smallest doubt of the intention of the Government, which is to reserve effectively, simply, and largely all that can fairly be called Imperial matters, and to give as effectively, as simply, and as largely all that can fairly be called Irish and local matters. My right hon. Friend has enumerated a number of questions. He asks, "Do we hand over the Marriage Law?" Yes, we do; why should we not? Ireland has got a different Marriage Law now from the English law. Why in the world, therefore, are we to convert this Bill into a restricting instead of an enlarging Bill, and to take away from Ireland that distinction in the Marriage Law which she now enjoys and largely prizes?
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I never suggested it.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I thought my right hon. Friend did. Someone suggested it. I am aware that there are no Divorce Laws in Ireland. That is a very great distinction in the Marriage Laws in Ireland; and if I am rightly

    943
    informed, it is one that Ireland highly prizes, and in that I think Ireland is right. As to factory legislation, if the Irish people suffer by it, they will suffer at the hands of men whom they will have chosen to govern them. It is purely a matter of local interest and concern of which the Irish Representatives are best qualified to judge. In such a matter they have every title to judge, and they will need no instruction from England as to the principles of humanity and of the best policy. As to the currency, I am not quite sure whether the language of the Bill as it stands is the best adapted to its purpose; but the intention of the Government is plain: They consider that the standard of value is an Imperial matter, and that that standard of value, and everything touching it, should be reserved. If proposals are to be adopted for introducing a double standard, that will have to be decided in this House. If Ireland were to give power to issue promissory notes, that would be a matter of currency; and would be within the powers of the Irish Legislature under this Bill. But if she were to say that those notes should be legal tender for debt, that, I think, would immediately be a part of the standard of value. Speaking largely and generally, the Government propose to resist as incompatible any limits being imposed on the local Irish concerns, which are to be handed over to be dealt with by the Irish Parliament. The Irish people, according to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, are to be treated as little children. A child would be given some pocket money, but a very limited amount. Great Britain is to stand in loco parentis to the Irish people; but the Irish would regard the assumption of that attitude with very considerable misgiving, considering what has been the history of Ireland for 700 years. The affection which England has shown to Ireland during that period does not justify proceeding on the parental basis. The difference between the position of the Government and that of the right hon. Gentleman is this: The great measure under consideration has in it something of an experiment, for we have no absolute certainty as to the future. But the right hon. Gentleman recommends one form of experiment, and the Government recom-
    944
    mends another. The Government method is to concede local affairs and to retain Imperial affairs, and that is the often-tested and always successful plan on which Parliament has proceeded in all its legislation up to the present time. That experience supplies guidance in the present case. But the experiment of the right hon. Gentleman is wholly novel, and one upon which no light is cast by experience in any quarter. It would be at once rejected by those who spoke in the name of the Irish people. The Government desire to avail themselves of all the guidance to be derived from practical results, and these are largely available. Another reason for reserving Imperial subjects nominated, and for granting local subjects not nominated, is that the subjects of common interest between England and Ireland, though of vital importance, could be brought into a very narrow compass. But the great bulk of the business of Government is local and domestic, and this domestic part of the business of Government is continually extending. There are a multitude of subjects now regarded as proper and ordinary matters for the cognisance of Parliament which, when I began Parliamentary life, Parliament would have utterly declined to recognise. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that not a single man representing the Nationalists of Ireland would travel with him a single inch on the road he pointed out. That form of legislation would attain none of the objects desired on one side of the House or the other. The proper and only method is to reserve Imperial subjects, for two reasons: First, because it is a task which can easily be performed, and which has been performed in the main. If any defect in the enumeration be found later, it can easily be remedied; secondly, because it is impossible to enumerate local subjects. When Ireland proceeds to deal with her local affairs, it is almost a moral certainty that subjects will come up which, in a process of previous enumeration, will never have come into one's mind. The result will be that Ireland will come to the House of Commons to ask for further legislation. Every practical object is in favour of the Government plan. But, over and above all these practical objects, is the great question of principle. What Ireland asks is

    945
    the restoration or concession to her of the power of dealing with her own local Irish concerns. If that be not given to her, it would be better to give her nothing. Anything else would be a miserable mockery, and a great descent from the lofty elevation at which British legislation has hitherto been conducted. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the United States. He said that there the States are the supreme power, and that that power limits the subjects which are given to the control of the Federal Government. That is so, but the reason they are limited is that they are few and very easily to be described. There can be no doubt that in the United States a condition of things obtains which does not obtain here. In the innumerable— the multitude—of cases that might be cited, where is one favourable to the right hon. Gentleman's view? Canada affords no example of the relations between a subordinate and a supreme Legislature. One view is that the purposes of local government ought to be left free and open within the proper sphere. The Government desire to do everything to preserve the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament; but it will not be a supremacy which will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman, because the right hon. Gentleman will not admit to be a real supremacy anything but a supremacy which would irritate and reduce Irish affairs to a still more obnoxious position than they occupy at present. But with regard to the assertion of the principle of supremacy, the Government desire to keep it in its absolute fulness—subject to no limitation, except the geographical limitation. They desire to be faithful to their pledges in regard to it; but they desire to be equally faithful in their pledges with regard to the effective grant to Ireland of local government and local administration.
    *MR. H. MATTHEWS: In the course of the speech which he has just delivered, the Prime Minister said to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, "If we accept this Amendment, will you accept the rest of the Bill?" That is hardly a fair question. The Opposition are surely entitled to ask the Government to accept an Amendment without being thereby bound to accept the rest of the Bill.
    946
    The speech of the Prime Minister must make it clear to everyone that what Parliament is asked to create is not a subordinate Parliament at all. It is quite true that the right hon. Gentleman has said that the Irish Legislature is to be subordinate to the Imperial Parliament; but, at the same time, the right hon. Gentleman has stoutly resisted the insertion of the word "subordinate" in the 1st clause. If the right hon. Gentleman desired to set up a sovereign and supreme Parliament in Ireland, he could not have employed more apt words for the purpose than are to be found in this Bill as it stands. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the case of Canada. I am quite aware that in the case of Canada a supremacy has been reserved to the Imperial Parliament, but that supremacy is a purely nominal one, and has no practical effect whatever. Is that the sort of supremacy of the Imperial Parliament which hon. Members opposite intend to reserve in the case of the Irish Legislature? I am not aware of any instance in which this House has interfered with the internal affairs of the Colonies after the grant of Representative Government has been made to them. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister appears to have a confused notion with regard to the affairs which an Irish Legislature should have control over, and those which it should not have power to deal with. For instance, the right hon. Gentleman says that only Imperial affairs and matters of common interest are withdrawn from the control of the Irish Legislature. But, at the same time, the Irish Legislature is not to have control of even denominational education, which would appear to be a matter of local interest, while it is to have control over the law of marriage and divorce. Surely it is a matter of common interest to the two countries that the law relating to marriage and divorce should be the same in both. If a man were hold to be married in England and not married in Ireland, and if his issue were legitimate in this country and illegitimate in Ireland, and could not, therefore, inherit property in Ireland, how inconvenient it would be! It may be said that there is at present a considerable difference between Scotch law and the English law upon this

    947
    subject, but that is no reason why a third law should be established. Is the Irish Legislature to have power to deal with the Merchant Shipping Act, with the law relating to bankruptcy and insolvency? and will it be empowered to authorise the issue of a paper currency which is not to be a legal tender, and which will have no reserve of bullion behind it? Surely all these are subjects of common interest; and yet the Irish Legislature, as we have gathered from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, is to have power to deal with them. And, moreover, over these questions, which may be determined so disastrously for the two countries, the Ulster Representatives will have practically no control. Again, there is the subject of the Criminal Law. Surely it is of the first importance that the Criminal Law of the two countries should be identical—surely it is a question of common interest? Are we not entitled to ask the House to introduce safer provisions than are given at the present time? Suppose it were proposed to set up a different Criminal Law as to murder from that which prevails now——
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY,): There is a different Criminal Law at present in Scotland.
    *MR. H. MATTHEWS: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary says there is a different law at present in Scotland. I am sorry to say that is so; but that difference, which we have inherited, is no reason why we should set up differences in Ireland. A difference of any kind is to be deplored. But in regard to any future changes in the law—the Criminal Law—do the Members of the Government and the gentlemen supporting them ever intend that a supremacy should be exercised? Do they intend that this Legislature shall be no more a subordinate Legislature than in Canada, or will they tell us how, or under what circumstances, you intend to exercise a supremacy? I ask hon. Gentlemen do they intend never to exercise that supremacy? Do they mean the Irish Legislature to be a Colonial Legislature? If so, this mode of dealing with the question is the right one to adopt. But if they mean to create a subordinate Legislature, it is clear that the only logical—sensible—mode is to
    948
    enumerate those subjects which you delegate. Even in the case of the Colonies the rule has not been quite universal. For instance, in the case of New Zealand you gave a Legislature with power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of New Zealand, provided that such laws were not repugnant to the laws of England.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!
    MR. H. MATTHEWS: There is no clause here to that effect.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Look at Clause 33.
    *MR. H. MATTHEWS: That is a clause which undoubtedly enables the Imperial Legislature to pass an Act "expressly extended to Ireland"—whatever those words may mean—and Irish Acts will be valid so far as they are not inconsistent with that Act. That is what Clause 33 says in singularly inflated language. But that section does not prevent the Irish Legislature from creating a totally different system of laws from those prevailing on this side of St. George's Channel. Under the Bill the Irish Legislature will be perfectly free to legislate as it thinks proper. The right hon. Gentleman will probably say that if there is inconsistency between the Acts of the two Parliaments it shall be the Imperial law that shall prevail. That is true in theory as it is in the case of the Colonies. But when you have given powers so wide as these to the Irish Legislature you will never be able to defend your action if you endeavour to interfere in Ireland. The only way to preserve to yourselves any practical control and right of interference is to part wholly with those subjects on which von do not wish to interfere, and to reserve all those subjects on which you are likely to desire to interfere. Take the Criminal Law, for instance. It would be a great misfortune if that were to become different in the two countries. Is the penalty of death to remain in one and to be done away with in the other? The truth is, that the more light that is thrown on this subject the more plainly it appears that unless some of these Amendments are accepted by the Government the Legislature you are creating is not a subordinate Legislature. The Irish Judges will construe any two

    949
    Acts which may happen to clash in favour of the Irish Parliament, and will give—and rightly give—a wide and sweeping interpretation to the 2nd clause of the Bill which will practically exclude British control. The presumption will always be in favour of the Irish enactment—and ought to be. It will be held that the Irish Parliament is vested with the widest and most ample powers to say what shall be the law on all subjects that the Legislature can touch at all. Every conceivable subject that can be made a matter of law, with the exception of Clauses 3 and 4, is committed to the Irish Parliament; and in the case of a conflict, as I say, the balance will always incline towards the vast powers of this clause. With that regard for popular Institutions and Assemblies which this House has always exhibited you will not be able to interfere. That would appear to be the clear result of the 2nd clause as it stands now; therefore, for my part, I shall vote for the Amendment.
    MR. HALDANEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had made a most remarkable speech, and had told them a number of things which, speaking for himself, he did not know before. The right hon. Gentleman had said that in some instances laws which wore valid in Scotland were void in England. That was obviously a mistake. He had told them that the Colonial Legislatures were Sovereign Legislatures—oblivious, apparently, of the fact that in earlier days there were a large number of Acts passed by this very Parliament interfering in specific matters that were within the competence of the Colonial Legislatures. But the most extraordinary of all the right hon. Gentleman's extraordinary statements was the one which he put forward, in conjunction with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham, to the effect that all the precedents made in favour of delegation of authority, with the exception of the doubtful case of Canada, were to be found in cases of subordinate Constitutions, and that there were none in favour of the method adopted by the Government. There was not a single precedent in favour of delegation; but in every instance that could be brought forward the precedent was completely and conclusively in favour of the method adopted in this Bill. In the
    950
    United States there was called into existence—not a subordinate Legislature, not a Provincial Parliament, not an ordinary Legislature of Home Rule—but a life of the nation, a supreme Sovereign Authority which, by its constitution, was Federal in its nature, spreading itself and distributing itself between various co-ordinate parts. That was not a Legislature in point. Then lot them come to nearer illustrations. In the case of Canada, the Australasian Colonies, the Cape of Good Hope, and our Crown Colonies, we had granted powers not specifically, not enumerating them, but according to the stock and well-established form which was the legal formula expressing Home Rule. What was that formula? It was the power of making laws "for the peace, order, and good government" of the country upon whom the Legislature was conferred. That formula was adopted in the case of Canada; and it was a mistake to say—as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had said—that an analogy in the case of Canada was to be found in the distribution of legislative powers between the Dominion Parliament and the Provincial Parliaments. It was to be found in the grant of Home Rule to Canada in the delegation by the Sovereign Parliament in 1867—in the 97th section of the British North America Act of 1867. By that Act they gave powers in general terms, as they were given them by this Bill; and they made reservations as they did in the present case, with this difference: that in the case of Canada the reservation was made in favour of the Provincial Parliament, while here it was in favour of the Imperial Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham spoke of this system of delegation of specific powers as if it were Home Rule, and as though he were accommodating himself in some way to the desire which was being expressed by those who, with the Government, were in favour of a system of Home Rule for Ireland. That reminded him of the set-off in the historic days of the Round Table. The right hon. Gentleman said, in effect, that the Unionists did not bring forward these Amendments and make these speeches because of enmity to the objects of the Government, but because they wanted to put the Bill into a definite shape. The real object of

    951
    the Government was not to assist the Government, but to destroy the Bill. They were giving to the Irish people, under this Bill, a restricted form of government, with great safeguards, greater than they had reserved in the case of any of their Colonies. They were giving powers to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the country. It was not desirable to restrict those powers and to have constant friction between the two countries, and constant questions arising as to whether a particular question came within one form of specific delegation or another form of specific reservation. Did the right hon. Gentleman know the amount of friction which had taken place between the Dominion Parliament in Canada and the Provincial Parliaments? Did he know that almost constantly questions which had caused the greatest friction and bitterness came before the Privy Council in consequence of the obscurity of the form of delegation? And did he know that the consequence of the system there was that they had the Dominion Government making one set of laws for, say, Ontario, and the Ontario Legislature making an exactly similar set of laws for itself? It was not difficult to show that there was no precedent whatever in favour of the course which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham proposed, while every precedent supported the course which the Government wished to follow. It was impossible to state what the Irish would want, because they could not define the whole range of questions which must be discussed by an Irish Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had said they were going to allow the Irish Parliament to make Marriage Laws, and that the result of that would be that they would put the Irish Parliament in the position of being able to annul marriages which had been legitimately contracted. But there was absolutely nothing in this statement. No doubt, any law the Irish Parliament might make would affect persons domiciled in Ireland; but it would not touch persons domiciled on the other side of St. George's Channel; and if it did, the case would be a proper one for the exercise of the veto. In the exercise of the veto in such a case, we should only be following the precedent of what had been done in the case of the
    952
    Australian Colonies. It was said in support of those Amendments that if they were adopted the Imperial Parliament would be in a better position to interfere if it wished to show that its supremacy was a real one. The reasons advanced by the supporters of the Amendment seemed to him to disclose what lay behind all their arguments touching supremacy. It was evident that what they were aiming at was to so mould the Bill and introduce words into it to alter its form as to render it possible to say, "In passing this Bill, Parliament declared by implication, if not in terms, for the policy of allowing the Imperial Parliament to interfere at every turn to overhaul the work of the Irish Parliament." He trusted that in the course of the Debates on the Bill the Government would not show any weakness—he did not believe they would on this point — but would reject every Amendment, and that, while maintaining intact the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, they would make it plain that they meant to give Ireland Home Rule in substance, and not merely in form or theory. They should make it clear that what they meant to do was to give the Irish Parliament the power of managing its own affairs, and that by rejecting this plan of specific delegation and everything else of a similar nature they would make it plain to the Irish people that what they were endeavouring to pass was a real Home Rule Bill and not a sham one.
    MR. RENTOULsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down hoped the Government would reject all Amendments. ["No, no!"] Yes; he had taken down the hon. and learned Gentleman's words. He had said—"I trust they will reject everything." ["No, no!"] Hon. Members said "No, no!" but the hon. and learned Gentleman to whom he referred did not interfere in the matter.
    MR. HALDANEsaid, he never for a moment had suggested such a thing.
    MR. RENTOULsaid, the matter was before the House. He had taken down the hon. and learned Member's words. Of course, if he did not mean them it was another matter. Those who desired that the Government should not concede anything were very likely to have that desire gratified, judging from what had taken place since they had got into Com-

    953
    mittee, because hitherto everything that had been moved by the Unionist Party had been rejected. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in the larger part of his speech, dealt with historic analogy; but the Ulster Unionist Members agreed with the hon. Member for North Armagh, and were of opinion that no historic analogies touched this question in the smallest degree. They desired rather to look at the question as a plain, practical matter, affecting those residing in Ulster in their business and general home relations. Therefore, they thought that references to countries thousands of miles away had no reference to the question at issue. The speech of the Prime Minister differed, in their opinion, extremely from the speech which he delivered on Thursday evening, be cause they were then unable—and possibly it was their own fault—to understand that he gave any information in answer to the inquiries of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham: and he could not help thinking that it was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman, as Prime Minister, to come down to the low level of their capacities, and make them understand the answer he had given. But they could not make that complaint that afternoon, because the Prime Minister had been perfectly clear in the statements he made. The one, great, central illustration to which the hon. Gentleman referred again and again, and which appeared to be the, substance of his speech about treating the Irish people as children—giving them some pocket money and saying that, if they used it well, they should have some more—absolutely failed. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister again and again spoke of Ireland. But there was just one difficulty that arose. The majority in Ireland undoubtedly had the larger number of votes; but the minority had the larger amount of property; therefore, when the Prime Minister talked of giving pocket money to the Irish majority, the analogy failed altogether. It was not a case of giving pocket money to a child to see how the child would spend it. It was a case of appointing trustees or managers over the affairs and properties of other people. The majority in an Irish Parliament would be the managers of the wealth of the minority; and, therefore, it was no insult to the majority of the Irish people
    954
    to say—"We will give you small powers at first to see how you will exercise them." Surely there could be nothing wrong in stating what were the subjects to be left to the Irish Parliament; and if the Unionist minority were to be treated fairly, it was only common justice to tell them what were the powers which the Irish Parliament was to exercise over them and their property. "But." said the Prime Minister, "this is only a detail." Well, it appeared to him (Mr. Rentoul) that if there was one thing which was not a detail it was just that particular thing. The exceptions should be extended to such an extent as to make the Bill valueless to Irish Home Rulers altogether. The Prime Minister said that the principle was that they should give the Irish Parliament control over Irish subjects and withhold from it control over Imperial subjects. But in 1886 the right hon. Gentleman said it was impossible to make a distinction between local and Imperial subjects; and that difficulty certainly remained at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman said he would unveil the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham. He said to the right hon. Gentleman— "Will you accept the Bill if we accept this Amendment? "The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham naturally said "No." "Then," said the Prime Minister, "we have the matter clearly before us. We offer you a Bill; you offer us an Amendment; but if we accept it, you have no intention whatever of accepting the Bill." But this was not the case of a Bill being offered for the acceptance of the Irish minority; it was a Bill thrust upon them by a majority gained by refusing to let the constituencies know what the Bill was going to be. It was on that account that they said that the Government were acting in a tyrannical manner in regard to the Bill. The Government obtained a majority over the Opposition, the validity of which the Opposition disputed, because they said that the mind of the people of the United Kingdom had not been taken, and the question was not fairly before them. That being so, the Prime Minister brought in a Bill and said, "You must pass that." The Opposition put forward Amendments frankly, and said they objected to the Bill

    955
    entirely; but because they brought forward Amendments was it unreasonable that they should seek to amend it, so that if they were compelled to accept it it might be brought as near their views as possible? Would the Prime Minister wish them to offer no opposition to the Bill at all in Committee?
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Yes.
    MR. RENTOULsaid that a large number of the Irish Unionist Members had intended to take up the line of saying that, because they objected to the Bill in toto, they would take no part in the discussion; but, wiser counsels prevailing, that policy was not adopted. Their position had been stated on hundreds of platforms, and it was that unless the Army interfered they would not accept the Bill.
    MR. HUNTERasked whether the hon. Member was in Order in the observations he was making?
    *THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member was irregular, as he was not confining himself to the Amendment before the Committee.
    MR. RENTOULsaid, his point was that the Prime Minister had said that the Government had pulled aside the veil of the Opposition, but he (Mr. Rentoul) was showing that they had no veil to pull aside. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham had remarked upon the unbusiness like way in which the question was put in the Bill. He had used the illustration of a man coming to ask you for a sum of money, and your offering him your entire purse with the request that he should hand back what he did not want. It was a very common thing for a husband to settle something on his wife; but it would be an extraordinary thing for a man making such a settlement to say, "Take all my property, but reserve a little for me." Yet something very like that was done in this Bill. All the powers of the Imperial Parliament were to be settled on the Irish Parliament, and then in the 3rd clause certain powers were reserved to the Imperial Parliament. As to giving a man your money on the understanding that he was to give you back what you did not want, he had known that course to be followed in the case of a certain Home Rule Member, and, in the end, not one penny was returned. That would be
    956
    the experience of the Imperial Parliament if the Bill were accepted. Was it unreasonable that the Ulster Members should want to know exactly what powers were to be given to the Parliament that would be over them? The Irish Parliament would consist of a majority of Home Rulers and a Loyalist minority. Therefore, was there anything unfair in the minority wishing to know the best and the worst at once? If they did, they might perhaps be less reluctant to accept the Bill than they were. Many hon. Members had spoken on this question from every possible point of view. [Ministerial cheers.] Yes, from the point of view of the entire and absolute freedom of the Irish Parliament, and the point of view of the Irish Parliament having such-and-such powers. Looking at the absolute statement of the Home Secretary the other night as to the extent of the power of the Irish Parliament, was there anything unreasonable in asking the Government to accept the Amendment—in asking that they should give the information sought? If that was given, then compel them, if necessary, to accept this Parliament. At any rate, let the Government tell them what the powers of this Parliament were to be in order that they might see how they stood. It was on that ground that he desired most earnestly that the Government should see their way to accept this arrangement, and see whether a policy of conciliation from any point of view would not have some effect. They might find the Ulster Members more approachable than they thought. They, at any rate, wished the Government to treat them as men who were willing to talk on this subject. [Ministerial cheers.] Exactly. When he said that he meant what he said. He had already said it was a question with the Ulster Members whether they should touch the Bill and debate it at all; but now they had consented to debate it with the limited powers at their disposal. They treated the Government as fairly as they could. They told them what their objections were, and then voted against the Bill in the frankest manner.
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid, there was one speech he could not understand — namely, that of the hon. and learned Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane). He said

    957
    that the, Canadian analogy was no analogy at all. That, he confessed, went a good deal further than the Prime Minister's speech. The Prime Minister had not denied the Canadian analogy. If the hon. and learned Member had been in his place, he (Mr. Russell) would have asked him what Sections 91 and 92 of the British North America Act really meant if they did not constitute an analogy for the Irish case. Why, in Section 92 of the British North America Act the work of the Provincial Legislatures was set out and the subjects enumerated. Beyond those subjects they could not go; and if they went beyond them, the Supreme Court of Canada would declare the Acts to be un-Constitutional. So far as an analogy could be perfect, this analogy was perfect. It was impossible to say that delegation could not be carried out; for in Canada,, ever since 1867, it had been the law, and no very great difficulties had arisen under it. There was one practical argument in favour of delegation and against reservation. Under Section 4 of the Bill the Irish Legislature was forbidden to endow religion; but the question might arise, what constituted the endowment of religion. It might be found, for example, that the endowment of religion was effected through education. But if the principle of delegation were adopted, it would be impossible for any such question to arise. The powers of the Legislature would be clearly set forth in the Bill itself, so that those who ran could read. Under the system of reservation all kinds of difficulties would arise which, under the principle of delegation, they would be free from. What was the real argument against this principle? One argument used by the Prime Minister seemed to preclude all debate on the matter. The right hon. Gentleman stated with the greatest clearness that the Irish Members would not go one inch of the way with the Government if they adopted the plan of delegation. That was the effective argument on the Ministerial side of the House.
    An hon. MEMBER: Quite right, too.
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: "Quite right, too!"—that was a nice confession for a Liberal to make. He had always thought there was a British view of the question as well as an Irish one, and
    958
    that Irishmen must not ask more than Great Britain would concede. But if the method proposed in the Bill were adopted, for the reason given by the Prime Minister that the Irish Members would not move one step of the way if delegation were attempted, then the Irish Members were the real Leaders of the Liberal Party, though they did not sit on the Treasury Bench. These were the men who dictated to the Government what they should vote for, and what they should not vote for. That was a fine position for the great Liberal Party—that they should be mere hewers of wood and drawers of waters for the Irish Nationalists! He was not very much concerned one way or another with regard to the Amendment, and he would tell the Committee why. He thought delegation the better plan of the two. He did not see, for instance, why the question of regulating the public-house system should not be delegated to a Body in Ireland. He did not see why the English people should decide how many public-houses there were to be in Ireland, and what hours they should remain open. This subject was preeminently a matter for the people of Ireland, and the people of Ireland alone; and, therefore, he was prepared at any time for a system of delegation of that kind. On the broad national question, he was against an Irish Parliament altogether, but thought that the principle of delegation was better than the principle of reservation, and on that ground he should vote for the Amendment.
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid that no one had attempted to answer the observation that the subjects to be delegated—if they were to be delegated— were not capable of being enumerated with any approach to accuracy. If they wished to give only a few subjects for the consideration of the Irish Parliament, it would be very easy indeed to do it— as was done in the Canadian Act for the Provincial Assemblies. But that was precisely what the Government and their supporters did not want to do. The object of the Amendment was to limit the Bill: his object was to prevent the Bill being limited. They had been asked by the late Home Secretary (Mr. H Matthews) what sort of supremacy they wished to have over Ireland. So far as legal supremacy was concerned, there was only one they could

    959
    have, and that was the same that they had over all Her Majesty's Dominions; but he meant, most emphatically, to do everything he could to make the supremacy of Parliament over the affairs that would be discussed in Ireland as small and simple as he could. If the Irish people demanded it, he should find it difficult to refuse that they should have the uncontrolled management of Irish affairs. That subject, however, was not appropriate for discussion now; but he could imagine nothing more disastrous than to create a Parliament in Ireland, and then have constant appeals from Ireland to the Imperial Parliament, encouraging the different Parties in Ireland to contradict or fight one another, with no sense of responsibility, because they would feel that their battles must be fought over again on the floor of that House at Westminster. He would readily vote for a limitation of the powers and opportunities the House of Commons would have of interfering with or regulating the decisions of the Irish Parliament, but he must decline to attempt to further restrict the powers of that Parliament. Treating the Amendment as a very neat method of raising the question whether this was to be a gas-and-water Bill merely or not, he should vote against the proposal.
    MR. MACFARLANE: I beg to move that the Question be now put.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Commander Bethell.
    COMMANDER BETHELLsaid, that on all previous occasions when the sovereign power had parted with some of its authority, it had delegated the authority so parted with, and limited it to the necessities of the case. The case of Canada had already been mentioned; but the very interesting case of Australian Federation—which, though it had not become law, had been defined very clearly—had not yet been alluded to. In the Regulations which had been passed by the Representatives of the Australian Colonies, it had been clearly laid down that those Colonies should only give up such powers as would be sufficient for the purpose of the common Government, and such powers were very clearly defined. He thought the hon. and learned Member for Haddington (Mr. Haldane) might have
    960
    given lay Members of the House some further light on the interesting question of the Marriage Laws. He understood from the hon. and learned Member that by this proposal the Irish Parliament would have the power of divorce over people domiciled in Ireland, whilst the British laws would apply to people domiciled in other parts of the United Kingdom. He was anxious to know whether, in the event of the succession to property passing by death, the Imperial Parliament would tax the person who succeeded to Irish property and who would be illegitimate under the British law? The hon. and learned Member had said that, after all, this was the old question of supremacy. No doubt this was so. The Opposition desired to limit the powers to be given to the Irish Legislature. They were not satisfied that the supremacy which extended over the Colonies was sufficient for the purposes of Ireland. They, therefore, intended to do all they could to limit the powers to be given to the Irish Legislature and to destroy the proposal of the Government. The Prime Minister said the intention of the Government was to draw a distinct line between Imperial and local affairs. The intention of the Opposition was to do precisely the same thing, only the Opposition proposed to define the local matters with which the Irish Legislature was to deal, and the Government did not. The Opposition desired to define the local matters in such a way as would clip the wings of the Irish Legislature as much as possible.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, the question he asked himself in reference to the Amendment now before the Committee was, What was the House driving at? Supposing the House had agreed that some such thing as Home Rule was to be established in Ireland, what particular form of Home Rule was to be set up? Was it to be something corresponding to Colonial Independence, or was it to be that which had been described as Home Rule all round? The hon. and learned Member for Haddington said that Parliament had never intended to enumerate subjects to be delegated. The answer to that was that in all the cases referred to by the hon. and learned Member Parliament had been setting up Colonies practically independent of Great

    961
    Britain, and over which we had a merely nominal supremacy—a supremacy which, legislatively, had never been exercised, and which in the way of veto had long since ceased to be exercised. If Parliament was going to give Ireland the degree of independence which the Colonies had, he admitted that the Government were quite right in not attempting to define by legislation the objects which the Irish Legislature was to be allowed to legislate upon. If, on the other hand, Parliament was going to set up some relation between Ireland and the Parliament of Westminster which might be followed hereafter by similar relations with Scotland, Wales, and England, the precedent that must, be followed was the Canadian precedent. The speech of the hon. and learned Member for Dumfries (Mr. R. T. Reid) had rather surprised him, as he thought that the hon. and learned Member was an avowed disciple of the principle of "Home Rule all round," and that under these circumstances he would have seized upon the opportunity of making a precedent which might be applicable afterwards to other parts of the United Kingdom. The hon. and learned Member for Dumfries used one argument, and one argument only— an argument which had been previously used by the Prime Minister—namely, that it was too difficult to enumerate the subjects with which the Irish Legislature might be entrusted. But had the hon. and learned Member looked at the Canadian precedent, or did he think that such a small, meagre, and impoverished delegation as was therein contained was not sufficient for the Irish Legislature?
    MR. R. T. REID: May I interrupt my right hon. Friend to say that I have had some practical acquaintance with this subject of delegation. I assisted my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen in drafting a Home Rule Bill for Scotland. [Laughter.] It is in print. We tried to enumerate the subjects to be delegated to the Scotch Parliament, and found it perfectly impossible to do so.
    MR. COURTNEYsaid, he had no doubt the hon. Members for Dumfries and Aberdeen found it difficult to put a limit, to Scotch ambition. But he submitted they were not all Scotchmen; and it was quite probable that if they tried they would be able to
    962
    find a sufficient number of subjects to delegate to a Scotch Parliament, as he believed they would be able to enumerate a sufficient number of subjects to satisfy an Irish Parliament. In the Canadian precedent it would be found that in no less than 16 classes of subjects delegated, besides education, agriculture, and emigration were dealt with in separate clauses. Amongst the classes of subjects were municipal institutions, a subject which covered the whole code of laws, and the carrying out of which would give ample scope to the most ambitious Irish Legislature for many years. That was a precedent which ought to guide those who pursued the idea of a system with a Parliament at Westminster with four subordinate Parliaments, the Parliament at Westminster having general powers and the four subordinate Parliaments delegated powers. There was the subject of marriage, which, apparently, it was proposed to give power to the Irish Legislature to deal with. It was true that the Marriage Laws were now different in England, Scotland, and Ireland; but, the difference between the English and the Irish laws on the subject was formal rather than real. Nearly 30 years ago a Royal Commission had been instituted in order to discover, if possible, a means of bringing about uniformity in the laws of the two countries. That object had never been attained. It was an object that every subject of the United Kingdom should desire to attain, but the process adopted in the Bill would make it practically impossible to attain. If marriage were kept for the Parliament at Westminster, uniformity might by-and-bye be obtained; but if it were given as a subject to be dealt with by a subordinate Legislature, he was afraid they might bid good-bye to uniformity in this matter. The Prime Minister seemed to think that the Irish people were distinguished by their views with respect to marriage and divorce, and that he was paying enormous respect to those views by the extraordinary line taken in the Bill. The Irish feeling, in the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, was so strong that persons who might obtain divorce in England could not obtain it in Ireland through the Divorce Court, but they could do so by the process of a Bill in Parliament; so that the feeling which the Prime Minister said should be respected was over-ridden, not by

    963
    providing a system of Divorce Courts, but by providing the costly machinery of a Bill in Parliament. In other words, Irish opinion might be flouted, but it must be flouted by means of a machinery which involved a considerable amount of cost. That was only an illustration of the difficulties that would result in the future if an Irish Parliament were to be set up with general powers instead of delegated powers. The precedent of the United States Government, which had been appealed to, ought to lead them to be very jealous in retaining general powers at Westminster and in abstaining from giving any largo powers to the Parliament in Dublin. The weakness of the United States Constitution rested on the few subjects that were confined to the Legislative Congress and on the immense difficulty in increasing that number of subjects. He believed that in the United States the best class of citizens had long desired a uniform law of marriage, but the laws of the Constitution prevented them from obtaining their desire by reason of the machinery by which any Constitutional Amendment could be enforced being so cumbrous, unpractical, and difficult to work. They were about to take a step which would make the maintenance of a Common Law and the development of a Common Law in different parts of the Kingdom increasingly difficult. If it was desired to have a Legislature capable of legislating for all the people within the United Kingdom, the real precedent—which was the Canadian precedent—must be followed; but if, on the other hand, it was desired to pursue the ideal Colonial precedent with no supremacy and with the complete isolation and separation of Ireland, then the plan in the Bill was the one to stick to. But if this Parliament desired to maintain a real Legislative Authority at Westminster, he submitted that the plan to be adopted was that of the enumeration of the subjects to be delegated to the Irish Assembly.
    MR. STOREYsaid, he had intended to make some observations on this Amendment, but the right hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had so well expressed his views on the question that he would not trouble the Committee very long. He had thought over the question of Home Rule for many years,
    964
    and when he stood before his constituents he made a distinct promise. He said to them—
    "With regard to Home Rule, I think my fellow-townsmen are entitled to a frank expression of my views. (1). I am in favour of the Imperial Parliament delegating to a Statutory Irish Parliament the full control of Irish home affairs, the matters delegated being set out specifically in the Act, and all others being thereby reserved for the decision of the Mother Body."
    He did not pretend to have as good an opinion on the Home Rule Question as the 17 Members of the Cabinet; but, although he had not thought about it so much as they had when they sat together, he had thought about it probably for a longer time than most of them, and he had come to the conclusion that if they would enter on this policy of Home Rule—and he certainly was not one of those who began it—there was no tarrying until they came to a Federal system. Therefore, he set himself to this conclusion: that if he voted for Home Rule, he would vote for a Home Rule which would give effective power to Ireland in Ireland, while retaining the Imperial power finally to the Imperial Parliament. He was going to keep the promise he made to his constituency. [Liberal Unionist cheers.] That statement need not have been cheered. Hon. Members would believe him when he said that they had lost votes by their cheers. It was not satisfactory to him to be cheered when he told the House he was going to vote against his hon. Friends. Those who had cheered him did not cheer him for his merits, but because they thought he was going to do some mischief. He could assure hon. Members who cheered that he was not a whit better than the Radical Members were who had been accused again and again of having made promises to their constituents which they had broken. He should like to see these promises. He knew the Radical Members, and he was bound to say that amongst the whole 140 of them, there was not a single one of them that gave a promise to his constituents which he was not going to redeem. If there was anything which would prevent Radical Members from voting for some of the Amendments, it would be the utterances of his right hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham. He was going to vote with his

    965
    right hon. Friend on this Amendment. But his purpose in so voting was to press an effective Home Rule Bill for Ireland which should fit, in with the Federal system, which, rightly or wrongly, he believed to he coming; while the purpose of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham was not to amend the Bill in that direction, but to destroy it. There were thousands of people in the country who saw with sore dismay the right hon. Gentleman taking that line. With regard to the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, he really believed there was a lurking honesty in him; and he would ask him whether, when he argued so powerfully that if they were going to have Home Rule they should have this plea of delegation, did he honestly desire to convey that if the Amendment were adopted it would conciliate Liberal Unionist opinion to the Bill? The right hon. Gentleman only laughed at him now. Well, he submitted that if that question were not answered, his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's position was perfectly right. His right, hon. Friend said—"I propose a plan; it may not be as good as yours; but if you will not help in amending that plan, I will stick to it." If he had not made that promise to his constituents he would go into the Lobby with the Prime Minister, because the right hon. Gentleman, as a practical politician who wanted the Bill to be carried, was justified on having taken a line to stand by it, unless, by giving way on a point, he could conciliate Liberal Unionist opinion; and, if he could not do that, his wisest course was to he strong. Though he believed the right hon. Gentleman's plan was the best plan, he thought that the Prime Minister could have just as easily proceeded by way of delegation, and to define measures, instead of reserving measures; and, as he had given the promise to his constituents, he proposed to go into the Lobby for the Amendment.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 275; Noes 228.—(Division List, No. 83.)
    *MR. BARTLEY*MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.) moved, in Clause 2, line 14, to leave out "and subject to the restrictions." He said the Amendment on which the Committee
    966
    had just voted aimed at changing the scope of the restrictions in the Bill by removing them from the negative side to the positive side, and by stating distinctly the subjects that were to be included with in the powers of the Legislature about to be created in Ireland. The issue he wished to raise by his Amendment was quite different. No doubt it was absolutely necessary to limit the action of this proposed subordinate Legislature to certain subjects. It was clear that in some way or other it must be clearly and distinctly stated that such questions as the succession to the Crown, peace, and war did not appertain to the Legislature they were about to set up. On that they were all agreed. But the restrictions set forth in Clause 4 of the Bill were of a different category, and he wished to show that restrictions were illusory as safeguards to the minority, and derogatory even to the mongrel local Assembly they proposed to set up in Ireland. These restrictions, which he wished to remove from the Bill, might be divided into two classes. The first class related to religion, and the second concerned ordinary morality. A point which he wished the House to remember—and it was a point which they were apt to lose sight of— was that the Irish Legislature would, without doubt, be practically dominated and ruled by the priests. That was clear; and whether they liked it or disliked it, whether it, was a bad thing or a good thing, they must recognise it, for recent, events in Ireland had told them conclusively that Archbishop Walsh and his successors would pull the strings of the Legislature in Dublin. These restrictions that concerned religion were matters of very keen concern to the Irish people. It could not be supposed that a Legislative Assembly established in Ireland and very largely influenced by the priests would long support a number of restrictions which touched very deeply the religious sentiments and wishes of the Irish people; and he believed that when the Legislature was set up in Ireland attempts would be made to do away with them. But, even as they stood in the Bill, those restrictions could be circumvented and set at defiance; and was it reasonable, then, that they should be put in the Bill, especially as it was inconceivable that the Imperial Parliament would enforce these restrictions, if need

    967
    be, by war? If 80 per cent. of the Irish Members were powerful enough to force this Home Rule Bill on the House of Commons, and as they thought—though erroneously—within measurable distance of passing it—it was absurd to suppose, if they got a Legislature in Dublin— in which they would be even more powerful—that they would allow these restrictions to remain. The other class of restrictions was of a still more remarkable character. These restrictions formed a sort of second table of the Decalogue, and it was certainly an extraordinary thing to find them put into an Act of Parliament. It was possible that the Prime Minister thought that the Decalogue had been somewhat forgotten in Ireland, and that he wished to set it up in the Home Rule Bill, for Clause 5 was, practically speaking, some of the Commandments in other words. It was absolutely forbidden under the clause to deprive any person of life, liberty, and property without due process of law. That simply meant that the Irish Legislature was told "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal." It was true that the words "without duo process of law" were added; but had they come to this, that they needed to put into a Statute which set up a Legislature in Ireland a clause which enacted that these offences against the Decalogue should not be committed by that Legislature? He wondered that the whole Decalogue had not been inserted in the Bill. When he had proposed to introduce into Clause 1 the words "subordinate Parliament," which everyone agreed this Legislature would be, the Prime Minister charged him with wishing to degrade the Irish Assembly, and said the proposed words, if accepted, would be a bar sinister against that Assembly. But now they proposed to enact, for all posterity to see, that when they thought the time had come to set up a Legislature in Ireland, they thought it necessary to state distinctly in their Bill that they were afraid the Legislature would commit these crimes against the Decalogue, and that for that reason they inserted in the Bill in so many words the Commandments "Thou shalt not kill" and "Thou shalt not steal." Surely that was a bar sinister, darker and more shameful than the words "subordinate Parliament," which the Prime
    968
    Minister himself declared would be the position of the Irish Legislature if the Bill became law? The Irish Members must have come down very considerably if they were going to allow those objectionable restrictions to remain in the Bill. But he objected to these restrictions from the United Kingdom standpoint as well as from the Irish standpoint. If the Irish Representatives were retained in their full strength in the Imperial Parliament, the restrictions, if allowed to stand, would be a source of continual agitation in the House, for they would be denounced as an insult to the Irish nation, and the Prime Minister would in a few years have as hard words used against him by Irish Members as the right hon. Gentleman himself had used towards those who carried the Union. Suppose an agitation were got up in the Imperial Parliament to remove these restrictions, how could Parliament possibly refuse to do away with them? From the Imperial standpoint it would be, therefore, much better to remove the restrictions now than to allow them to remain to be the cause of friction in future years. There was a great deal of talk on the Ministerial side of the House about trusting the Irish people; but instead of trusting them they were about to declare that so little did they believe in the Irish people that it was necessary to put restrictions in the Bill to prevent their Legislature from killing and stealing. He thought that on those grounds the clause setting up the restrictions was the most remarkable in the Bill. Personally, he was not anxious that the Bill should become law, and he did not wish to promote its passing. But if they were going to set up in Ireland a Legislative Assembly, and if they were going to put restrictions in the Bill indicating that they did not trust the Irish people, and gave them the Legislature under compulsion, then the Irish people would not have the Legislature long before they would knock out these restrictions; and as he, therefore, thought they ought to be knocked out now, he begged to move his Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 14, to leave out "and subject to the restrictions."—(Mr. Bartley.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I will not endeavour now to deal with each particular safeguard that is contained in the Bill. By doing so I do not think the Committee would escape from having to consider in detail the clause as a whole when the Question is put from the Chair that the clause do stand part of the Bill. Hon. Members must feel that it would be a very strong measure, at the present stage of the clause, to decide that the whole of the restrictions upon the power of the Irish Legislature should be cut away. Undoubtedly the effect of the proposed Amendment would be to enlarge the scope of the Home Rule Bill. It is the first proposal of the kind that has come from the Opposition. I will only make this remark—that the restrictions which the Amendment proposes to sweep away constitute a bonâ fide attempt to narrow the power of the new Irish Legislature; and I must say that the way in which the Nationalist Members have acquiesced in this limitation of the power of that Legislature is most creditable to them, and affords a singular example of the moderation with which they have conducted themselves in this House in connection with the details of this Bill. I may be told that these restrictions are not of much value; but I think it will be admitted that there is not the smallest doubt that if they were swept away it would be regarded as very much enhancing the demerits of the measure. The hon. Member who moved the Amendment said it was not consistent with the respect due to the Irish Legislature to impose any restrictions of this kind. Well, take the very first of them, which prohibits the new Irish Legislature from setting up an Established Church. That, according to the hon. Member, is an improper restriction upon its legislative powers; but that is exactly the restriction that is imposed upon the Federal Legislatures of the United States. In my opinion, it is most improbable that any Irish Members would be in favour of establishing a Church of any denomination, whether these restrictions existed or not. The restrictions have been inserted with the goodwill and entire approval of the Irish Members, in order, if possible, to allay those jealousies which, however unhappy and unreasonable they may be, they find entertained and even enforced in
    970
    this House. This Irish Legislature has been called, not inaptly, a "subordinate Legislature," and there is nothing at all improper in this policy of imposing restrictions. When we come to the clause, each restriction will he decided on its own merits; but, in my opinion, it is most unreasonable to cut out the whole mass of the restrictions that are contained in the clause at this stage, and therefore I must offer the strongest opposition to the Amendment.
    MR. ROSSsaid, that up to the present he had taken no part in the proceedings of the Committee. His constituents had very grave doubts as to whether he should in any way take part in the proceedings at all. He did not disguise that the position they took up with regard to the Bill and to every one of its clauses was a position of uncompromising hostility. But, although he entertained these sentiments towards the Bill, he thought it was his duty to endeavour to draw from the responsible Members of the Government explanations as to what the clauses really meant. He knew that these restrictions were put forward in the guise of being safeguards; but, as safeguards, they were absolute shams. There was not one of them that was not capable of being got round. Even the one mentioned by the Prime Minister had been demonstrated to be absolutely ineffective. Therefore, his constituents would much rather have no restrictions at all. He spoke with a full sense of his responsibility; he knew what the people who elected him wished; and he told the Government not to hurt the feelings of the Irish Members at all—not to strain the allegiance of some of their own supporters—by introducing these safeguards. He hoped he would hear no more of what the Prime Minister had said about, the acceptance of these restrictions by the Irish Members showing their moderation and the spirit of compromise which animated them, for, with great respect to the Irish Members—for he did not wish to say anything insulting to them—he did not believe that that attitude could be maintained. The great point of the Irish Members was to get the Bill through by hook or by crook, and when they had the house over their heads in Dublin they could then get anything else they wished for. He did not believe these safeguards were intended for the

    971
    Loyalists in Ireland at all. They were intended for the protection of the Government when the Government were brought face to face before the country. That might be put off for a long time; but he sincerely believed that the time would come when the Government would have to answer to the country for the wrongs and oppression that would be wrought by this Bill, and then the safeguards would be useful to them—then they would say—"Look at all these clauses we put in for the protection of the loyal minority." But he did not think the country would be satisfied with that answer. The Representatives of the people of Ulster told the Government that they did not want these safeguards and restrictions; and he would, therefore, support the Amendment.
    SIR HENRY JAMES: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not proceed to a Division on his Amendment, for if he does some of those who oppose this Bill will not be able to vote for it. The position some of us take up with regard to this Bill is that we oppose the Bill, and desire to see it defeated; but it may pass, and we desire to make it as good a Bill as safeguards can make it. There are illusory safeguards in the Bill, and we desire to remove these illusory safeguards. But this Amendment proposes to strike out some of the safeguards we desire to see in the Bill; and if carried it would really give to this proposed Irish Legislature greater powers than those proposed to be conferred by the Bill as it stands. Therefore, I trust the hon. Member will not go to a Division on his Amendment.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I quite agree that this Bill is full of illusory safeguards; but the Amendment really goes much further than illusory safeguards. It touches every one of the restrictions contained in Clause 4. My desire is, when we get to Clause 4, not to diminish its restricting power, but to increase it. As far as it goes, I think it is an improvement in the Bill, but it does not go far enough. When we get to it I shall try to make it go further; but, in the meanwhile, I think it would be inadvisable for my hon. Friend to persist in his Amendment; the proper course for him to adopt would be, when he sees how Clause 4 is modified—if it should
    972
    be modified—to move to omit that clause. As the Prime Minister has said, it would be rather a strong order, on the 2nd clause of the Bill, to take the course proposed; and, under the circumstances, I am inclined to advise my hon. Friend not to press this particular Amendment.
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that, while sympathising with his hon. Friend opposite, he watt in a difficulty. He had no great belief in the restrictions proposed by Clause 4, and less belief in that particular one which had been singled out by the Prime Minister with regard to religion. The Prime Minister was, in his view, entirely inconsistent in singling that out. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to the restrictions that prevented the Irish Parliament from establishing or endowing religion. He himself had put a Notice on the Paper to omit that special subsection, and for this reason—the Church question was reserved for the opinion of Scotland, Wales, and England; and he did not see how they were logically going to make an exception in the case of Ireland. Moreover, if they made it, it would not be observed. He thought, upon the whole, inasmuch as they would have an opportunity of dealing with each of these restrictions separately when they came to them, it would be better that the present Amendment should not be pressed.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, he did not desire to put the House to the trouble of a Division; and he would, therefore, withdraw the Amendment and bring it forward later. ["No, no!"]
    Question put, and agreed to.
    MR. BOUSFIELD MR. BOUSFIELD moved, in Clause 2, page 1, line 15, after "mentioned," insert ''and subject to the assent of Parliament as hereinafter provided." This Amendment, he said, was the first of a series which were designed to provide practical machinery by which the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament might be maintained. They had had a number of discussions on this question of supremacy; and the answer of the Government had been that the proposals which had been made would not put the supremacy in a better position, but would put it in a worse, and that their proposals were impracticable and out of

    973
    place. The object of his Amendment was to make a practical proposal with regard to the maintenance of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament — a subject on which they had been told that both sides of the House were equally exercised, and equally desirous that a practical and effective supremacy should be maintained. He submitted there could be no such practical supremacy unless there was a possibility of that House intervening on any particular measure and saying what it had to say on such a measure before it was passed into law. Clause 5 provided the whole of the machinery in the Bill with regard to giving the assent of Her Majesty to anything the Irish Legislature might do; and under that clause far wider powers were given to the Legislature which it was proposed to constitute in Ireland than were in most cases given to our self-governing Colonies, in regard to which the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament was almost null, or the weapon was such a rusty one that it was practically never used. With regard to our Colonial Legislatures, there was a bar put on which might be effectively used and exercised with regard to giving the Royal Assent to any Bills which might be brought into a Colonial Legislature. The Governor of a Colony was not merely the mouthpiece, as it were, of the Legislature for the purpose of giving assent to a Bill; but he had, in fact, a real discretion, and could exercise that discretion, in order to give or withhold assent to a Bill. According to the Bill now before the House, it was proposed that the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, who held a position corresponding to that of a Governor in the Colonies, should have no discretionary power of that kind, therefore this was a weaker Bill, and gave more power of freedom to the proposed Legislature in Ireland than had hitherto been given in the case of many of our Colonial Legislatures. This Bill provided that the Lord Lieutenant should, on the advice of the Executive Committee, give or withhold the assent of Her Majesty to Bills passed by the two Houses of Parliament; so that, practically, for the purpose of giving or withholding that assent, the Lord Lieutenant had to act on the advice of the Executive Committee, and had no
    974
    independent power to give or withhold assent.
    MR. J. MORLEYsaid, that surely the hon. Member was now debating Clause 5.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I understood he only wanted to refer to it for the purpose of illustrating his argument; but he is going beyond that.
    MR. BOUSFIELDsaid, his desire was simply to make a statement as to Clause 5, and not in any way to debate it. He simply intended to point out that the Lord Lieutenant had no voice in the matter, and that the only possible place whore the exercise of any supremacy could come in was in the last lines of Clause 5—
    "Subject, nevertheless, to any instructions given by Her Majesty in respect of any such Bill."
    THE CHAIRMAN (interposing)said, it was extremely important that in the discussions on this Bill no subsequent Amendment should be anticipated. Such a course was out of Order.
    MR. BOUSFIELDwas afraid he had not made his meaning clear. He intended simply to state what the possibilities were of intervention under this Bill, and to point out that his Amendment proposed to supplement that possibility of intervention by providing that no Bill should pass without the assent of Parliament. He wanted to show that these lines did not include any supremacy of Parliament, and that the line with reference to instructions given by Her Majesty was the only possible line in the whole of the Bill where any practical attempt was made to maintain the supremacy; and what he proposed to do was to supplement that by inserting an express provision that a Bill which had passed the two Houses of the Irish Legislature should not pass into law without the assent of the Imperial Parliament. That must be followed up by another clause, and it would be convenient he should state to the Committee what the clause was.
    MR. J. MORLEY: No, no!
    MR. BOUSFIELD: He saw a disposition to prevent him stating his case.
    THE CHAIRMAN: There is no disposition to prevent the hon. and learned Gentleman stating his case; but if he goes beyond the ruling it is my duty to call him to Order.
    MR. BOUSFIELDhad not the slightest intention of going beyond the ruling of the Chair, and his remark was made in reply to an observation of dissent from the Chief Secretary.
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: On a point of Order, may I point out that the Amendment states, "subject to the assent of Parliament as hereinafter provided"? Is it not competent for the hon. and learned Gentleman to show under that what he provides hereinafter?
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is competent for the hon. and learned Gentleman to point out what it is he intends to provide, but not to discuss it, and so anticipate other Amendments.
    MR. BOUSFIELDobserved, that he proposed to refer to the clause, "hereinafter provided" to show how it fitted in with that he had moved. And he would simply read the sub-section which he intended to move to add at the end of Clause 5. It was this—
    "Every Bill which has passed both Houses of the Irish Legislature shall be laid before each House of Parliament, and shall not, except in case of urgency, be presented to the Lord Lieutenant for Her Majesty's assent until 40 days after it has been laid before both Houses of Parliament. If within such 40 days an Address be moved in both Houses of Parliament praying that Her Majesty's assent be not given to such Bill, and if both Houses of Parliament present such Address to Her Majesty, such Bill shall be null. Provided, nevertheless, that if the Lord Lieutenant is advised by the Executive Committee of the Privy Council of Ireland that the immediate enactment of any Bill is a matter of urgency, such Bill may be immediately presented to the Lord Lieutenant for Her Majesty's assent."
    There were other proposals by which, in one form or another, the assent of Parliament was intended to be provided. He did not, therefore, wish in any way to tie himself or the Committee to any particular form of assent which the Committee hereafter might think it right should be inserted in the Bill. What he did desire to do was to lay before the House this proposition—that in the majority of cases at all events, except in cases of urgency, when an immediate enactment might be a matter of necessity, they ought to reserve the right of Parliament to intervene before assent was given to Irish measures. That right of intervention would, he thought, be best preserved by providing that a delay should take place after a Bill had passed both Houses in Ireland, and that during that
    976
    delay the Imperial Parliament should have an opportunity of considering the proposal.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I ought to point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman that if he moves his Amendment now and it is negatived he will not be able to move his Amendment to Clause 5. I would, therefore, suggest he should withdraw his Amendment now, and raise the question on Clause 5.
    MR. BOUSFIELDsaid, he was explaining that he did not in any way desire to tie himself or the Committee to any particular form to which assent should be given; but he was simply illustrating what he meant by the assent of Parliament by referring to the particular Amendment he had put down, and the rejection or insertion of these words would not in any way tie the hands of the House with regard to any specific proposition. He desired to submit that if any Amendment was to be moved at any subsequent stage of the Bill by which the assent of Parliament should be reserved in any particular case, here was the proper place where a Saving Clause should be put in. The present Amendment corresponded with the words preceding it—"With the exceptions and subject to the restrictions in this Act mentioned"—words which pointed, as his Amendment did, to provisions that were to follow. He had stated at the outset, and he repeated, that some assent of this kind was necessary if they were to preserve in a practical form the supremacy of that House. The supremacy of Parliament did not mean merely that they should have the power to repeal any measure which was passed by the Irish Parliament; but it meant, if supremacy was to be an effective power, that, before the act was done to which they objected, they should have an opportunity of discussing it in that House, and of there determining before assent was given whether or not it was a measure in which the Imperial Parliament should interfere. He apprehended that such a power would be rarely used. The very existence of the power of discussing in that House whether or not assent ought to be given to a measure would probably prevent the necessity in almost every case of resorting to the exercise of that power. But in the case of new legislation that power might be required. Take, for instance, the case

    977
    of legislation with regard to laud. If Irish Members were true to their pledges on the Land Question, any Land Act which the Irish Legislature passed must be one to which the great majority of hon. Members of the House must necessarily offer uncompromising opposition. If the Lord Lieutenant gave the Royal Assent on the advice of the Executive, and if this Parliament had 110 power to intervene, where would the supremacy of Parliament be? If power wore reserved to Her Majesty to refuse assent, that would not be the supremacy of Parliament; it would be the supremacy of Cabinet Ministers, and there would be no possibility of testing in that House whether such assent ought to be given. If in regard to legislation of this kind Parliament was to be supreme, it must have power to consider proposed legislation before there was any possibility of the assent being given. He had been considering this question as affecting new legislation, and he would now take the case of old legislation. Part of the supremacy of Parliament consisted in maintaining the laws as they stood on the Statute Book; and, except on certain subjects, it would be in the power of the Irish Legislature to repeal clauses as they stood at present on the Statute Book. Take the law relating to bills of exchange. Under this Bill the Irish Parliament would have perfect power to repeal or modify the law as to bills of exchange, or any other part of the Mercantile Law. In order to maintain that uniformity in their Mercantile Law which they believed to be essential to the prosperity of the United Kingdom as a whole, they would then have to exercise the Royal Prerogative upon the advice of Ministers. It was not right that the Royal Prerogative should have to be called up in a matter of that sort, as it assuredly would have to be under that Bill in order to obtain uniformity of commercial laws. Of course, one hardly expected that the Government would assent to an Amendment of this sort, because hon. Members on his side of the House knew perfectly well they would be told this was not the right place to move it, or that a mere paper declaration of supremacy was no declaration of supremacy at all. But he contended he was now proposing practical machinery
    978
    for the assertion of that supremacy; and surely there were some hon. Gentlemen opposite who had pledged themselves over and over again to an effective and practical supremacy available in case of necessity, who would admit that the time had come when they ought to give effect to their declarations? This was the proper place to indicate that in some form or another it was intended to make the supremacy effective. Speaking from a Conservative point or view, he said that in making a great change, such as that proposed by the Bill, they ought to work cautiously, and, as far as possible, see that evolution and development might have time to act in a matter of this sort. They had done so in the Colonies, where they had preserved far greater powers for intervention than in this Bill. Had they more reason to trust Irishmen than they had to trust the Colonists? Why should they give more freedom to Ireland and retain less power of intervention than they did in the case of the Colonies? He held that the Imperial Parliament ought to keep the reins in its hands, and that as time went on and things worked well it could give more rein and greater freedom to the Irish Legislature.
    The Amendment referred to was as follows: Page 1, line 15, after "mentioned," to insert "and subject to the assent of Parliament as hereinafter provided."
    MR, E. STANHOPE (interposing)desired to ask what would be the effect of moving this Amendment. Would it have the effect of shutting out the Amendments to be moved by the hon. and learned Member himself and other hon. Members to Clause 5. If it had that effect, he would suggest to his hon. Friend that he should not move it now.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have no doubt that if these words are moved now and negatived they would shut out the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member to Clause 5, and all Amendments of this kind. I pointed that out to the hon. Member while he was speaking, but I could not say his Amendment was out of Order.
    MR. BOUSFIELD: I hope, on the point of Order, you will consider what I submitted to you.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I distinctly considered what the hon. and learned Gentleman said. I am distinctly of opinion that if these words are negatived they will shut out the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member to Clause 5, and all other Amendments of the same character.
    MR. BOUSFIELD: If that is so I shall not move it.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I submit that the hon. Member has moved his Amendment.
    MR. BOUSFIELD: May I say that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stanhope) interrupted me as I was in the act of moving?
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I would suggest to my hon. Friend that, seeing he cannot withdraw his Amendment, he had better go on with it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: My own impression was that the right hon. Gentleman was in time to stop the hon. Member from moving it; but he was very near it.
    MR. J. MORLEY: My impression was that the hon. Member had moved it.
    MR. SHEEHY: I was opposite the hon. and learned Member, and I distinctly heard him move the Amendment.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that that was my impression. The question has to be decided by me.
    MR. T. W. RUSSELL: Is it your ruling that, the Question not having been put, the Amendment can be withdrawn?
    [Hon. MEMBERS: It was put.]
    MR. J. MORLEY: On a point of Order, may I ask has the Question been put?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The Question has not been put. I call on Commander Bethell.
    MR. MACFARLANE: I wish to ask you, Sir, whether an hon. Member, having spoken to an Amendment, is then entitled to withdraw it without the leave of the Committee?
    THE CHAIRMAN: It was perfectly plain that if the hon. and learned Member had moved the Amendment he could not then have withdrawn it without the leave of the Committee. My impression, under which I have acted, is that he did not move it, and that is the reason I did not put it to the Committee.
    MR. J. MORLEY: On a point of Order, may I ask upon what question the hon. and learned Gentleman was speaking? What was his position during his long speech if no question was to be put at the end of that speech?
    MR. PLUNKET: I submit to you, Mr. Mellor, that the point raised by the Chief Secretary does not apply. Till a Motion is actually made the hon. Member is entitled to speak unless he is interrupted by you. The fact of his having made his speech does not, in the least degree, affect the question.
    MR. J. MORLEY: May I ask, then, whether it is competent to any or every hon. Member of the Committee to get up and make a speech, and then to sit down without making any Motion?
    MR. E. STANHOPE: I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that the point of Order has been decided, and that, therefore, this discussion is irregular.
    THE CHAIRMANcalled upon Commander Bethell, and Mr. Harrington also rose.
    MR. HARRINGTON: I want to move a previous Amendment to that of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I beg to more the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member who last addressed the House (Mr. Bousfield).
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELL: I rise to a point of Order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Mellor, whether, having given your decision upon the question arising out of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Hackney, and having called upon another hon. Member to move his Amendment, it is competent for the hon. Member for the Harbour Division to go back and move the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment?
    THE CHAIRMAN: No; it is not.
    MR. HARRINGTON: On a point of Order, Mr. Mellor, I wish to point out to you——
    THE CHAIRMAN: Commander Bethell is addressing the Committee.
    MR. HARRINGTON: May I ask am I not entitled to move a previous Amendment, Sir?
    *THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman is out of Order, for this reason: that that part of the clause has been passed, and I have called upon Commander Bethell, who is in possession of the Committee.
    COMMANDER BETHELL COMMANDER BETHELL moved, in page 1, line 15, to leave out the word "granted," and insert "delegated." The hon. and gallant Gentleman said the Amendment was of the same character as some of the Amendments which had already been moved. This question of supremacy must crop up here as it had cropped up on other Amendments. The Amendments had endeavoured definitely to declare the supremacy of Parliament in so many words. The Government had practically pledged themselves to accept in some form or another an Amendment or clause which would have the effect of declaring in so many words the supremacy of Parliament, and he suggested that the acceptance of his Amendment would meet the wish of the Government. So far as he knew, the word "granted" had never been used in any other delegated powers they had given to any other Body. In the Act relating to Canada the powers were "vested in and exercisable by." He contended that these words were much more on all-fours with the words he proposed than with the word in the Bill. From the sentence in the Act under which these powers were conferred on the Colonial Parliament, it was quite obvious much more restricted powers were intended to be given to the Irish than were accorded to the Colonial Parliament, and for this reason: The Acts relating to the Colonial Parliaments stated that they should have power to make laws of every description, which was a much wider proposal than anybody ever dreamed of giving to the Irish Parliament. He hoped the Chief Secretary would not take up an attitude
    982
    of hostility to this Amendment. Surely it would be wise and politic on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to soothe the susceptibilities of Members of the Opposition, and go a little way to meet their reasonable and legitimate views. He would remind the Committee that the late Government made reasonable concessions to the Liberal Party when they were in opposition. He agreed that the substance of the question raised by the Amendment was the same that had been discussed all last week and all that day. That question was the question of supremacy, which they should continue to discuss until some concession was made to them. They should insist on having defined in clear and unmistakable terms the supremacy which they desired to see exercised over the Irish Parliament. He would, therefore, express the hope that the Chief Secretary would accept the Amendment which he begged to move.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 15, to leave out the word "granted," and insert the word "delegated."—(Commander Bethell.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'granted' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. J. MORLEY: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has taxed mo with showing hostility towards Amendments. I do not regard him as very serious in moving the proposition he has done, and I cannot suppose he regards his own Amendment as a serious one. The hon. and gallant Gentleman falls back, as everybody does, or has done, and he moves an Amendment to the Bill upon the necessity of declaring unmistakably and formally and positively the doctrine of the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament. I do not complain of that; I only wonder that anyone should suppose that that doctrine was in any way whatever furthered or asserted or made more emphatic by substituting the word "delegated" for the word "granted." The hon. and gallant Gentleman in his speech showed that he is not more particularly than the rest of us a master of the niceties or distinction in phrase. Here is an Amendment turning entirely

    983
    upon the distinction between "granted" and "delegated,'' and I submit that the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not adduce one single consideration—or, indeed, did not show the slightest necessity for adducing considerations—to induce the Committee to believe that the word "delegated" more clearly and emphatically asserts and preserves the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament than the word "granted." I can tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman that there are lawyers and sea lawyers. There are lawyers who say that "granted" is a word which more clearly asserts the Parliamentary supremacy, or as clearly, as the word "delegated." There is not a shadow of foundation for the contention on which the hon. and gallant Gentleman rests his Amendment. To declare that supremacy will be better preserved by substituting "delegated" for "granted" is to show a complete want of appreciation of the distinction between the two words. In 1886 the words we used were—"it shall be lawful for the Irish Legislature." In order to meet the views and wishes of the Party of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, we have now substituted the words "there shall be granted." The use of those words indicates that there is a granting power and a granting Authority, and what can that Authority be but the Imperial Parliament which passed the Bill? The Amendment is an entirely futile one, and the Government will certainly not assent to it.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: The right hon. Gentleman is certainly what he said my hon. and gallant Friend was not, a master of the English language, and that he should fail to see the difference between "granted" and "delegated," strikes me as somewhat extraordinary. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Government substituted the word "granted" for the words "it shall be lawful," not, it will be observed, because they were themselves convinced of the necessity of emphasising the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament, not to please any of the hon. Members behind them, who are watching the attitude of the Government with regard to the question of supremacy, with,
    984
    I think, an increasing interest, but to satisfy hon. Members on this side of the House. The right hon. Gentleman says the use of the word "granted" shows that there must be supremacy, because if anything is granted there must be authority to grant. But I have never heard that when yon have granted a thing, you have power to take it back again. "Granted" means conveyed in a much more permanent way than "delegated." If you delegate a thing, you simply confide it temporarily, and have the power of resumption. That is the distinction which would strike the general reader, if it would not strike the legal mind. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has consulted the Solicitor General on the point. The right hon. Gentleman says we are arguing this question with undue iteration. Yes, but I think we are educating the public by iteration as to the attitude of the Government upon this matter. We remember that they will not have the word "subordinate," and that they will not have any specification or delegation of powers; and that when they have a difficulty on a question of definition, they would rather give the benefit of the doubt to the Irish Parliament than to the Imperial Parliament. They say it is difficult to give a definition of Imperial and local concerns; and when they regard the difficulties as equal, they give the benefit of the doubt to the Irish Legislature. This spirit runs through the discussion of every Amendment. The Government resist the assertion of anything like supremacy, relying on the exposition of the doctrine of supremacy by the Solicitor General (Sir J. Rigby)—an exposition which conclusively proved that it was not an inalienable supremacy at all. [Cries of "Oh!"] The Solicitor General does not deny it.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir J. RIGBY,): The right hon. Gentleman is putting an improper interpretation upon my argument.
    MR. GOSCHEN: That is a careful denial on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: I did not say that there was any doubt at all about the supremacy. I have never stated anything that would lead to that

    985
    conclusion, and I wish again to say that I consider it so firmly established that this Act cannot in any way invalidate it.
    *MR. GOSCHEN: I observe that the Solicitor General has not denied that part of my argument which says that he rested on statute and not upon inalienable supremacy. This is too important a matter to be allowed to remain unexplained. I do not wish to press the Solicitor General at all unduly; but I would ask him whether I understand him to state that the Imperial supremacy rests in the main upon the Act of Union, and not upon inalienable right? This I understand to be the case, and the consequence is, that we must look more carefully at every question in which the supremacy is involved than was necessary before that was established. In the refusal of the Government to use the word "delegated" we have one more proof of the extreme reluctance they have to specify or emphasise by any single word in the Bill the fact that what Parliament gives Parliament might again take away. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Morley) considers that the words "delegated" and "granted" are not so dissimilar that one might not be used for the other why will he not, at all events on this point, meet us? The right hon. Gentleman says it is a small and futile matter.
    MR. J. MORLEY: I did not say it was a small and futile matter, but that it was a small and futile Amendment.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Well, then, if it is a small and futile Amendment why not accept it? The right hon. Gentleman thinks it can do no possible harm, and I should like to see the Government on one occasion admit a word which more clearly indicates that what Parliament gives Parliament may take back.
    MR. STOREYsaid, he had already given a vote in favour of delegation, and he thought the matter had been settled. He now found they were quarrelling not about the thing itself, but about the form of words to be used. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had contended that the use of "granted" implied the giving of that
    986
    which could not be taken back again. But was not a Charter "granted"? A Charter was granted to the East India Company, but that Charter was afterwards withdrawn. Imagine the right hon. Gentleman coming down to the House and arguing—although he could not have done so at that time, because he was then a Liberal—that the Charter ought to be withdrawn because it had been "granted" and that it might have been withdrawn if it bad been "delegated." The Committee had said it would not adopt the principle of delegation, and he accepted that decision, although he was sure that on a future occasion the principle would have to be adopted if a Home Rule Bill was to be carried through Parliament. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that they were simply discussing a trifling and futile Amendment; and if hon. Members opposite wanted any support on the Ministerial side of the House, and any support in the country on questions of principle they would, in his opinion, exercise a wise discretion in dropping discussions about words and debating only really important matters.
    *SIR R. TEMPLEsaid, he desired to correct a misapprehension into which the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) seemed to have fallen in regard to the East India Company. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that that Company's Charter, having been granted by the Crown, was arbitrarily taken away. On the contrary; the Charter had been granted, revoked, re-granted, and re-granted again at various intervals, in every case for a term of years, before the end came. No one had greater respect than he had for the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. J. Morley) upon a question of language; but he would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that the word "granted" was a great deal stronger than the word "delegated." "Granted," of course, implied a granting power, but the grantor parted with his power in making the grant, and could not recover it. Delegation was a far weaker operation, and meant a deputing of a power which could be revoked, and

    987
    which in ordinary circumstances would be revoked. It had something of a temporary signification. Of course, nobody contemplated revoking without very good cause the power proposed to be given to the Irish Legislature, but the right to revoke ought to be retained. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had misunderstood the Amendment in a manner which was certainly not worthy of his great literary authority, and he hoped the proposal would be pressed to a Division.
    MR. MACARTNEYdesired to ask the Government why they had departed from the form of words in which legislative powers were conferred upon the Legislatures of New South Wales and Victoria? Was it intentional or unintentional that that form of words, which was repeatedly used in Acts dealing with the Colonies, had not been employed in the present case? If they were not used, and the Government had determined to abandon the form of words almost consecrated in the Forms of the Colonial Legislatures, was it because the expression used in the clause was either greater or less in authority than the expression used in establishing legislative authority in Victoria and in New South Wales? There was a very material difference, as hon. Members would see by referring to the Act of 1854 or 1855. The Solicitor General would no doubt be able to say why the Government had abstained from adopting the words used in the other cases.
    Mr. Channing rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
    Question put, "That the Question be now put."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 218; Noes 146.—(Division List, No. 84.)
    Question put accordingly, "That the word 'granted' stand part of the Clause."
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 251; Noes 186.—(Division List, No. 85.)
    MR. A. CROSSsaid, he wished to move an Amendment giving the Irish Legislature power to make laws for
    988
    "the making, maintaining, and improving of railways, tramways, canals, waterworks, reservoirs, gas and lighting works, fisheries, and all other things which are the subject-matter of Bills known in either Houses of Parliament as local Hills, and also for the confirmation of Provisional Orders."
    This was an honest Amendment.
    MR. PICTON: I would ask whether this Amendment is in Order? Having passed the 1st clause of the Bill, is not this Amendment really trifling with the Committee?
    THE CHAIRMAN: This Amendment is in Order.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Is the hon. Member entitled to describe his Amendment as an honest one, thereby implying that the other Amendments are dishonest?
    THE CHAIRMANdid not reply.
    MR. AMBROSEasked whether the hon. Member, by moving this Amendment, would shut out one in his (Mr. Ambrose's) name?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must put the Question in one particular form—namely, that the words "peace, order, and good government of Ireland" stand part of the clause; and if the Committee adhere to those words, no doubt the hon. Member's Amendment will be shut out. If, on the other hand, they are rejected, the hon. Member can move his Amendment.
    MR. CROSSsaid, he was not sorry that he had elicited from supporters of the Government a hostile expression as to his Amendment, because it would bring into clear significance the fact that their view was wholly and totally opposed to the view he had ventured to express in his Amendment, and which he held was the opinion with which a great many Members went to the poll at the General Election. He had been about to go further, and say that he hoped the House would see that his Amendment was in the way of concession, and he thought an important concession, to the views of those who believed in the doctrine which they called Home Rule. He admitted in his Amendment that Ireland had a serious grievance—that in the matter of Local Government Bills she was

    989
    at a great disadvantage. He conceived that the House had not proved itself able to deal efficiently with these matters, and he proposed, therefore, to concede to the new Irish Government the powers which the Imperial Parliament had not been able to exercise satisfactorily. But if he went so far with those hon. Gentlemen who believed in the doctrines of Home Rule he did not do so because of the reasons which actuated the supporters of the Government. Those reasons were matters of ancient history. They believed that Ireland had grievances 100 years ago, and that that country ought to be erected into an independent nation. He moved his Amendment for different reasons. He ventured to think that Parliament could not deal efficiently with local Bills, and his experience in the House, though brief, had confirmed him in that view. Piles of measures were introduced and placed on the Table of the House, and they were very little noticed, though in the localities where those measures were required they were regarded in a very different light. According to the arrangements under which the House carried on its business, this condition of affairs could not well be otherwise. He might be told that these Bills were dealt with after 12 o'clock at night. That was true; but he ventured to say that nothing in that House impressed the imagination of a now Member more than what took place after 12 o'clock at night. A long list of Bills was read, and some were passed, the House not understanding their contents. Not only was their contents unknown, but the House was comparatively indifferent to what the Bills were. Those were the conditions under which local Bills were deal with; and when such a conditions of things prevailed, he thought it was not too strong a phrase to say that the whole thing was a farce. It might be urged that the local Bills of that House were properly considered in the Committees. He did not wish to disparage the work performed by Committees of that House. He recognised the weight of their Labours, and he wished to relieve them of those labours because they were over-worked. There was a Debate the other day on the question of limiting the hours of miners, and he understood
    990
    the proposal met with the assent of a majority of the House. [Cries of "Question!"] If the proposal had been to restrict the hours of legislators to eight hours it would probably have been——
    THE CHAIRMANobserved that the hon. Member was not addressing himself to the Amendment.
    MR. CROSSsaid, his point was that that House was unable to discharge its duties as regarded Private Bills, because in Committee the Members sat from 12 to 3, and then they sat in that House from 3 till 12 or 1. ["Order!" and interruption] The House was not fit to discharge its functions as things wore now in respect of local Private Bills. He would go further, and say that the House ought not to deal with local Bills. Having to bring such Bills to be dealt with in London meant both delay and expense. [Cries of ''Question!" and "Order!"]
    MR. T. M. HEALYrose to Order, and asked whether the hon. Member ought not to confine himself to the question whether the lesser powers which he suggested could alone be conferred on the Irish Legislature?
    MR. J. A. BRIGHTwould like to ask whether it was usual for hon. Members to subject a new Member in his maiden speech to continual interruption?
    THE CHAIRMANhoped that the hon. Member would keep within the scope of his Amendment.
    MR. CROSSsaid, he was trying to do so. He was not unaccustomed to interruptions from the Irish Party in that House, and in other places when he had occasion to say things not altogether palatable. Continuing, he said, that under the present state of affairs, the expense and delay of conducting local Bills in Parliament were very great. It might be that certain witnesses would be delighted to come to London because of the outing; but they were coming at other people's expense, and it was not a very delightful thing from the point of view of those who had to pay the money, and it was not to the public interest that expenses should be piled on in this way.

    991
    [Cries of "Agreed!" and "Order!"] He did not think that Parliament was the proper tribunal for such measures. He had knowledge of a Committee consisting of 17 Members which was appointed the other day, and it was a curious fact that five was to be a quorum. He concluded from that that the attendance was not very regular—[Cries of "Question!"]—and that the duties imposed on Members were such that they could not give proper time to these questions. He would also urge that the House did not possess the necessary knowledge which was required for the purpose of dealing with local affairs involving knowledge of details of a local character. The question arose whether this Parliament which it was proposed to set up in Ireland was a fit and proper tribunal to entrust with the powers of dealing with local business. It might be said that his argument had been practically admitted, for last year there was a proposal before Parliament that a Body should be elected to deal with these questions in the nature of a Commission composed of Judges, Members of Parliament, and Railway Commissioners. He thought that the power of dealing with these matters should be dealt with by some Local Authority elected for the purpose, and which would be responsible to Parliament. He thought the days had gone by when nominated Bodies could obtain much support or countenance in this country. He understood from the Government that it was one of their main conditions in proposing their Home Rule scheme that nothing should be enacted by the Bill which should not be equally capable of being extended to Scotland. [Cries of "Question!" and interruption.] It could also be extended to Wales if the Welsh people wished it. [Cries of "Question!"] He contended his proposal was of a nature eminently calculated to meet the requirements and necessities of Scotland in regard to local measures. Wales might speak for itself when the time came. If it preferred the present system—— [Cries of "Question" and interruption.] He did not think the Home Rule scheme of the Government was one which they themselves would allege could be extended to Scotland. [Cries of "Question!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must request the hon. Gentleman to confine himself to Ireland.
    MR. CROSSsaid, he understood it was an important condition of the Government's scheme that there should be nothing in this Bill which was not capable of being extended to Scotland. [Cries of "Question!" and "Order!"] The Prime Minister, speaking in Edinburgh in 1892, said that no principle should be laid down for Ireland—[Interruption]—which could not be admitted for Scotland if she should desire it. As it stood, the clause was not one that the Government would propose for Scotland. [Cries of "Question!" and interruption.]
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have already pointed out to the hon. Member that this is a measure for Ireland and not for Scotland. The question is entirely distinct from Scotch Home Rule at the present moment.
    MR. CROSSsaid, he bowed to the Chairman's ruling, of course. [Laughter.] Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite laughed because he bowed to the Chairman's ruling. He should postpone the consideration of his argument as to how the clause might affect Scotland; but he gave the Government fair warning that he should not fail to watch every clause in the Bill and criticise it if it were a clause which might one day be applied to Scotland, and other Scotch Members would not be justified in taking any other course. He would admit that if the Government intended to make Ireland a nation then the proposal was petty and insignificant; but he would remind them that if that was their intention, then their own proposals were petty and insignificant. He understood what was meant by the liberty and freedom of a nation; and he was greatly mistaken if any nation, worthy to be called a nation, would submit to the conditions laid down in the Bill. If, on the other hand, the Government did not intend to make Ireland a nation, but to delegate to Ireland subordinate powers, he respectfully submitted to them that the course they had adopted was not a course likely to realise wise and prudent calculations. He would

    993
    admit the time must come when a delegation of powers must take place from that House to Local Bodies. He asked those hon. Gentlemen who led the Liberal Party whether their course would not be wiser and better—[Cries of "Question!" and interruption.] He was entitled to his opinion as to the manner in which the Liberal Party had been conducted of late years. [Interruptions.] Although he was a young Member of the House, he had worked for the Liberal Party for many years; and he had been in the secrets of the Liberal Party. He was entitled to an opinion in the matter, and he asserted that the Government had not gone into this question of Home Rule in accordance with the traditions of the Liberal Party. [Cries of "Question!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: I really must call the attention of the hon. Member to the Amendment which he is moving.
    MR. CROSS, resuming, submitted that his Amendment was a step in the right direction, and he hoped that Unionist Members would see their way to support it, on the broad plea that devolution of some sort was becoming inevitable. He hoped, also, that some of the hon. Gentlemen who supported the Government would also vote for it. One hon. Member, at least, was committed to his proposal. ["Question!"] He alluded to the hon. Member for Rossendale, who, in common with many other Gladstonian candidates, drew attention to the anomalies to which he (Mr. Cross) had referred, and justified their support of the scheme of the right hon. Member for Midlothian by conveying to the minds of the electors that the Home Rule which they proposed for Ireland was practically simply the giving of powers to deal with such matters as he had referred to in his Amendment, which he now begged to move.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 16, to leave out the words "peace, order, and good government," in order to insert the words "making, maintaining, and improving of railways, tramways, canals, waterworks, reservoirs, gas and lighting works, fisheries, and all other things which are the subject matter of Bills, known in either House of Parliament as local Bills, and also for the confirmation of Provisional Orders in." —(Mr. Alexander Cross.")
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. W. K. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member says this is an honest Amendment, and I am bound to believe him. But, with all respect to the hon. Member, I cannot help feeling that it is a ludicrous Amendment. When his Amendment was read out from the Chair, I noticed that some hon. Gentlemen opposite had considerable difficulty in maintaining their gravity. To put it fairly and candidly, is it not a ludicrous Amendment? Because, surely, in everything we vote in the Bill we must have some regard to what we have voted already? We have determined to constitute in Ireland not a tribunal for dealing with railways and the other matters mentioned in the Amendment; but we have determined to constitute a Legislature. That Legislature is to consist of the Queen and of two Chambers. Is it to be conceived that that Legislature and that interposition of Her Majesty the Queen is seriously to end in the declaration which the hon. Gentleman, seriously I suppose, invites us to make—namely, that Her Majesty and these two Chambers for the bettor government of Ireland are to deal only with matters relating to railways, tramways, canals, waterworks, reservoirs, gas and lighting works, and so on. I must hold, viewing the consummation to which some hon. Gentlemen seem in danger of leading the Committee, it seems to me we are in danger of substituting not only jokes for earnest, but extremely bad jokes.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I have been in the House now for 17 years, and although that is a very short time in comparison with the lengthened service of my right hon. Friend, still I fancy it is much longer than most of the present Members of this House; and I will say, at all events, in my own experience—and I doubt very much whether the longer experience of my right hon. Friend will qualify what I am about to say—I have never known, during all the time I have been in the

    995
    House, any lack of courtesy shown towards a new Member addressing the House for the first time. I confess I should have thought the very fact that my hon. Friend behind me was a now Member would have jnstified the House in according to him, at all events, a patient consideration of his Amendment, even if, in the words of my right hon. Friend, they thought the Amendment to be entirely ludicrous. I say that even then I still think the ordinary courtesy of Parliament might have suggested a little more decent attention to what my hon. Friend said. I come to consider the Amendment; and, I ask, is it ludicrous? My right hon. Friend, at an earlier part of the discussion this evening, fell foul of me because, he said, I proposed an Amendment, and in proposing this Amendment I was not willing to say that if the Amendment were accepted I would accept the Bill.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I said nothing of the kind.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: I should be sorry to do my right hon. Friend an injustice; but I am in the recollection of the Committee. I will say that I understood my right hon. Friend to make that accusation against me. We are placed in a difficult position by the action of the Government. When we move an Amendment the Government either ask, in order that they should give fair consideration to that Amendment that we should go on and say, if they do so, that we would accept the whole Bill, or else they accuse us of a desire to destroy the Bill, and of an intention to make no Amendment in the Bill. That is their first case as against the Opposition, and when we do propose an Amendment of value then they say that the Amendment is ludicrous. We have never placed ourselves in absolute opposition to what the Prime Minister calls the principles of his policy. But the principles of the right hon. Gentleman's policy is always varying, like the arguments by which he supports them. Still, at different times my right hon. Friend has said that his principle was to establish some sort of Legislative Authority in Ireland, leaving
    996
    it an open question as to what sort of Legislative Authority it should be and what matters it should deal with. If we accept that as the principle of the measure, some of us, in view of our past pledges and promises—[Cheers and counter cheers] I can assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that we find it more difficult to swallow past pledges than they do. But we cannot, in view of our past pledges and promises, entirely oppose a principle of that kind. I, for one, may say that I have no objection whatever to the establishment of a Legislative Authority in Ireland, and to give to that authority, experimentally, certain powers. The difficulty is as to what extent those powers should be conferred. In a previous Amendment I endeavoured to press upon the Government the importance at this stage of dealing with the matter experimentally, leaving to the Imperial Parliament to extend the powers hereafter, if those powers which are now conferred were not abused. My right hon. Friend treated that also as a ludicrous Amendment.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: I never said so. It is not difficult to quote or misquote my words. I never said that the Amendment of my right hon. Friend was ludicrous.
    MR. J. CHAMBERLAIN: In my opinion, my right hon. Friend treated my Amendment as ludicrous—[Nationalist cheers]—and convoyed that impression to his friends and allies opposite. I did not quote my right hon. Friend's words, but I said that that was the effect that the words which he had made use of produced upon the minds of his hearers, and he certainly refused to give the Amendment consideration, because he said that if he were to accept it he would be in the position of a man who would lose, whatever happened, and that I was playing the game of "Heads you lose, tails I win." If that is not treating my Amendment as ludicrous, I do not know what is. Now, I come once more to the Amendment before the Committee, and, I ask, is it a ludicrous Amendment? The right hon. Gentleman merely read it out with an ironical intonation, and that was

    997
    all the argument which he offered against it. That is his way of dealing with the Opposition. Again and again he has met the serious arguments which we have put forward with no answer, and with nothing but a dramatic expression of opinion. Is it a small or ludicrous thing to propose to give to the Legislative Authority, which is to deal with the interests of 4,000,000 or 5,000,000 of people, what my hon. Friend by his Amendment proposes to give to the Legislature of Ireland? Is it a ludicrous thing that this House should have been occupied for I do not know how many weeks with the powers conferred upon the London County Council? Was it contemptible?—did it deserve what I have called the ironical intonation of the right hon. Gentleman that we should confer upon the London County Council what I have heard described as Home Rule for London? If that was an important subject and deserved the consideration of the House, why is it a ludicrous thing to propose to confer upon the Legislative Authority in Ireland similar powers to those which have been conferred by the House upon the London County Council? The Amendment would give to Ireland all the business connected in our minds with great Municipal Institutions; and I said in this House many years ago, as I say to-day, that Municipal Institutions touch the lives and welfare of the people of this country infinitely more than a vast deal of the business that is done in this House. Under these circumstances, I say, it was unworthy of the Prime Minister to treat this Amendment in the way he has treated it. I have never, either in this House or outside it, doubted the ability of my right hon. Friend. [Nationalist, cries of "Question!" and "Order!"] I yield to no man in the House in my admiration for the Prime Minister. [Renewed cries of "Question!" on the Nationalist Benches.] I am not going to be put down. My admiration for my right hon. Friend is much more genuine than the recently-bought eulogies of hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway. My right hon. Friend has not paid me for my praise. I say my right hon. Friend could, if he chose, make some kind of answer to the arguments adduced, and I
    998
    do not know why he should prefer to evade them. I had no intention of taking part in this Debate. I rose only to justify my hon. Friend, whose Amendment is serious and not ludicrous, and was proposed, in the view which my right hon. Friend has recommended to the attention of the House, with a desire to amend the Bill.
    MR. DUNBAR BARTONcongratulated the hon. Member for Camlachie on bringing forward such a useful Amendment. Why was that Amendment received with irritation by the Nationalist Members, with rudeness by the Liberal Party, and with impatience by the Leader of the House? It was because the subject of the Amendment was what hon. Members on the Government side had taught the English people to believe was Home Rule. Every man who had spoken on English platforms or mixed with the English people knew that the Amendment contained more than the English people were taught to believe was contained in Home Rule. The Liberals won the Elections on gas and water, and now the gas was exploded and the water had flowed away. The Prime Minister, in answer to the Amendment, said—"You create two Houses, and are you going to give them only such powers as these?" They now knew why the Upper Chamber was put in. It was not as a safeguard for the Loyalists, for it would do the Loyalists more harm than good, but in order to give a false importance to this miserable Legislature. When the Committee appreciated the difference between the Amendment and Home Rule, they would have the reason why the Loyalists were willing to sacrifice their lives and liberties against Home Rule. They opposed the setting up of a Legislature in Ireland; but they would not be justified in offering resistance to a measure embodying the principles of this Amendment. They had no objection to what were called local matters, but which were really very important matters—such matters as were dealt with by Private Bill Legislation in this country—dealt with in Ireland. Many of them were sorry that a Bill in that direction had

    999
    not been passed by the late Government; for they believed that it would have led to the circulation of money, to municipal enterprise, and to increased employment, which was badly needed in Ireland. The Unionists would like to see some tribunal set up in Ireland to deal with those matters. But what they objected to was a Bill by which the administration of the Criminal Law was to be handed over to the men who were responsible for the outrages of the National League and the Land League; the law of property was to be handed over to the men who organised and carried out the Plan of Campaign; commercial property in the North of Ireland was to be handed over to the merchant princes of New Tipperary; the taxation of Ireland was to be placed in the hands of the gentlemen who financed The Freeman's Journal, and the Executive of the country was to be given into the hands of men who had formed the executive of every criminal conspiracy which had occurred in Ireland during the last 15 years. The Bill was, forsooth, for "the peace, order, and good government" of Ireland! He told them that if they passed the Bill they would have civil war in Ireland, for no free people, with the rights of freemen, would submit to have their lives and liberties and property placed in the hands of such a body as the Bill proposed to set up in Ireland. The Ulster Unionists did not object to the local development of Irish affairs in Ireland. They did not believe those things could be better managed in Ireland than they were in England; but he and his friends would be willing, even at a sacrifice, to have local matters attended to in Ireland. It was the omission of the words, "peace, order, and good government of Ireland," that led him to support the Amendment. He again congratulated the hon. Member on his Amendment, which, like the policeman's lantern, turned upon the criminal, exposed his guilty face, and detected him in the act of his ill-doing.
    *MR. MADENsaid, that although he was known as the "gas and water "Member—and he was not ashamed of it—he was as good a Home Ruler as any Member of the House. The hon. Member who had proposed the
    1000
    Amendment supported a Local Authority for dealing with Local Bills. He had no objection to state now that he thought Ireland should have power and authority over local matters. But he went further than that. In his speech some time ago at the Constitutional Club the Leader of the Opposition referred to the seven subjects which he had enumerated as fitting to be referred to an Irish Parliament. If anyone referred to that speech he would find that, as well as gas and water, he mentioned the Land Question and the control of the police as subjects that ought to be referred to the Irish Legislature. He intended to vote against the Amendment, and in so doing he would not be breaking any pledge which he had given his constituents.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: As I am unwilling to give a silent vote on this Amendment, I will tell the Committee in a few words what my views are concerning it. The hon. Member for Rossendale claims to be as good a Home Ruler as many of the hon. Gentlemen who sit behind the Government. I have not the slightest doubt that that claim is well-founded, though I admit that I am rather surprised at the foundation on which it rests. I was not aware that the hon. Member was known as the "gas and water" Member; but I remember that at a certain celebrated Election he made a speech in which it was generally understood that he had cut down the claims for Home Rule to the kind of subjects mentioned in the Amendment.
    *MR. MADENsaid, that at the meeting to which the right hon. Gentleman referred he was asked by letter at the last moment to mention six subjects upon which the Irish Parliament could legislate. He replied, and stated seven things which he thought could be dealt with by the Irish Parliament, but never said they were the only things.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: I can assure the hon. Member that I do not wish to lay too much stress on an explanation given evidently under exceptional difficulties; but I think he is more unfortunate than most of us when answering

    1001
    the questions of our constituents, for, as far as I can make out, of the seven things that he was prepared to give, five of them are mentioned in the Amendment treated so contemptuously by the Prime Minister, and the other two are subjects which the Prime Minister has excluded from the purview of the Bill.
    MR. MADEN: They are only excluded for a time.
    MR. A. J. BALFOUR: But, passing from the Member for Rossendale, I wish to point out to the Committee that the Amendment consists of two questions— first, what it leaves out, and, second, what it puts in. It puts in those important Municipal Institutions—a policy which I have long advocated. I was the author of a Bill to give to Scotland and Ireland control over Private Bill Legislation, with which so much of the time of the House is, as I think, unnecessarily occupied. But, owing to the determined hostility of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that Bill did not become law. With regard to the more important part of the Amendment—what it leaves out—I have not much to add to what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend. The words which we proposed to leave out —"peace, order, and good government" —seems almost ironical when we see who are to maintain peace, who are to preserve good order, and who are to control the Government. It is impossible for us to forget that if this Amendment is carried it will lead to the possibility of carrying a Bill that will not be a dangerous Bill. It would destroy this Bill. The Government would be compelled to drop the Bill; but that does not make me less reluctant to support the Amendment. For that reason I shall follow my hon. Friend into the Lobby if he presses the Amendment.
    SIR F. MILNERsaid, he wished to say a few words before the Division, as he understood the Amendment of the hon. Member for Harrow would not be allowed to be discussed. He thought that this Amendment exactly fitted the declarations of hon. Members opposite at the General Election. He had read dozens and dozens of their speeches, and he noticed that in constituency after constituency Gladstonians stated that although the Prime Minister, in his infinite wisdom,
    1002
    had given them no details, yet Home Rule for Ireland meant simply giving to the Irish people the same privileges of local government which had been given to the English people. He did not believe that a single Gladstonian would get up and deny that that was his definition of Home Rule. [Several supporters of the Government here sprang to their feet and shouted, "We do deny it."] He observed that among those who denied his statement was the noble Lord the Member for Barnsley, but he thought that he would be able to find words in the speeches of the noble Lord which fitted in exactly with the terms of the Amendment.
    EARL COMPTON: I should like to meet that challenge at once. I went to Barnsley in 1889 to fight a bye-election. A Liberal Unionist came down to speak against me, and gave it as his reason for doing so that I went further in the direction of Home Rule than either the Prime Minister or the late Mr. Parnell.
    SIR F. MILNERsaid, he would try to furnish the noble Lord with some satisfactory evidence in proof of his assertion. But hon. Members opposite well knew that their definition of Home Rule was giving to the Irish people the same justice as had been given to the English people. Hon. Members did not attempt to reply to the searching arguments addressed to them. The Amendment would, of course, be rejected; but it would serve to show to the country the false pretences on which Gladstonian Members were now representing their constituencies.
    MR. PARKER SMITHsaid, if the Amendment was ludicrous, as the Prime Minister had described, it followed that the pledges of a good many of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters were also ludicrous. The statement applied to a great many hon. Gentlemen—it was a matter of common notoriety. Most hon. Members who had to conduct a contest with Gladstonians in the country would support him in saying that the tendency was to minimise all that was to be done. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself stated in June last in Edinburgh that one of the main principles upon which he proceeded was that what was

    1003
    to be done for Ireland should be of such a nature that it might also be done for the other parts of the Kingdom. That was the line which the right hon. Gentleman and a great number of his followers in different parts of the country adopted. As he had been challenged, he would give examples. The hon. Member for Mid Oxfordshire said—
    "The Parliament in Ireland should have full power to legislate on purely Irish affairs, subject to the veto of the Imperial Government."
    The hon. Member for Accrington said—
    "The Irish Parliament will have legislative and executive powers in respect of matters exclusively Irish, subordinate to the Imperial Parliament."
    These were by no means the strongest examples that could be quoted. What he claimed in regard to this particular Amendment was that it embodied the view which the Opposition would accept if it were taken by the Government. They were perfectly ready to give to Ireland those powers of Local Government which had been granted to other parts of the United Kingdom.
    *THE CHAIRMAN: The Question is——
    MR. AMBROSE (interrupting): There was an Amendment further down on the Paper in my name which I understand may be cut out if you put the whole words included in the present Amendment. I ask you to adopt the course usually adopted when it is desirable to save Amendments lower down by putting only the word "the" in the first instance. I claim that by the usages of Parliament I am entitled to that.
    MR. J. MORLEY: On the point of Order, I submit that the words "peace, order, and good government" are, in fact, language of common form, and, therefore, must be put together.
    MR. BARTLEY: May I draw attention to the fact that there is a subsequent Amendment to leave out the word "peace" and another to leave out "order"? Can those three words be considered as language of common form?
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Have you not put the Question from the Chair; what is the Question before the Committee?
    *THE CHAIRMAN: In answer to the first objection, the word "the" is part of the Bill and no part of the Amendment, and is in possession of the Committee. It would not help the hon. and learned Gentleman if I put the word "the." "Peace, order, and good government" is a common form, and it is a form which is universal for this purpose; and, therefore, I propose to put the Amendment thus—to leave out the words "peace, order, and good government of Ireland," in order to insert the words of the Amendment—
    "Making, maintaining, and improving of railways, tramways, canals, waterworks, reservoirs, gas and lighting works, fisheries, and all other things which are the subject matter of Bills, known in either House of Parliament as local Bills, and also for the confirmation of Provisional Orders in."
    MR. AMBROSE: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, whether or not, when those words have been passsd, I shall be precluded from moving my Amendment, proposing to transfer matters of local government?
    *THE CHAIRMAN: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will be ex-eluded if the Committee accept the words "peace, order, and good government."
    MR. AMBROSE: Mr. Mellor, may I ask on what grounds you rule this. My Amendment does not deal merely with local government, it deals with the Central Government; and surely peace, order, and good government equally appertain to that.
    SIR J. GORST: Am I not right in saying it is the usage of the Chair to put the question, if possible, in such a way as to include only the particular Amendment before the Committee, and not shut out any subsequent Amendment if it can possibly be preserved? What I mean is that if the Chairman puts the Question that the word "the" stand part of the clause, and it is resolved in the affirmative, an opportunity will be left for the hon. Member to propose the Amendment of which he has given notice.
    SIR W. HARCOURT: I wish to ask, for the information of the Committee, what is the Question which the Chairman is about to put?
    *THE CHAIRMAN: What I propose to put is that the words "peace, order, and good government" stand part of the clause. If I were to put the question that the word "peace" alone stand part of the clause it would shut out the hon. and learned Gentleman quite as much.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 296; Noes 251.—(Division List, No. 86.)
    It being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his report to the House.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

    RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES.
    THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA,)THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. MUNDELLA, Sheffield, Brightside) moved—
    "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 means of settling difficulties 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:
    "That the Committee do consist of nineteen Members:
    "That Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Mr. Burnie, Mr. John Ellis, Mr. Field, Sir Julian Goldsmid, Mr. Hanbury, Mr. Hiekman, Mr. Hunter. Mr. Jacks, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Patrick M'Hugh, Mr. Mitford, Mr. Mount, Sir Joseph Pease, Mr. David Plunket. Sir Albert Rollit, Sir Bernhard Samuelson, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, and Sir James Whitehead be Members of the Committee:
    "That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:
    "That Five be the quorum."
    Several hon. Members objected to the Motion.
    MR. MUNDELLAhoped the objection would not be persisted in. If any objection was taken to the names they should be put down as a first Order on Thursday; but he trusted the Houses would agree to the Reference to the Committee, at any rate.
    SIR M. HICKS-BEACHconsidered that the sooner this Committee was agreed to the better: but he certainly should object to a, Reference being taken without the names.
    MR. MUNDELLAshould be very happy if they could proceed with the
    1006
    names that night. ["No, no!"] He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that the sooner the Committee was appointed and got to work the better. They had arranged the names with both sides of the House.
    MR. W. JOHNSTONsaid, the constitution of the Committee seemed to be a studied insult to Ulster, as there was not a single Member on it from Ulster. He objected to it on that account.
    MR. MUNDELLAcould only say that Members sitting on both sides of the House had nominated their full share of Members.
    *MR. T. W. RUSSELLconsidered it rather an extraordinary thing that the part of Ireland most interested in railway rates had been totally excluded from representation on the Committee, and he should object to it until such a condition of things was remedied.
    MR. T. M. HEALYdesired to know whether the names of the Conservative Members had not been nominated by the Conservative Whips?
    THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. MARJORIBANKS,)said, the Committee had been nominated in the usual manner, and had been the subject of a good deal of discussion of a friendly character.
    COLONEL HOWARD VINCENTconsidered that the President of the Board of Trade ought certainly to serve on the Committee.
    SIR JAMES WHITEHEADexpressed the hope that the Reference to the Committee would be agreed to, and then the names could be taken on Thursday.
    MR. HUNTERremarked that if hon. Members objected to this Reference they must be prepared to stand before the constituencies of this country as doing their utmost to prevent traders getting that justice which the House had declared they were entitled to.
    MR. BARTLEYsaid, what he and other Members felt was this—that the whole legislation of the United Kingdom was being neglected for Ireland. The Government had got the whole time of the House, and yet they would not agree to giant them an hour for the discussion of

    1007
    this important subject. It was a matter which ought to he considered at a reasonable hour, and the interests of the whole country ought not to be sacrificed for the Irish Question.
    SIR A. ROLLITreminded the House that he withdrew his Motion on the subject on the distinct understanding that after Easter the Committee should be nominated. The usual course had been pursued in regard to the Committee, and he appealed to the House to allow the Motion to be passed. This was a matter affecting the vital interests of the country. There was apparently little time for dealing with it, and he hoped the Motion would not be objected to.
    MR. COHENconsidered that the right hon. Gentleman ought not to be surprised that objection was raised against the proposal to pass this Motion after 12 o'clock at night. If on another night the Government would consent to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for North Islington (Mr. Bartley) and report Progress on the Home Rule Bill at 11 or a quarter past, the question of the appointment of this Committee could easily be disposed of before 12 o'clock.
    MR. MUNDELLAcould not promise to accede to the suggestion of the hon. Member. A course such as he recommended had been tried the other night, in order to facilitate the progress of the North Sea Fisheries Bill, and the only result was that the Bill was talked out. As the Motion before the House was objected to, he would put it down again for next day. The responsibility for this and any subsequent delay must rest with hon. Members who continued to object.
    THE MARQUESS OF CARMARTHENwished emphatically to deny that any arrangement was made publicly in any way with regard to the North Sea Fisheries Bill. If there was any arrangement at all it was some private arrangement.
    Objection being taken, the consideration was deferred.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have agreed to,—Public Libraries Act, (1892) Amendment Bill, with Amendments.

    PRISON OFFICERS [SUPERANNUATION] (NO. 2) BILL.
    Resolution [12th May] reported, and agreed to:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Secretary Asquith and Mr. Herbert Gladstone.
    Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 359.]

    PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
    (No STANDING ORDER APPLICABLE.)
    MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, no Standing Order is applicable, namely:—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 10) Bill; Railway Rates and Charges Provisional Order [Cranbrook and Paddock Wood Railway, &c], Bill.
    Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.

    PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
    (STANDING ORDERS APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH.)
    MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bill, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Orders which are applicable thereto have been complied with, namely:—Housing of the Working Classes (Edinburgh) Provisional Order Bill.
    Ordered, That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow.

    PROVISIONAL ORDER BILLS.
    (STANDING ORDER APPLICABLE THERETO COMPLIED WITH.)
    MR. SPEAKERlaid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That, in the case of the following Bills, referred on the First Reading thereof, the Standing Order which is applicable thereto has been complied with,—namely: Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 4) Bill; Pier and Harbour (Provisional Orders (No. 3) Bill; Water Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill.
    Ordered, That the Bills be read a second time To-morrow.
    House adjourned at twenty-five minutes after Twelve o'clock.

Preamble
The Lord St. Levan—Took the Oath.

TRIMLESTOWN PEERAGE (CLAIM TO VOTE FOR REPRESENTATIVE PEERS FOR IRELAND).
Committee for Privileges met: Counsel heard to open the case on behalf of the Claimant; leave given to the Claimant to refer to the printed case lodged on behalf of his brother Christopher Patrick Mary Barnewall (since deceased), late of Trimlestown, in the County of Meath, and of Turvey in the County of Dublin, Esquire, claiming a right to vote as Baron Trimlestown at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland, and leave also given to the Claimant to refer to and use the evidence adduced in support of the said claim of his late brother; witnesses examined; Counsel for the Claimant heard to sum up; the Attorney General for Ireland heard on behalf of the Crown; Claim considered, and the Committee resolved that the Petitioner Charles Aloysius Barnewall had made out his claim as Baron Trimlestown to vote at the elections of Representative Peers for Ireland; and report thereof to be made to the House.
Ordered, That the Claimant do pay all the expenses attending the taking and printing the evidence, and also the cost of the examination of the evidence by an examiner appointed by the Crown Agent.

NEW PEER.
John Mulholland, of Ballywalter Park in the county of Down, Esquire, having been created Baron Dunleath of Ballywalter in the county of Down—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

INDIAN AND COLONIAL VOLUNTEER DECORATIONS.
THE EARL OF ONSLOWasked the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for War whether it was true that the Government of the Dominion of Canada had been notified that Volunteer officers
866
would be granted decorations for 20 years' meritorious service; and, if so, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to advise the extension of the decorations to Volunteer officers in India and the Colonies?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord SANDHURST)said, as to the first part of the question, it was not correct that a communication relating to the decorations for meritorious service given to Volunteer officers in this country had been sent to the Dominion Government of Canada. With regard to the second part of the question, the announcement would be interesting to their Lordships that proposals had been made for extending the decorations now worn by Volunteer officers in the United Kingdom to Volunteer officers in India and the Colonies. Those recommendations had been graciously approved by Her Majesty. Communications to that effect would without delay be forwarded to the several Colonial Governments, and the result would be that Indian and Colonial Volunteer officers would be placed on the same terms as Home Volunteer officers.

INDIAN HOME CHARGES.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKcalled attention to the home charges of the Government of India in relation to the condition of the finances of India; and moved for copy of a letter from the Secretary of State to the Governor General of India in Council (Financial), No. 152, of 18th August, 1892. He said that, since the recent discussion of the matter in their Lordships' House, the Budget Estimate had been received from India for this year. He had then used the word "alarming" in reference to the condition of the Indian finances; but he was now of opinion that it was not so alarming as the rumours in the Press had led him to suppose. For many years the Indian Government had borne out of Revenue charges what other Governments would have provided for by means of borrowing, such as those for special defence works, for which in England money had been borrowed, but which in India had been charged to current expenses. Generally speaking, he thought

  867
  that with economy, and unless a further serious fall took place in the gold value of silver, there was no reason to suppose that the Indian finances would not recover their equilibrium. As the Indian Finance Minister had recently said, the financial position of India rested upon Military Expenditure, and the condition of the exchanges in reference to the Military Expenditure in India. He was glad to observe that the Under Secretary for India in the other House, in answer to questions, had on several occasions admitted the importance of economy in the Military Expenditure. The matter of the exchanges was still before a Committee, of which the Lord Chancellor was Chairman; and, therefore, he would not go into it further than to say that all who knew anything of India must feel the great hardship which the fall in the gold value of silver imposed upon those serving in India upon salaries; and that hardship might become a matter of serious prejudice to the Public Service. He hoped some means would be found to remedy that great hardship without imposing fresh taxation upon the people of India, which would, in present circumstances, be exceedingly difficult. The part of Indian finance he desired to call attention to mainly was the Military Expenditure at home charged to India. These home charges wore not referred to the Lord Chancellor's Committee. He would not go into the smaller parts of the home charges upon the Indian Revenues, such as the salary of the Secretary of State for India, or the charges for the Consular Establishments in Persia and China, which was a subject of constant protest, but would confine himself to the Military Expenditure. The management of the debt, he believed, had been put upon a satisfactory footing, and no objection could be taken to the figures respecting the debt which formed a large part of the Financial Statement. The home military charges amounted to £4,000,000 at the present time, including stores; and the whole of this £4,000,000, found by the taxpayers of India, was spent in this country, so that India did not derive any incidental advantage from the expenditure. A very careful indentation of stores ought to take place in India, and advantage might result from such an inquiry. He would ask whether it had not been proposed over and over
  868
  again that the War Office charges, including stores, paid by India should be referred to arbitration; and whether, while the Secretary for War was willing, the Treasury declined to accede to the suggestion? The items that were under the control of the War Office amounted to about £1,000,000; rather more than three-fourths of this was for effective charges; and a little over £300,000 was for non-effective charges. The effective charges included the cost of recruiting and training in England—the cost of the soldier before he embarked for service in India. Every farthing of the charges after he embarked for India until he re-embarked for England was paid by the Indian Government. The non-effective charges included the pensions and other allowances paid to officers and men who had served in India and were charged by the War Office upon the Indian Revenues. He had these military charges before him when he was in India, and on his return he was asked by the Treasury to serve on the Committee which had cognisance of the effective charges for British troops in India; he had served on that Committee, with some intervals, for 14 years—in fact, until last year; and, therefore, he had had the question before him for the last 20 years. Under the régime of the East India Company, the whole effective charge was paid by the Company, bills being sent in for the actual charges of the men sent out to India. In respect of non-effective charges nothing was paid at all. There were then about 20,000 Regular Forces serving in India, and no payment was made at all by India on account of non-effective charges until 1822. Then there was a bargain made between the Imperial Government and the East India Company, under which the latter agreed to pay £60,000 per annum for all non-effective charges in India then and in future. Some quid pro quo apparently was given; but the English Government thought the East India Company had behaved very handsomely in the matter. That arrangement lasted until the direct government of India was assumed by the Crown, when the whole of the English Forces in India became the Forces of the Crown; and that, of course, necessarily obliged a reconsideration of the arrangement in respect of these payments. What he had to represent to their Lordships

  869
  was that since that time the charges gradually and greatly increased, and the increase had gone on notwithstanding the repeated remonstrances of successive; Governments of India and successive Secretaries of State for India in Council; but up to the present time no equitable arrangement had been made in respect of those charges. He had no intention whatever to impute to the officers of Her Majesty's Treasury or others concerned, or even successive Cabinets here, any desire whatever to do injustice to India. He was satisfied, also, the Houses of Parliament were anxious only to do what was just and right as between England and India. He attributed the inequitable result, first, to the great complexity of the subject; and, secondly, to the great pressure of business of different kinds which had weighed upon the successive Governments of this country. Parliament had last year passed an Act by which the functions of the Legislative Council in India had been extended. The Budget must now be discussed there year by year. Questions had been already asked; and it was not to be expected that this subject, which had been so long before the public in India, and which was fully dealt with in Papers laid before Parliament and available to anybody, would not be discussed freely and fully in the Indian Legislative Council. To resume a short history of the question. In 1861 these charges were met by an arrangement under which £10 per effective man in India was paid to meet the whole effective charge of the Indian Army, and £3 10s. per man to meet the whole non-effective charge, the latter charge, in was distinctly understood, being only for one year. That was done under the Act 24 & 25 Vict. c. 89. When that arrangement was made, his late friend and old master, Sir Charles Wood, afterwards Lord Halifax, than whom no man was more thoroughly conversant with Indian finance, laid it down that that temporary arrangement was not to be regarded as an admission that India could justly, be called upon to pay charges which ought really to be borne by the Imperial Exchequer; and so early as 1861 a protest was put forward against the arrangement on behalf of the Secretary of State in Council. The effect of that change was to raise the
  870
  annual non-effective charge from £60,000 to £225,000 per annum; but no complaint could be made on that score, for it must be remembered that a largo number of English troops were required there in consequence of the abolition of the old Indian Army. That arrangement ceased in 1870, when a most complicated and extraordinary plan was imposed upon India, under which, year by year, the actual pensions India was supposed to be called upon to pay in consequence of the abolition of purchase in the British Army were capitalised, and the capital value, year by year, was charged upon India by the British Exchequer. This arrangement lasted for 14 years, until 1884, and the effect had been an enormous increase in the charges on the Revenue of India, an increase which was not less than £4,000,000 in those years for pensions, and so on. The present Secretary of State for India at that time made a representation to the Treasury on the subject, pointing out that charges arising from measures adopted for purposes unconnected with India, such as the abolition of the purchase system, and the consequent grant of pensions to officers, ought not to be levied upon India. It was urged that it was exceedingly unjust that the Indian Revenue should be called upon to bear any charge in order to get rid of that peculiarly English abuse, and the granting of pensions to officers on compulsory retirement on attaining certain ages, and so on. A Return upon that subject was laid before Parliament in 1884. He could not, throughout all the Papers laid before Parliament, find any answer to the argument so put forward on behalf of India. The arrangement for capitalisation of the purchase pensions ceased in 1884, and he had no materials in his possession as to what had taken place since that time. With regard to effective charges, after the arrangement as to a payment of £10 per effective man in India came to an end in 1869, a system was adopted by which bills for what was considered the actual charges were presented by the War Office and paid by the India Office. Year after year this was done, and year after year the India Office had protested against the details of these charges. They paid certain sums to account, while protesting against the

  871
  whole thing. Matters, however, went on from bad to worse, and in 1874 a Committee of the House of Commons was appointed at the instance of Mr. Fawcett, who took great interest in Indian finances, to consider the whole subject. The Committee came to the conclusion that charges were imposed upon India which ought to be borne by England, and in their Report strongly insisted on the great importance of strict fairness in all financial arrangements between India and this country; and they stated that they had received the impression that charges had, in some instances, been imposed upon India which ought to be borne by England, and they agreed in the opinion emphatically expressed by the Marquess of Salisbury that—
  "The most effectual way of securing financial justice to India was for the House of Commons to be constantly watchful on her behalf."
  The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Salisbury) was not altogether incapable of the use of sarcasm, and he might not on that occasion have intended to express his real expectation that the House of Commons was at all likely to be very watchful on behalf of the Indian taxpayer and Indian finances; but if he really entertained that expectation it certainly had been entirely deceived, because from that time to this there had been no enthusiasm shown by the House of Commons in that direction for the relief of the Indian taxpayer. No notice whatever of the representations of the Committee was taken by the Government of the day, although it was admitted by the highest Military Authorities that India was charged too much. His Government in India did all they could to put this matter on a proper footing, and they wrote home pointing out that the highest authorities had frequently admitted that India had been called upon to pay an unnecessarily high rate in connection with the home charges. The Duke of Argyll was then Secretary of State, than whom no one was keener to get justice for India; but it was certain that nothing came of those representations, and no consideration was given to India in respect of those charges for which it was admitted too much had been taken in the past. After the House of Commons Committee of 1874, a small Committee was appointed in the next
  872
  year with a distinguished Member of Parliament, Mr. Bouverie, as Chairman, and they made some recommendations as to the cost of the troops; but they ignored and put aside altogether the great questions raised between the two Governments, on the ground that it did not fall within their province to examine or decide upon them. They said that these wore questions for the Cabinet to determine. When the Report of that Committee was sent to the Indian Government they sent back a despatch in which it was conclusively shown that, according to the recommendations of the Committee, India would have to pay, not only the whole cost of raising and maintaining the men required for Indian purposes, but a certain part of the cost of raising and training men in the Reserve as well. No notice was taken of the criticisms upon the Report by the Government of India. Year after year the same thing went on, the charges were sent by the War Office to the India Office; and at last the Financial Committee of the House of Commons, finding that there was no probability of settling the matter, and all the arrears which were accumulating, made a strong protest, the affair was brought before the Cabinet, and the upshot of the whole matter was that a settlement was made to the end of the year 1879. About that time Colonel Stanley (the present Lord Derby) was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and he admitted that India had been charged more in former times than she ought to have been charged; but it was suggested that a Commission should be appointed to settle a fixed rate of contribution in the future. A Commission was sitting more or less continuously from 1879 to last year; and, as Chairman of that Commission, he wished to take this opportunity of expressing his obligations to its members, especially to Sir Thomas Seccombe and Mr. Knox. For years they could get no accounts, and when at last those for 1885–6 and 1887 were obtained it was found that they could not arrive at a Capitation Rate unless they could get the opinion of the Indian Government upon the matter, as (hey were most concerned and knew most about it. And that was also the opinion of Viscount Cross. When Viscount Cross was Secretary of State for India he requested the opinion of the

  873
  Government of India with respect to the charges, because it was obvious that without receiving the views of the Government of India with regard to the claims of the War Office the Commission would not be able to deal satisfactorily with the question. They could only go into calculations. But he was happy to say that simply upon the arithmetical calculations they came to the conclusion that a very large reduction should be made in the charges. The answer of the Indian Government to the request of the nobles Viscount only arrived in 1890, and the noble Viscount sent it to the Treasury with the request that it should be laid before the Commission, At the expiration of a year he received a letter from the Treasury addressed to him officially as Chair of the Commission enclosing the Despatch of the Government of India—a long and able document—with the request that he would lay it before the Commission. That request was accompanied by a letter from the Secretary to the Treasury, in which the Treasury expressed its concurrence in the objections raised by the War Office; and in these circumstance he, as Chairman of the Commission, felt that he could do nothing less than respectfully decline to lay documents before the Commission upon two of which the Commission were told their opinion' would not be taken. So that he must inform their Lordships the result was that after 14 years' work the main contention of the Government of India would not even be considered. It was put altogether on one side, and was utterly and entirely ignored. All the difficulties remained now just as they existed 20 years ago, and he would ask the Secretary for India to explain what his views at present were on the subject. The Government of India contended that when the Indian Army was used for Imperial purposes, that fact should be considered by the Home Government when they came to fix the new rate of payment for the effective charges in India; and they also urged that consideration should be given to India for the inequitable way she had been treated in the past. It was said that England and India were in partnership, and in whatever was necessary for the general advantage of Imperial interests India fairly ought to bear a proportion of the charge. If India could be consulted he thought she might
  874
  be fairly asked to bear those charges; but India had hardly ever been consulted when a large charge was thrown upon her by the Imperial Government. The fact that no Capitation Hate had been settled was not the fault of the Government of India, for they had been constantly pressing for it. Whose fault it was he would not like to say, or whether it was that mysterious Body called the Cabinet, who refused to entertain the matter. What was the cause of the bad fortune or mischance which had entangled this question so miserably for the last 20 years passed all comprehension. For his own part, he thought it quite useless to appoint more Committees to inquire into this matter. Two or throe sensible men in the Cabinet, with the information they could obtain from experts, could, he believed, settle the matter in a very short time. The Indian Government had constantly represented that an inequitable use had been made of the Indian Army in Imperial expeditions. The whole of the ordinary expenses in the Abyssinian Expedition were paid by India, only the extraordinary expenses being paid by the Home Government, the argument used being that India would have to pay her troops in the ordinary way, and she ought not to seek to make a profit out of the affair. But how did the Home Government treat the Indian Government when troops were sent out during the Mutiny? Did they say, "We don't want to make any profit out of this?" Not a bit of it. Every single man sent out was paid for by India during the whole time, though only temporary use was made of them, including the cost of their drilling and training as recruits until they were sent out. If this principle was to be applied in sending out troops to India, surely it ought also to be adopted when Indian troops were sent on Imperial expeditions. Surely some consideration should be shown to India for the inequitable way in which she had been treated in the past in settling the charges for the future. He would not detain their Lordships upon other points. The Indian Army was of great value to England as a training school for both officers and men, and as a Reserve Force; besides being a fruitful source of pensions. There was hardly a family in this country but some member of it was deriving his income

  875
  from the Revenues of India and spending it, of course, in this country. These were all considerations why equitable and liberal treatment should be given to India in this matter. In reference to the partnership argument, a partnership in Imperial interests existed, no doubt, between England and India. Upon that point no man had a better right to speak than the Secretary of State for the Colonies, who knew the whole thing; and what had he said upon this point? In a Despatch of 10th August, 1883, Lord Ripon said—
  "It was a partnership in which the rich and powerful partner was able to prescribe the conditions under which the business was to be carried on, with very little reference to the wishes or the means of the poorer and weaker partner."
  His noble Friend also said quite truly, speaking as Governor General of India in Council—
  "We doubt whether, as a matter of fact, the presence of the Secretary of State for India in the English Cabinet insures that regard for India in the execution of military reforms which India has a right to expect in the distraction of military charges between the two bountries"—
  that was, if the distribution of the charges was to be regulated on the assumption that they wore partners in a joint undertaking. But it was asked of those advocating the claims of India—"Why cannot you give us some sort of idea how you suggest this is to be settled?" He would, with great humility, endeavour to make a few proposals for the consideration of the noble Earl. In the first place, he suggested to his noble Friend, for the consideration of the Government, that the effective rate ought to be reduced from £7 10s. to £5 per head for 10 years. He did not think anything less than that would be fair, taking all the considerations he had mentioned into account. It was monstrous that India should have to pay the extra charge arising from the abolition of purchase in this country. As regarded the non-effective charges, he thought India should not have to pay that charge arising from the abolition of purchase in this country. With respect to the £4,000,000 increase in non-effective charges up to 1884, one-half of that sum should be borne by the Imperial Exchequer, and one of the easiest ways of doing that would be for the Imperial
  876
  Government to take over £2,000,000 India Three per Cent. Stock. Finally, he suggested that part of the charge of the special defences of India should be borne by the Imperial Government in consideration of the payments made by India for the Expedition to Egypt, and that the cost should be paid out of the, profits England derived from the shares we held in the Suez Canal. If those proposals wore put fairly and candidly before the other House of Parliament, he thought there would be no objection offered to such an arrangement of the matter. He would entreat the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India not to drive the question off for another 20 years, with continual correspondence upon it between the Departments, but to let it be settled for the future.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copy of a letter from the Secretary of State to the Governor General of India in Council (Financial) No. 152 of 18th August, 1892.''—(The Earl of Northbrook.)
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY): My Lords, there is no Member of your Lordships' House who is more entitled to bring this subject forward than the noble Earl, not only because he has been Chairman for many years of a Commission which has laboriously and usefully dealt with the subject, but also because he was for a long time connected with the War Office, and has filled the high position of Viceroy of India. These home charges have been the subject of constant controversy between the India Office, the Treasury, and the War Office; and I can assure the noble Earl that I welcome any assistance given me in sustaining the very unequal combat in which the Office over which I preside is always engaged against those two great Departments. My noble Friend has referred to a letter written by my direction when I was Secretary of State for India in 1884. I entirely adhere to what I said in that letter, as I have no doubt my noble Friend adheres to the opinions he expressed in the despatches he wrote. My noble Friend has referred to the subject of the homo charges. Before 1884–5 the effective Army charges were £421,000 a year; but after that period they necessarily increased con-

  877
  siderably, because in 1885 10,000 European troops were added to the Indian Army at the time Lord Randolph Churchill was Secretary of State for India. I will not trouble your Lordships with the figures for the successive years, but in 1892–3 the effective charges amounted to £548,000. That increase is due almost entirely to the additional number of British troops now in India. The non-effective charges were formerly capitalised, with the result that a very heavy yearly home charge was thrown upon the Government of India. Now however, the system of capitalisation has been abandoned, and the charge for pensions is made according to the actual amount due each year. This change in the system has resulted in a reduction; but the amount payable will by degrees, as the pensions fall in, probably rise again in the future. The total amount of the pension charges upon the Indian Revenue was estimated at 1892–3 at not less than £1,900,000. My noble Friend spoke— and I think with great justice—of the extreme hardships which India suffers in having to provide for charges which are in large measure due to changes effected in our military system independently of India. At the time of the abolition of purchase, I may remind your Lordships that heavy additional charges were thrown upon the Government of India Although no such great alterations are now made, yet from time to time precisely the same thing occurs. There is generally a pressure in the other House for some change in our Army system, involving increased expense; the War Office yields to the pressure, and the Indian Government finds itself saddled with additional charges which it has had really no voice in imposing. Increased burdens of that kind, I think, may reasonably be, considered to constitute a grievance; but I fear that the imposition of such burdens is not likely to cease. There will be no doubt that it is extremely difficult to determine precisely what share of these burdens ought to be borne by the respective Governments. The Indian Government is in the unfortunate position of having those matters settled for it by the Government at home, and the India Office finds that schemes involving a large increase of expenditure are frequently pressed on the Department in the House of Commons largely in-
  878
  creasing the charges against which they had originally protested, and in which they had never concurred. This was disappointing, for economists are wont to look to that House for support. Whore I think India suffers is that we have no supporters, as the Home Government or the Treasury has in the other House of Parliament, which will not throw large additional taxation on this country to meet increased expenditure. I am afraid the spirit of economy is not very strong in the House of Commons now. The noble Marquess said in past years that the only hope India had of more economy was in the other House of Parliament; but that hope has vanished. The reason why proposals that must throw fresh burdens on the Government of India are so frequently made in the House of Commons is that those who make them know that their own pockets will not suffer in the desire to make things agreeable and comfortable. The taxpayers of this country exercise no check upon such proposals, and the consequence is that charges are sometimes imposed upon the Government of India which that Government thinks unjust and unnecessary. Among the subjects which my noble Friend has referred to is the subject of military stores. Recently, as far as I know, there has been no protest against stores. A more satisfactory arrangement has been made in point of management, and the Government of India have been judiciously taking steps in the last few years to render India independent of this country in the matter of military stores. As far as possible, the Indian Government now supplies its own stores. With respect to the Capitation Grant, I may remind the House that formerly the grant was £10 per man serving in India. Then it was agreed that it should be reduced to £7 10s., £3 a head having to be paid as well for deferred pay, which is a new charge, and the matter rests upon that basis at the present time. The India Office has no particular desire that the question should be re-opened and discussed anew, for bitter experience has taught the Department that the re-opening of a question of this kind generally results in the imposition of additional charges; and though it may not appear very consolatory, I am advised by those who share my noble Friend's views, and who desire as much as he does that

  879
  India should obtain a good bargain in this matter, that there is no reason for urgency on our part to have a fresh inquiry into the subject. My noble Friend said, with truth, that his Commission did not embrace the important general considerations of policy which have been urged on this subject, and it is natural that it should be so. Upon those questions of general policy which I have been invited to discuss, I do not think it at all safe to express very confident views. As to the share that India should bear of the expenses of expeditions out of that country, it appears to me that if India is really interested in an expedition, it is right that that country should contribute a fair amount towards the cost of it. It is impossible to decide upon such matters beforehand. They must be dealt with at the time. All I can say is that we think India should be fairly and generously dealt with, and not charged with the cost of these expeditious unless she has a distinct interest in them. With regard to Egypt, for instance, India has a very considerable interest. Then my noble Friend went on to raise before me visions of a most agreeable kind, which I am afraid will remain but dreams—visions of a large contribution to Indian Revenues from our portion of the Suez Canal Shares. I confess I should like to be the fortunate Secretary of State for India who receives that gift. If it should come I can assure my noble Friend we shall accept it without the slightest hesitation. As to the partnership argument, there is something even with regard to Egypt, which my noble Friend overlooked. Supposing we received a considerable sum on account of the Suez Canal Shares for which we had to pay our share in the first instance, we should have to bear our share of the expenses in Egypt, which are now being increased, and that would be a matter of very considerable difficulty to us. There are other matters which have been referred to. Take, for instance, the Colonels' allowances, as they are called. They form a considerable portion of the huge sum we pay for pensions. They used to cost the old East India Company about £150,000 a year; but now, in round numbers, they come to, I should say, £550,000. They are increasing, and will increase, very
  880
  considerably; and the whole of this arises from an interpretation put upon an Act of Parliament, I think it is 21 & 22 Vict., by certain Commissions. The question is incapable of any complete solution; but it is one which I am quite certain successive Viceroys and Secretaries of State will continue to press upon the Home Government—that is, that we should not have to bear so large a share of the Army expenses, We must try to reduce them, but I am not very sanguine that we shall be able to do so. We shall not fail at the India Office to do our utmost to keep these charges within a reasonable amount With regard to military charges, I hope the Government of India will never forget that they have the clear and undoubted right to look in case of a great emergency to this country. If we have to keep up an Army in India equal at all times for all emergencies, that would put an intolerable burden on India. While maintaining an Army sufficient for all present purposes and sudden emergencies, I maintain that India has a right to look to this country for Reserves in case of need. And, above all, India may, to a certain extent, feel that the changes in the Army system have brought some compensation in the matter of the largo increase of her Reserves. It is no small matter, because in the case of an emergency we could send out large and powerful Reserves. That is not paid for by India. I can only repeat that we are most anxious to obtain for India justice in regard to all these charges, and that no efforts on our part will be spared in this direction. I cannot sit down without thanking my noble Friend for bringing a subject before the House which is well deserving the attention of Parliament.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: My Lords, I think the noble Earl the Secretary of State for India deserves our thanks for his very clear declaration that in case of an emergency India may rely on getting all the aid she may want from this country if it should come to a question of sending out Reserves. I am very glad to hear that definite statement, and I am sure it will give general satisfaction throughout the whole of India. No one knows better than myself the difficulties which beset the Secretary of State when he comes to deal with the Treasury and

  881
  the War Office. In all these battles the noble Earl may rely upon any assistance I can give, as far as it is any use to him. I hope the noble Earl will press on the Treasury and the War Office the necessity of enabling him to carry forward the plans he has sketched out this evening. I will not trouble your Lordships with many figures. The noble Earl has mentioned the £500,000 for the Colonels' allowances. Then comes the increase of Retired Pay, which was no less than £670,000 a year when I inquired into the matter. I have here a list of charges imposed, some of them against the wish of the Indian Government, and many of them without its knowledge, from 1864 to 1883, amounting altogether to no less than £884,000 a year. Undoubtedly, therefore, India has a grievance, which is increased by the fact that this sum has to be raised in rupees but paid in sterling. Some time ago I got the India Council to appoint a very carefully selected Committee to go into the whole of those charges. The Report is private, and I cannot, therefore, place it on the Table; but the Committee went through every charge, and I believe that most of their recommendations have been carried out, and that there is every disposition to do the Indian people justice in these matters. Last year an Act was passed very much enlarging the Indian Council, and the result of that Act will undoubtedly be that a great number of persons representing different phases of opinion will be placed upon it by the Governor General and by the Governors of Madras and Bombay. This matter of the home charges is one which the Indian people have at heart. I do not mean to say they are always right in their objections; but it is a matter upon which they have set their minds to do what they can to get them reduced. And I only wish now to give this caution —that I think now that these matters are entrusted to them in Council, we shall hear much more from India about those home charges than we have hitherto. The result will be to give a lever to the Secretary of State which I hope he will use against the Treasury and the War Office in carrying out his views. Of course, the question of contribution towards the Military Expenditure is a matter of policy which neither the Secretary of State in Council nor the Govern-
  882
  ment of India can regulate; but I am certain that in the course of a few years the Indian people will force us to do them justice.
  THE DUKE OK ARGYLLsaid, it-was now more than 20 years since he had to do with those matters; but his experience at that time had left an indelible impression upon his mind, and he was glad that the subject had been brought under the consideration of their Lordships' House. He was also glad to hear the very fair, candid, and full statement, of the noble Earl opposite. The truth was that the Indian Government-had been between two tires in the two large responsible Departments in this country, which were both adverse to the interests of India in this matter of money. There was no backing in the House of Commons. On the contrary, almost every year during the time he was in Office there was something else.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: It is much worse now.
  *THE DUKE OF ARGYLLcould only say it was very bad then. As to the main subject, the principle of division of the expenses between the Imperial and the Indian Governments, the old principle was that the East India Company paid for the actual cost of all troops employed in the defence of India. It paid for nothing more than the cost of the troops sent to India from the moment they left our shores. He happened to be in Office when the abolition of purchase was effected, and he came in for all the pres-sure brought to bear upon the India Office upon altogether a new principle. Mr. Cardwell, at the War Office, contended that not only should India pay the whole expense of the troops actually sent out, but a full proportion of all expenses of the British Army corresponding to the proportion of men actually serving in India. Now, that was a totally different principle. The noble Earl had stated that one-third of the British Army was actually serving in India.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Rather more than a third.
  *THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that new principle was that India employing one-third of the British Army should pay one-third of the whole cost of the British Army, whether direct or indirect, both at home and abroad. That, he maintained, was not a fair principle on which to

  883
  charge the Indian Revenues. His noble Friend said that India was bound to remember that she had a Reserve Force in the Army at home. That was one of the favourite arguments of Mr. Card-well. But, turn it round, was not the Indian Army a Reserve for England?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I did not speak of the Army as a general Reserve so much as what is called the Reserve Force itself—about 60,000 or 70,000 men.
  *THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the real cause of the pressure was the Home Budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was under an imperious necessity, perhaps now more than ever, to diminish the charges to be borne. The Indian Government knew that it had no friends —no backing; and that the tendency of the House of Commons was to allow charges to be made against it. This was not a very safe position of affairs. They must know that though self-government was not given yet to the people of India as to the Colonies, still their attention was being directed in a more and more intelligent manner to this subject. He did not deny that, on the whole, the balance of obligation was enormously on the side of India. The Governments of India had maintained millions of people in a condition of peace, prosperity, and growing wealth. Our government of India had been a splendid boon to that country, and no native Administration could have maintained those regions in the condition of peace and prosperity in which they had been maintained. On the other hand, the charges to India had been large. The monetary difficulties had enormously increased, and he thought it would be a most unfortunate thing if the people of India should come to suspect that, in the interests of the English Budget, undue charges had been thrown upon Indian finances.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he should confine his remarks to the India Office, and to figures of less magnitude than those which had been discussed; but if there was lavish expenditure and extravagance in the India Office, there would be room for more extravagance in the larger military administration. About three weeks ago Sir Griffith
  884
  Evans, in speaking on the Indian Budget, complained of the great number of Assistant Secretaries in the India Office, He (Lord Stanley of Alderley) had compared these figures with those of the Foreign Office in the Civil Service Blue Book; and he found that, deducting the Secretary of State and Under Secretaries, the cost of the Foreign Office was £37,949, whilst deducting the Secretary of State and Council and Under Secretaries the cost of the India Office was £46,150. The work done in the Foreign Office with the Commercial and Slave Trade Correspondence probably equalled or surpassed that of the India Office. There was another matter which was capable of arithmetical computation. The Foreign Office and India Office occupied opposite sides of a quadrangle, and the Foreign Office covered a larger space than the India Office; but Sir Griffith Evans had stated that "there were 28 housemaids, two being allowed to each Member of the Council," whilst 10 were enough for the Foreign Office. His noble Friend the Secretary of State had said that the Treasury and the House of Commons were responsible for the increased charges thrown upon India; but in respect of the India Office management the Secretary of State was free to exercise economy.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: If the noble Lord will allow me to enter into the great housemaids' question for a moment, I think the noble Viscount opposite is responsible for the present Establishment. I do not think I have appointed any housemaids. But, having seen the Report to which the noble Lord refers, I have made inquiry into the matter, and I am informed that it is impossible to keep the rooms clean with a less number of housemaids. As to the work of the two Departments, I can assure the noble Lord that no comparison can be made between them, for at the India Office we have a vast Stores Department, and the entire work requires a much larger number of clerks. The noble Viscount some time ago inquired into these home charges, and he came to the conclusion that they were reasonable, and could not be further reduced. I am, at all times, most anxious to promote economy; and if it is possible to reduce

  885
  these charges at the India Office, my noble Friend may be perfectly certain I shall do so. I agree to the Motion.
  Motion agreed to.

UGANDA.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  *THE DUKE OF NORFOLKasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs— (1) About what date the Report of Captain Macdonald on affairs in Uganda was likely to be received; (2) What was the scope of the inquiry that he has been directed to make; (3) Whether the Government would give facilities for the production of any Papers and Correspondence bearing upon the subject of the inquiry? He said that, considering the many Reports that had reached this country, it was to be regretted that, no official Report had as yet been made as to affairs in Uganda. He trusted that the scope of Captain Macdonald's Report would be such as would enable their Lordships to enter into a discussion on the question; because anyone, in order to discuss the question satisfactorily, must have before him the instructions of the Company to their agents. It was alleged that considerable grievances were complained of by the Catholics in Uganda, and hostilities were the outcome of those grievances. It was also alleged that offenders, if they belonged to the Protestant party, were dealt with leniently by the agents of the Company, while members of the Catholic party had been actually deprived of their laud by the Company. He urged that when documents were produced upon the subject extracts from letters and papers should not be made use of alone, but that the whole Paper from which any extract was taken ought to be produced. He was bound to say he wondered very much that the Company had not been eager to produce every scrap of evidence that would justify their rule, or tend to mitigate their responsibility for the catastrophe in which that rule culminated. In the Reports made to the Company by its agents that were published the statements were very meagre as to the events which led up to hostilities; but it was stated that arms were served out to the Protestant party, who, supported by a Maxim gun, were let loose upon the Catholics, that
  886
  Mengs was reduced to ruins and all the Catholic houses fired. The Catholics took refuge on the islands, but the Maxim gun was directed upon them, and many women and children were killed; and those who escaped that fate were made captive, and there was reason to fear they had been returned to slavery. Finally, the Catholics had had forced upon them the Treaty which gave them only one-seventh of the country. Their Lordships ought to have the evidence of all witnesses, Protestants as well as Catholics, bearing upon a story on which no Englishman would care to dwell. The Report ought to be a comprehensive one; it ought to go into everything connected with the administration of the East Africa Company, and it ought to be supported by the production of every document which was calculated to throw light upon the case.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Earl of ROSEBERY): I think my noble Friend will agree with me that nothing could be more inconvenient than to anticipate the production of Captain Macdonald's Report by a premature discussion of the events upon which that Report will adjudicate. Therefore I will not follow the example of the noble Duke, but I will proceed briefly to answer his three questions. As to the date when the Report may be expected, I have no means of knowing any more than my noble Friend. The cause of the delay in the production of that Report is very simple. My Predecessor in Office sent Captain Macdonald instruct ions—I think on the last day of June—to report on the various occurrences which had taken place in Uganda. These instructions did not reach Captain Macdonald in the country, or they crossed him on his return to the Coast, and he arrived at the Coast without having received them. Later on Her Majesty's present Advisers thought it well to reiterate these instructions by telegram to Captain McDonald, and ordered him to return to Uganda. He then returned, and from that time to this we have had no tidings from him except that he has arrived safely at Uganda. Under these circumstances, my noble Friend will agree with me it is useless, not merely to anticipate the Report by discussion, but to speculate as to the time when it will be received. As to

  887
  the scope of the inquiry, my noble Friend will find the instructions in the published Despatch of Lord Salisbury, dated June 24 last year, the first page of Africa, No. 8, 1892. We have not thought it well either to add to or to deduct, from these instructions, which seemed to us adequate, and I do not doubt my noble Friend will be as satisfied with them as we are. As regards the production of Papers, I can only say we have no more Papers to produce until we receive Captain Macdonald's Report. So far as I know, the noble Duke has had access to all Papers in my charge referring to this matter; and what more I can do at this moment, though he speaks in a tone of complaint, I am at a loss to see.
  *THE DUKE OF NORFOLKsaid, he had not spoken in a tone of complaint, but rather in hopeful anticipation. Could not the Company be asked to produce papers in its possession?
  THE EARL OF ROSEBERY: We have no authority to make the Company produce any papers. I am not aware they have been accused of having withheld any. My impression is they have fully and freely produced all they have. If it be not so, we have no means of compelling them to do otherwise.

CLAIMS FOR QUIT-RENTS.

  QUESTION.—OBSERVATIONS.
  *LORD MORRISasked Her Majesty's Government whether their attention had been directed to claims made by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests for obsolete quit-rents, not demanded for over 60 years, notwithstanding the Nullum Tempus Act, which was obviously intended to meet such demands? He reminded their Lordships that the Nullum Tempus Act was in reference to lapse of time being pleaded in regard to Crown debts. As regarded Ireland, however, as long ago as 1808, an Act was passed providing that the King's Majesty should not sue for any rents by reason of any title which had not accrued for 60 years next before the time of recovery. That would cover all the claims now being made by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. But there was an exception in regard to what was called in charge to Her Majesty. This, it appeared, meant quit-rents credited to Her Majesty
  888
  and entered in the rolls, but not received. In 1878, in consequence of that exception, an Act was passed (39 & 40 Vict. c. 47) providing as to rents for the space of 60 years before the filing of any action. The object was to put an end to the question of liability, where no money had been received for 60 years, though credited in the books as if received by Her Majesty. So matters had remained until within the last two years, when some ingenious Adviser of the Commissioners suggested that that Act, which was brought in for the purpose of clearing up any difficulty under the 8th George III. could also be evaded, and, accordingly, a claim had been made before the Land Commissioners for the moderate period of 170 years, no quit-rent having been paid on that estate for that time. Mr. Justice Bewlay said the intention of the 39 & 40 Viet. was to put an end to any dispute; but the words there— "held, enjoyed, or taken "—only applied to cases where somebody had received the quit rents. In that case the claim was for 171 years at £1 13s. l¾d.; but the Commissioners agreed to accept five years, and asked for no costs. It was thought not worth while, in those circumstances, to run the risk of an appeal, and having to pay 171 years' rout instead of five; and the Commissioners were now furbishing up quit-rent cases which had not been received for as long as 200 years, though it was both common-sense and good law that where no payments had been made for such long periods it should be presumed they had been bought up or in some way discharged. This, as might be imagined, would constitute a charge upon land in Ireland dealt with under the Laud Purchase Act, and owners found they had to pay some old claim upon a survey made in the middle of the 17th century. Many persons were being called upon to pay these claims which, though for small amounts, were a subject of great annoyance, which was not removed by their being told they were treated with great generosity in being called upon to pay only five years of those obsolete demands for 170 and 200 years' quit-rents. If they were to be persevered in it would be necessary to pass another Act, saying that the former one expressed what, in his humble judgment, it really did express.
  LORD INCHIQUINthought, that these claims were being put forward as a mere game of brag by the Government, because he did not believe the Commissioners of Woods and Forests were at all aware whether the claims made were good or bad. They ought to have put forward the names of the gentlemen concerned in the different estates at once, whereas they had acted in such a way that it was unlikely that any individual, except one with a long purse, would try the question by appeal. He knew of one claim for 150 years, but, fortunately, the owner possessed documents going back to the time of Strafford, when, in fact, a great many of the quit-rents in Ireland began; and he was, therefore, able to show the Commissioners of Woods and Forests conclusively that the claim could not be substantiated. Whatever information the Government had got was evidently of quite recent date, and his point was that they were not taking the right course in the matter in making it absolutely impossible for these cases to be tried except, as he had said, by people with very long purses. He had no doubt that whoever had the courage to resist these claims would be successful.
  *LORD KENSINGTONsaid, the Commissioners of Woods and Forests had not, in making these claims, done anything beyond their absolute duty. These quit-rents and Crown revenues from Ireland wore not placed under the management of the Woods and Forests until 1827, when they were transferred from the Commissioners of Excise in Ireland. At that time the arrears of quit-rents amounted to about £114,000, of which upwards of £83,000 was described as "insolvent." The Commissioners of Woods and Forests encountered the greatest difficulty in the identification of the lands on which claims were leviable, but much information as to titles and otherwise became available in consequence of proceedings before the Laud Commissioners. Before taking any step the Commissioners of Woods and Forests obtained the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. It was an opinion——
  THIS MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I venture, before the noble Lord goes further, to point out to him that if
  890
  he quotes the opinion, he will have to lay it on the Table.
  LORD KENSINGTON: The opinion of a Law Officer?
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes. It would be contrary to all precedent to cite an opinion of the Law Officers in that way.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: With all respect, it is constantly stated that action taken was on the advice of the Law Officers. I quite agree that the terms of the opinion may not be quoted.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Not only not the terms, but the purport of the opinion even cannot properly be given unless the opinion is laid on the Table.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I venture to question that, because I can recollect cases in which it was stated that Her Majesty's Government had been advised by the Law Officers of the Crown in a certain direction. It has always been held that an opinion of the Law Officers need not be produced.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Quite so: but you do not state the purport of the opinion of the Law Officers.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: When it is stated that after taking the opinion of the Law Officers a Government or a Department has done so-and-so, it becomes obvious what the purport of the opinion has been.
  *LORD KENSINGTONwould be glad to know, without in any way stating the opinion of the Law Officers, if it would be in Order to mention the date on which it was given, and the names of the Law Officers.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: You may mention the date.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is sufficient to state the course that has been taken by the Government.
  *LORD KENSINGTONsaid, without pressing the matter, he would then simply state that the question had been referred to the Law Officers on more than one occasion; and a case having at length come before the Land Court, and it appearing that the Nullum Tempus Act did not bar the claim, the Department felt bound to make it. The amount payable in most cases was small. The Commissioners had power to accept less than the full amount of arrears due, but

  891
  they had no power to relinquish the Crown rents to themselves.
  *THE MARQUESS OF WATERFORDsaid, that all over Ireland those claims were being made for very small sums in the hope that the people concerned would not be able to prove that they did not owe the money. The proceedings of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests had been rightly described by noble Lords as "a game of brag and grab," and even a worse description might be given to them. It was a very questionable step altogether on their part, and he could not understand how any Law Officer could have recommended it to be taken. In the case of a claim made on his own estate, not one shilling had been paid for over 100 years; and when he showed fight the claim was quickly dropped. The Woods and Forests acted in a very extraordinary manner. They made claims for small amounts, trusting that the proprietors would not think it worth while to fight them, and thus they would get them yearly for the future. The Woods and Forests also attempted to bribe the proprietors by saying, "You will only have to pay, if you submit, five years' arrears and no costs; whereas, if you refuse to pay that, you will have to pay the claims for the last 170 years or so and all the costs." That was a distinct bribe, and he was reluctant to believe that any Law Officer would have advised anything of the kind. It was an outrageous thing that over all Ireland, in the present ruinous state of agriculture, such unjustifiable claims should be made, and he hoped that the Commissioners would stop making them in future.
  *LORD LECONFIELDhad only a few words to say on this matter, in addition to the remarks which had been made by noble Lords on the policy adopted by the Woods and Forests Office. In the letter they wrote to him stating that his extract from Strafford's Survey clearly showed that their claim for a quit rent in default for 171 years could not be maintained, they added a quotation from a lecture delivered by a Mr. Harding in 1864 upon the Stratford Survey which was destroyed in a fire that occurred in 1711, to the effect that copies of that Survey might still be found in the possession of some of the larger landowners in Ireland. His extract showing that he was
  892
  in possession of at least a portion of that Survey, led them to ask to be furnished with particulars with regard to that portion. This, he thought, was very like Mrs. Bond's invitation to her ducks; and that if he allowed them to go to his office, and they discovered that quit-rents had been paid, but were 200 years in default, he might have to pay a very large amount. Consequently, he declined the invitation on the advice of his solicitor.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, after taking the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, believe that a debt is due to them, it is no longer a matter of discretion, but it is their business to see that the debt is paid. I do not see how the Commissioners of Woods and Forests could, in defiance of what they were advised, release the persons in question. But I would say that, in my opinion, if this is the law, it ought not to continue to be the law, as it is totally opposed to the spirit of modern legislation, and it is, I think, monstrous, if these cases are not covered by the Nullum Tempus Act, that they should not be covered by it. I am, therefore, heartily at one with the object of the noble and learned Lord who has brought the matter before the House. I hope the decision to which he has referred may, if it is wrong, be reversed; and if held to be right, that it may be counteracted, if necessary, by legislation.
  *LORD ASHBOURNEsaid, he felt sure there was not a single Member of their Lordships' House who had heard the temperate statements of Lord Morris and other noble Lords but would be shocked by the way in which this Board administered affairs by making these old demands in Ireland. Their Lordships ought, before the discussion closed, to have a clear understanding that the obvious intent of the enactments which culminated in the Nullum Tempus Act should be given effect to. Why should any man have to pay on claims which for a period of 200 years had fallen into disuse? He should be very much surprised if the opinion of any Law Officer could be produced to show advice that rights, even if given under a technical aspect of the law, should be asserted without qualification in all cases, and it appeared it was only of late years

  893
  that the claims had been made, from information derived during the sales under the Laud Purchase Acts. He did not think that it was quite fair to act on information obtained in that way when landlords, in working out sales to their tenants, had to disclose their titles. The only information that ought to be supplied was what was necessary for the purposes of the sale. No matter what decisions might have been given in the Land Commission Court, it was a harsh proceeding to pursue these old and obsolete claims, and he hoped that after the very strong expression of opinion embodied in the word "monstrous" uttered from the Woolsack—rare condemnation to come from a noble and learned Lord in that exalted position—no more would be heard of them.
  LORD HALSBURYsaid, that he must protest against the principle that every Crown right, however old and obsolete, however unjust and tyrannical it might be to exact it, it was the duty of a Government to enforce. Speaking from his own knowledge as a Law Officer, many claims might arise which it would be extremely undesirable to enforce. An opinion of the Law Officers on an abstract question of the law might be a totally different thing from the point whether it was desirable or proper to deal with the matter in particular circumstances. The opinion of the Law Officers upon the matter of law was, therefore, no justification to the Department for enforcing obsolete and extravagant claims. The question here was directed rather to the administration of the law than to what the law actually was, and therefore whatever opinion was given afforded, he considered, no ground for the course pursued.
  *LORD MORRISexpressed his satisfaction with the opinion given by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and said he proposed after Whitsuntide to bring in a short Bill of two or three lines which would, with their Lordships' consent, put an end to all questions on the subject.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Having regard to the announcement of the noble Lord, and the course which the discussion has taken, I certainly do not think the Department would be in the least to blame, or be regarded as
  894
  neglecting their duty, if they were to shut their eyes for a time to the existence of these claims to arrears.

BURGH POLICE (SCOTLAND) ACT (1892) AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 95.)

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1.
  Verbal Amendments made.
  Clause 2 agreed to.
  *LORD PLAYFAIR*LORD PLAYFAIR moved, in page 3, after Clause 2, to insert the following New Clause:—
  3. Notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act, its provisions shall not apply to any burgh or regality or burgh of barony which is not a police burgh as therein defined, unless and until the sheriff, upon the requisition of any seven or more householders, shall have convened a meeting of householders for the purpose of considering whether the said provisions shall be adopted, and such burgh of regality or burgh of barony declared to be a burgh in the sense of the said Act, and the sheriff shall have found and declared, after a meeting, and, if necessary, a poll, of householders, as is herein-before provided in the case of a populous place, that the said Act has been adopted, and that such burgh of regality or burgh of barony is a burgh in the sense of the said Act."
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIANasked whether the noble Lord in charge of the Bill had taken into consideration the position of burghs of barony and burghs of regality as regarded the smaller populous places? He thought the same conditions should be extended to those small burghs as to the others. He had received a petition from some of them expressing regret that they were not included in the Government Bill, and it was accompanied by a statement sent up from the Scotch Office. It was quite possible, under the Bill as it stood, that seven householders in a burgh might ask to have their boundary settled, though the entire remainder of the population of the place might be against it, and the Sheriff would have no option whatever, but would be compelled to carry out the wish of the seven persons in that small burgh of barony. Perhaps the noble Lord would re-consider the clause so as to give all the householders in those cases an opportunity of stating whether they wished to remain as they wore or desired to have their boundaries fixed by

  895
  the Sheriff and become a police burgh. He thought it was only fair that opportunity should be given.
  *LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, the difference between the two classes of places was that in populous places the Bill enabled the opinions of the inhabitants to be taken before they became burghs. The original Act which this Bill was to amend came into operation on that very day, and the whole of these burghs of barony, and of regality, would then become police burghs under the Act. He was informed from the Scotch Office that the Petitions to put these burghs into the position of populous places under the Bill had come from the County Councils, and not from the burghs. As the Bill would not go further until after Whitsuntide, the noble Marquess and others would have time to obtain an expression of opinion from the smaller burghs, but to give a retrospective action to the measure would be very difficult.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNasked whether the Amendment might be again brought forward after the Recess?
  LORD PLAYFAIRsaid, he would consult upon that point. At all events, an opportunity would now be afforded of considering the matter.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. (No. 98.)

  PRIVATE AND PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILLS.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders Nos. 92 and 93 be suspended; and that the time for depositing petitions praying to be heard against Private and Provisional Order Confirmation Bills, which would otherwise expire during the adjournment of the House at Whitsuntide, be extended to the first day on which the House shall sit after the recess.
  OYSTER AND MUSSEL FISHERY PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [H.L.]—(No. 68.)
  House in Committee (according to order); Amendments made; Standing Committee negatived. The Report of Amendments to be received To-morrow.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 2) BILL. —(No. 71.)
  House in Committee (according to Order); Bill reported without amend-
  896
  ment; Standing Committee negatived; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL.—(No. 77.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  PILOTAGE PROVISIONAL ORDERS BILL. (No. 75.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  MILITARY LANDS (PROVISIONAL ORDERS) BILL.—(No. 74.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  DAY INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS (SCOTLAND) BILL.—(No. 41.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments; a further Amendment made; Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
  LAW OF DISTRESS (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 42.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendments; and passed, and returned to the Commons.

  RIVERS POLLUTION PREVENTION BILL [H.L.]—(No. 64.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  House adjourned at, a quarter past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.